I completely understand the view brought up in the reading “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)” on how so often I think to myself, “I don’t want do to that, it’s already done” and give up on the idea because I think it’s not original. However, my horizons broadened when I realised through the reading that even recurring themes can have a lot of room for originality, if I try to add a notable variation / twist to these themes. As the reading discusses specific examples of ideas of physical interaction, I think it is great how it contains not only a description of it and its positive aspects, but also its limitations. For instance, with Theremin-like instruments, moving a hand over a sensor can have little meaning – but it can be developed through a twist involving a physical form and context for the sensors that affords a meaningful gesture. I see gloves as a way that affords much more meaning because we use the way our fingers bend and which fingers bend can result in so many variations and convey some meaning – whether someone is stressed vs relaxed, the way to play an instrument, etc. Another limitation that stood out to me was with the Scooby-Doo paintings, where designers of this type of project commonly confuse presence with attention (as I personally have). Someone’s presence does not necessarily mean that person is paying attention. Hence, I made a mental note to pay attention to this to any similar future projects I might undertake, where I could integrate detection of eyes and face, for example.
The next reading “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen” brought to my attention a problem that I still need work on. So often, artists make artworks, describing their work and their interpretations. Personally, if I were the audience of such an artwork, it feels more difficult to interpret the work differently because I’ve been directed in the way to think. However, I think the audience will enjoy it more when they receive the opportunity to spend some time taking in the artwork through their senses… to think about what each part means, which parts afford contact or control, and which parts don’t. In letting them interpret the parts, and decide how to respond – rather than prescribing their response, they could be more engaged and discover more. My question is, what is the balance between describing the environment and letting the audience discover the artwork?