Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
I definitely agreed with most of what Tigoe had to say in his article. I think the idea that your art is a collaboration, and that it is often more powerful when you allow those who are observing your art to be the ones to interpret it–without your outside influence. In the case of Interactive Media (IM), it seems even more important that the art you design is intuitive from the get-go, in order to promote this natural discovery process from being inhibited by any obtuse design decisions.
The one place that I may disagree with Tigoe is in the last part of the article, where he says:
So if you’re thinking of an interactive artwork, don’t think of it like a finished painting or sculpture. Your audience completes the work through what they do when they see what you’ve made.
In my opinion, even “complete,” pieces of artwork, such as paintings or sculptures, are interpreted subjectively by the viewer–and that’s part of the process too. These interpretations are influenced by life experiences and emotions–love, grief, and joy–to name a few. That’s not something inherit to only IM or Film, but rather part of what makes art, well, art. In my opinion, art should always be first interpreted by the person viewing it, before hearing the inspiration behind it.
Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
As someone who is positively obsessed with music (my 2024 Spotify wrapped came in at 121,839 minutes or ~84 continuous days of listening), the projects that stood out to me the most are the music ones (e.g., floor pads and gloves). The idea of creating an instrument for your user to play builds on the idea of the prior article, where IM is about a collaboration between the person engaging with the art, and the artist. In that way, the viewer becomes an artist themselves–actively contributing their own preferences and talents into the piece. I find these types of work the most interesting, because of the empowering nature they promote.