Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)

This article by Igoe was pretty easy to read with lots of examples that are very important for the students like us. I believe that I benefited from reading the text because it provides an overview of common themes in physical computing and offers inspiration for individuals interested in exploring this field. It encouraged me as a reader to think creatively about my own works. I especially liked how the author encourages his readers to have originality within common and recurring themes within the field of physical computing.

I think that there is no apparent bias in the article. The author presents the themes and examples objectively, providing a balanced view of each. It also makes me think about the origin of creativity, and how this concept should not be viewed as something that originates from a novel idea. In fact, even in sciences, it is common to have background literature for the “original” study, meaning that every idea is built upon preexisting ideas. Such an approach with a strong foundation is the best place for the development of new ideas.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

I believe that the best thing about this article is that it encourages artists to think beyond traditional art forms and embrace interactive experiences. I really like how the author understands the importance of the spectatorship notion.  The emphasis on audience engagement and the value of the interpretations from the side of the spectator is definitely something that has been pursued in the field of contemporary performative art. I believe the very core of the spectatorship is the perception of the art piece by the viewer. It is not just about presence, but also it is about active recognition, understanding, and interpretation of the artwork. It of course doesn’t have to be verbalized in any way, it may even not make sense to the viewer, but the feeling that she/he/they would have was what matters.

From the perspective of students and designers, this article provides valuable insights into the approach and mindset required for designing interactive artwork, highlighting the importance of listening to feedback and adapting the artwork based on audience reaction. However, I believe that the author’s bias is towards creating interactive artwork that encourages audience participation and interpretation all the time, which is not an ideal thing to do because in that way such a working process may downplay the role of the artist’s intention. It may even create the potential for misinterpretation or lack of understanding from the audience, which is definitely not the intention of the artist.

 

 

Creative Reading Reflection – Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits:

The text discusses common themes in physical computing projects, which are interactive projects that involve using technology to create interesting interactions. These themes include making musical instruments that respond to hand movements, designing gloves for music and gesture control, creating interactive floor pads for dancing and games, building projects that mimic hand movements and more. These themes provide a base for learning and experimenting in the field of physical computing which allows students and creators to add their unique ideas and the variety to change. In essence, they serve as starting point for innovative and creative projects in the world of technology and interaction and will help continue to evolve with new ideas and technologies in physical computing.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

The second text, it elaborates on how creating interactive art is different as it involves you to provide the audience with a clear context of the art and then allow them to engage freely. Instead of ordering a fixed interpretation, interactive art should provide the the audience to listen to your work by taking it in through their senses and let them think about what each part means. Just like a director working with actors, the artist’s role is to create the framework and opportunities for engagement, much like how a director guides actors in a performance. When creating interactive art, don’t view it as a finished painting or sculpture. Instead, think of it as a live performance. The audience plays a crucial role in completing the art through their actions. This approach welcomes participants to contribute their creative ideas and add diversity to the art.

 

 

Reflecting on the themes presented in Tom Igoe’s blog post “Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)”, I couldn’t help but notice the recurrence of certain project themes within physical computing classes. The observation that certain ideas, while not novel, provide a canvas for originality resonates with the principle that innovation often comes from iteration rather than from invention. This challenges the notion that only entirely new concepts are worthy of pursuit. The notion that projects like musical instruments or interactive gloves are perennial favorites because they engage with deeply human and culturally ingrained activities like music and gesture underpins this idea.

The insight that the value of such projects lies not in their novelty but in the personal touch and the learning process they encapsulate raises questions about the true nature of creativity. Is it the creation of something completely new, or the personal interpretation and adaptation of existing themes? This view aligns with Igoe’s critique of over-simplifying interactions, such as the hand-waving in video mirrors, which, while aesthetically pleasing, offer limited structured interaction.

