Group Project – Andres Malaga – Super Cup

The definition of interaction I would propose is “the input and output of information between two or more humans, machines or animals”, because when we interact with something, we give that something information (input, could be the push of a button, turning a lever or waving towards it, for example), that something processes it and produces information we can then process too (this would be the output, which could be, among other things, motion, a sound or light). Thus, interaction requires a physical or digital input and a physical or digital output, it can’t be only output, like a movie, or only input, like an unplugged keyboard. It has to have both; a TV, for example, is interactive since the human interacts with it using the built-in buttons and the connected remote controller; so is a car, a radio and a phone, some requiring more involvement from the user than others. A car, for example, requires the driver to be constantly stepping on a pedal and steering a wheel, producing a clear output from the car, which ‘processed’ the information that it was given and followed what it indicated, while a TV doesn’t need any inputs from the user after it has been turned on. A car, then, is more interactive than a TV, because at moments the TV stops being interactive while it’s turned on, because it doesn’t depend on a constant interaction. For something to be truly interactive, it should require constant inputs and outputs while it is turned on, like a car or a gaming console, and therefore, should have a user who interacts with it instead of a viewer that just watches it.

The project I chose that does not align with my definition of interaction is “The Bomb”, a film showcased at an installation at a film festival. The installation was designed to immerse the viewers into the story, with screens that were placed around a circular room (they were arranged so as to be viewed at any angle) and live music. It was supposed to make the viewer feel like they were inside the film, but, as much as it generated the sensation in the viewer, which is not a user, it was not at all interactive, the viewer did not need to input anything to get the output, it was just information coming out of the screen and speakers, produced by both the video player and the band playing in the room. The embedded video can better explains the installation:

The project I chose that aligns with my definition of interaction is “Marbles”, an installation of molded shapes in Amsterdam. It consists of shapeless sculptures (just blobs) that light up and produce sounds when the user gets close to them, touches them, or otherwise gives them a physical input, producing a different output depending on the type of the input, be it lighting in a different color for a longer or shorter time or producing a longer or shorter sound. I believe it is interactive because it follows the input-output of information I defined as interaction, since the input would be the person’s activity and the output would be the sound it produces or changing the color of the light it emits. I was not able to find an embed code for the video, but the article is in the following link:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvz8kj/interactive-public-sculptures-respond-to-human-touch-and-provide-a-digital-playground-for-residents

For the project, we designed a robot that would bring a cup of water after it heard cue phrases, such as “I’m thirsty” or “I need water”, receiving an input of information, telling it that it needs to perform the action, thus activating it and making it look for a source of water, and then bring the cup of water to the user (that would be the output). Therefore, the user is able to produce an input and receive an output, while the robot is able to receive the input and produce the output, according to what the user indicated, thus being interactive.

Articles Cited:

“An Experience At The Heart Of Nuclear Annihilation”. Vice, 2017, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvwaw/an-experience-at-the-heart-of-nuclear-annihilation.

Holmes, Kevin. “Interactive Public Sculptures Respond To Human Touch And Provide A Digital Playground For Residents”. Vice, 2012, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvz8kj/interactive-public-sculptures-respond-to-human-touch-and-provide-a-digital-playground-for-residents.

Leave a Reply