,
In “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, the author emphasizes the importance of not defining an interactive work, since unlike a traditional art piece, an interactive piece is not just an expression but a medium that will inevitably be interpreted differently by the users. I found myself agreeing with this statement, especially since it does apply to traditional art in some cases as well. There is something exciting about being the viewer or the user, and being able to not only produce our own interpretations of a creative piece, but also being able to engage with it, whether it is through a computer program or something tangible. It also reminds me of when I write creative stories; sometimes it is better to leave certain details unsaid rather than reveal everything about a setting or a character, as readers often enjoy filling in those gaps with their imagination. Ultimately, like any creative work, I agree with the author that an interactive piece can resemble a performance more than a finished painting or sculpture, allowing something beautiful and engaging to emerge.
Similarly, in “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)”, I found it interesting how the author notes that when people learning about physical computing realize a particular ideas has been done before, they often give up on it because they believe it’s not worth it since it is no longer original. My first thought was that this happens in art and writing as well. When a writer wants to explore a familiar theme, like reincarnation, they might hesitate because it has been done many times before. Before reading this text, I hadn’t realized that the struggle for originality and authenticity is just as applicable in physical computing as it is in other creative or noncreative fields. Now I feel like I share much more in common with this field than I initially imagined.