In his other post, “Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen”, Igoe urges interactive artists to refrain from over-explaining their work, allowing the audience to engage and interpret the art independently. This guidance counters the traditional artistic impulse to control the narrative and suggests a bias towards creating an open-ended dialogue with the audience. It is a call for humility from the artist, to step back and appreciate the autonomy of the audience’s experience. This approach aligns with contemporary participatory art practices, emphasizing the importance of the viewer’s role in creating the artwork’s meaning. It raises the question of how much guidance is optimal in interactive art to provoke engagement without prescribing it.

Additionally, comparing the planning of interactive artwork to directing actors highlights the collaborative nature of interactive experiences. Here, the audience’s role parallels that of an actor bringing their interpretation to a performance, completing the artwork through interaction. This analogy inspires one to think about the balance between the artist’s intention and the participant’s contribution. How does one design interactive systems that are flexible enough to accommodate diverse interactions while still conveying a cohesive theme or message? This perspective can shift one’s belief about the ownership of meaning in art, recognizing the shared creation between artist and audience.

Concept

I wanted to create a device to detect whether or not a cup was removed from its place. To do this, there is an LDR beneath the cup, and a button that sets the resting value of the LDR when the cup is placed on top. When the cup is removed, the value of the LDR increases and so the red LED turns on to indicate that the cup has been tampered with. A yellow LED turns on to indicate that the resting value of the LDR is being set.

Demonstration

The video demonstrates the above concept.

Code

#include <Arduino.h>

const int redLEDPin = 7;
const int buttonPin = 2;
const int LDRPin = A0;
const int yellowLEDPin = 8;

int restingValue = 0;

void setup() {
  pinMode(redLEDPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(yellowLEDPin, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(buttonPin, INPUT);
  pinMode(LDRPin, INPUT); 
  Serial.begin(9600);
  digitalWrite(redLEDPin, HIGH); //initially turn on the red LED
  digitalWrite(yellowLEDPin, LOW); //initially turn off the yellow LED
}

void loop() {
  //read and print the value of the LDR
  int LDRValue = analogRead(LDRPin);
  int buttonValue = digitalRead(buttonPin);

  //round the value to the nearest 100 for more consistent readings
  LDRValue = round(LDRValue / 100) * 100;

  //button is used to reset the resting value of the LDR
  if(buttonValue == HIGH) {
    digitalWrite(yellowLEDPin, HIGH); //to indicate that the button is pressed and the LDR resting value is being reset
    restingValue = LDRValue;
    return;
  }
  digitalWrite(yellowLEDPin, LOW); //turn off the yellow LED

  //for debugging
  Serial.println(LDRValue);


  //turn on the LED if the button is pressed
  if (LDRValue <= restingValue) { 
    digitalWrite(redLEDPin, LOW);
  } else {
    digitalWrite(redLEDPin, HIGH); // ISSUE! TURN ON LED!! CUP IS MISSING!!
  }

}

Technical Structure

This device is an amalgamation of different individual circuits. There is a sub-circuit to take analog input from a momentary switch. There are two LED circuits that take analog input in, so the LEDs only have HIGH and LOW states. There is one analog sensor, which is the LDR, to determine whether or not the cup has been moved.

Reflection

I realize that this device is not very useful if used in the dark. Since it is hard to see if someone messes with someone in the dark by naked eye, this would be a situation where it would be good to use this device. Since it fails in this particular case, I feel that this is a missed opportunity, and so the device isn’t particularly useful in real world applications. To make a device better suited to the task, I could use an infra-red sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor, so that proximity from the cup to the sensor is reached. However, that sensor is prone to being subdued by a replacement object. I am currently thinking about a foolproof device to protect the cup from being tampered with or taken away.

In reflecting on Don Norman’s “Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better,” I find myself intrigued by the psychological interplay between aesthetics and perceived functionality. Norman posits that attractive products trigger our creative thinking and problem-solving abilities, enhancing our emotional state, which in turn can actually improve performance. This suggests an intimate connection between our emotional responses and cognitive processes. In my experience, this connection seems valid. A well-designed interface or product often feels more intuitive, perhaps because the positive emotional response engenders a more forgiving and patient interaction. However, Norman could be subject to confirmation bias, as designs that are perceived as attractive may not universally lead to better performance across different users and contexts. This raises questions about the universality of design principles: Are there cultural or individual differences in how aesthetics influence usability?

