These examples are great. With digital and interactive art becoming more accessible, it’s easy to fall into the trap of relying on technology without fully considering the clarity of the message. This relates to the other reading, which emphasizes that when form becomes overly important, it can overshadow the experience, resulting in a lack of genuine interaction. I believe having a clear intention is essential. These examples work because they are all straightforward, with the philosophy of each piece rooted in interaction. For instance, Christopher Paretti’s SpeedDial is about the relationship between action and reaction to changes in sound. Similarly, other pieces that incorporate sensors, like camera, temperature, and light, prompt the user to make small inputs, which in turn produce subtle outputs. The simplicity of these interactions is very effective.
While I agree with limiting instructions in interactive art, I also think it can constrain the message being conveyed. Interactive art isn’t like a full play or novel, where the audience is guided through an experience that evolves alongside the characters. In those formats, audiences are almost manipulated by the characters’ emotions, similar to directing an actor. However, in a play, actors follow a defined structure, and that structure—together with the performance—conveys the underlying philosophy. Interactive art, on the other hand, is constrained by the duration and setting of the experience, which might require more intricate design to fully express its philosophy.