Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)
Sometimes I feel like the authors of our readings can read my mind. Usually, my first thought when thinking of a project idea is that I don’t want to do something that’s already done, but the author starts by saying not to think that way. I guess he is right, and that no work is ever truly ‘original’, but always takes inspiration from somewhere or something.
One of the applications of physical computing that really struck me was the Dance Dance Revolution. I realized that I never really thought much about the mechanics of it, but it’s crazy to think that just having a few switches on the floor managed to create this dynamic that took over the world. I also don’t think that I’ve ever encountered the theremin instrument, but it seems very interesting that even though it’s a physical object affected by your actions, you can’t actually think about the actions, but must actually think about the music.
The author’s section on Dolls and Pets also got me thinking about how that concept has evolved compared to the year 2008. 
The image in the reading shows normal dolls physically connected to a device, but nowadays we have toys with the screens built in, so that the doll/pet seems even more life-like. An example of this is the Eilik Interactive Robot Pet, which went viral on social media a while ago (I actually really want one, but they’re so expensive).
Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen
I agree with everything the author says throughout this reading, however, I do think that it’s easier said than done. He mentions, “Some will be emotionally moved, some will not get it, others won’t care.” This dynamic is why I believe that artists tend to offer interpretation notes about their artwork to their audience. I think it’s quite painful to see people not understand or not care about an interactive work you poured hours of your time into. Therefore, to save themselves from this struggle, artists tend to offer the script beforehand. On a similar note, this is also the approach I took with the first half of this class. Every time I showed someone my work, I would be quick to explain the concept behind it before they even began to explore, making sure that they didn’t do anything “wrong”. But after reading the insightful comparison done by the author between planning interactive artworks and a director working with actors, I think I’ve really understood that an interactive artwork is only completed by the audience’s curiosity. I’m excited to apply this new approach to my own interactive artworks, where the audience is nudged to discover the statement of the artwork by themselves.