The article on Margaret Hamilton, “Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself,” underscores the impact of individual contributions to technology, highlighting how Hamilton’s work laid the foundation for modern software engineering. The narrative is inspiring, showcasing the transformative power of innovation and meticulous problem-solving. This reflection doesn’t dispute the facts presented, but it prompts me to consider the unsung heroes of technological advancement. The author’s focus on Hamilton’s groundbreaking achievements is merited, yet one wonders about the many contributors to the space program whose stories remain untold. This reading has reinforced my belief in the importance of recognizing collaborative efforts in tech advancements. It leaves me curious about the dynamics of team contributions and the recognition of individual achievements within such contexts. It also raises a question: How many other pioneers like Hamilton are there whose stories we have yet to acknowledge and celebrate?

Concept:

What’s a party without lights? A boring one. So I decided to spice it up and make cups light up a light bulb once they’re chin-chined. The idea was to add a little extra sparkle to festivities by integrating a fun, interactive element into our toasts. With some basic materials and a dash of creativity, I embarked on crafting a set of party cups that wouldn’t just hold beverages but also serve as a luminous centerpiece for the occasion.

Video:

Chin-Chin

Materials:

• • Arduino Uno
  • Breadboard
  • USB cable for Arduino
  • LED
  • Resistor
  • Tin Foil
  • Jumper wires
  • Ribbon
  • Party cups

Step-by-Step Guide:

1. Setting Up the Circuit: I started by setting up a basic circuit on a breadboard. LED was connected to the breadboard then I added a resistor, connected a wire to the ground on the Arduino and to the board, and another one to the 5V.

2. Closing the Circuit: I added a wire that goes from the same row as the end of the resistor and another one from the 5V wire row and connected the end of each of those to jumper wires.

3. Creating the Cups: I got party cups from the IM Lab and covered them up in tin foil to make them conductive and decorated the stem with ribbons to make it prettier and party-fitting.

4. Connecting the Cups: To close the circuit I added the other end of each jumper wire to the back of each cup in the foil area.

5. End Result: Once you chin-chin the cup together, the light bulb turns on becoming the life of the party and making the toast even more special and festive

Reflection:

I really love how it came out in the end, my vision really came to life. For the future though I would love to make the design sleeker and more aesthetic to look at and maybe make the bulb part of a sculpture or something like that to make it also make more sense and again prettier.

 

 

 

 

CONCEPT:

When two soulmates meet, both of their worlds light up. That’s exactly what’s happening in this assignment. I chose to use mine and my bestfriend’s matching bracelets to make the circuit complete and the LED light up. If the bracelets don’t touch, the LED won’t go on.

COMPONENTS:

I used the following elements to make the circuit work:

-The matching bracelets (the conductive part is the gold rods)

-The following elements from the Sparkfun Kit:

-The circuit:

VIDEO:

Here’s the video (click to download): IMG_7984

REFLECTION:

I had so much fun working on this assignment. The process was straightforward and I didn’t face any challenges because the idea is simple. If I do this assignment again, I would maybe try to make it more aesthetic. For now, I like how it turned out because it matches the requirements of the assignment efficiently.

 

Making interactive art

This reading brings up a crucial aspect of creating interactive art that, at first glance, might seem counterintuitive: the idea that as artists, we shouldn’t over-explain or over-interpret our own work. It highlights how artists, in their enthusiasm to convey their message or intention, can sometimes go too far in explaining every element of their interactive piece. This over-explanation can, paradoxically, hinder the audience’s experience by limiting the space for interpretation.

What I found most compelling about this perspective is the notion that when we meticulously detail our work, we unintentionally strip it of its openness to interpretation. Art, and especially interactive art, thrives on the engagement of the audience, on their ability to find personal meaning and significance in what they see and experience. When we, as artists, leave less room for interpretation by offering explicit descriptions or interpretations, we inadvertently limit the depth and richness of the user experience.

Physical computing

I find it interesting how physical computing is filled with recurring project themes that continue to inspire innovation and creativity. What strikes me the most is the realization that even within these well-worn themes, there’s an abundance of untapped potential for originality and fresh perspectives.

Reading through the article, it was hard not to draw parallels with a discussion we had in class before the fall break about creativity. The recurring themes in physical computing reminded me of the principle we explored during our discussions: that creativity often emerges when we build upon existing ideas and frameworks. In many ways, this article reaffirms the idea that true creativity doesn’t always require entirely novel concepts. Instead, it encourages us to embrace the familiar and established as a foundation for our own creative endeavors.

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

I agree that art should be open to interpretation. I think interactive art requires time from the artist and is open to change and manipulation in response to the user’s experience. The first time an artist does an interactive art it might not go as planned especially if he/she does not add instructions, but that is ok because they would learn and start up conversations with the viewers and redefine it to make it work better. I believe a good interactive piece is self-explanatory and does what the artist expects at least 50/60% of the time. However, some interactive art pieces are made to be experienced differently.

I liked the part about listening to the audience while they are experiencing the piece because this starts interesting conversations and may inspire new ideas. I agree that an interactive artist is like a director. He/she proposes materials and interactions to the audience and then they can interpret it in ways that express themselves and the artist too.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)

I agree that recreating things can lead to further developments. There is a book I once read called “Steal Like an Artist” and it talks about how everything we do is inspired by things that already exist. A lot of technological advances came to exist because they were recreating something but found a new thing on the way. If we think of coding, for example, we would have not been so advanced and creative if we kept figuring out the logic that is already there. Instead, we take the pre-existing logic and then add to it and develop it to be better.

I enjoyed the piece on Floor Pads because it seems simple and fun. I also think that the meditation helper is cool. As a person who dies yoga I think is a really good way to focus and try to maintain your inner balance at home. However, I am not sure how it “reacts to your state of mind” because it might not be accurate. Thus, it’s pretty cool if it can be accurate.

 

Making Interactive Art: Set the Stage, Then Shut Up and Listen

This reading showed me an interesting point of view, but I’m not too sure if I agree with it. Tigoe says that you should not interpret your own interactive art, but rather let the audience figure it out for themselves. The entire premise of this is that you shouldn’t think of interactive art as a finished painting or sculpture. However, I find myself disagreeing with Tigoe. Firstly, even with a finished painting, no two people will interpret it the same way given they are free to think anything about the painting. Although I understand Tigoe’s point of view of not confining the art piece to your own direction, I do not think that you should not interpret your own art pieces. If I want my audience to have a very specific experience, I will give them my interpretation or the direction that I took with the piece beforehand to guide their thoughts. It entirely depends upon what I want the piece to be. Of course, people can just ignore these directions, but I believe that there is still room for the audience’s personal interpretations of the guided art piece. Like a painting, maybe I want to express myself with the art piece. If you want what Tigoe wants, then his recommendations are very helpful. However, there is no right or wrong way to do interactive art.

Physical Computing’s Greatest Hits (and misses)

Exploring the themes in physical computing classes highlights a cool mix of established ideas and personal creativity. Even though some projects come up every year, it’s not about repeating but reimagining them with your own touch. The examples, from theremin-like instruments to remote hugs, show there’s a lot you can do.

The mention of different time periods and tech advancements adds context, showing how physical computing keeps evolving. I like the focus on projects that involve people rather than just machines. It’s a reminder that the connection between users and their creations is what makes physical computing special. Overall, this collection of different projects is like a guide to show the creative possibilities in interactive art.