A.
I think the art pieces at the Chronus exhibition appear to me as something unfamiliar. I had visited exhibitions of non-technology based art work, but I rarely go to see technology-based art pieces. At first the art pieces there seem to me very strange. They are mostly dark in color and made with machinery or some working parts of a machine. Most of the art pieces are in motion for some purpose, and the components that allowed the pieces to move are often servos and motors, which we are also using in this class. Among the art pieces, the following ones caught my attention.
This is a very interesting gigantic project. I like the design very much – it looks like a big bird nest to me at first. Upon closer observation, I noticed that it is delicately designed, with many servos working and the threads moving in a coherent way – from the outer part to the inner part. It is really amazing that the many parts of such a giant yet delicate project is working so harmoniously.
This is another striking piece. The main part of the project is a combination of a record player and a sewing machine. It is such a weird mixture, and the projector is screening a black and white film which ends with the explosion of an atomic bomb. I cannot tell exactly what this project intends to tell the audience, but I suppose it has something to do with human development and the potentially negative impact of technology on humans.
I think a big difference between technology-based and non-technology based exhibitions is the movement of the art pieces. Technology-based art works almost always involves a constant movement, they are always in motion, in the process of development. While non-technology art works can be static and simply for visual appreciation. Also, technology-based art works tend to reflect on the development of technology and its relationship with humans.
B.
One project I have researched is “Chatty Coaster.” It is an interactive drink holder that detects silences in conversation and inserts provocative questions as starters to break awkward silences. I think it aligns with my definition of “interaction” well. The input in this case is the silence – a very creative input. The output can be all kinds of casual questions that would start a further conversation. This output is not easily predictive as it is random, so this is not a merely responsive project. What’s more, the project is symptomatic of people’s growing inability to talk to each other face to face. I think this project captures precisely a social phenomenon, or dilemma, that many of us feel strongly about. With technologies that enable chatting apps, humans are losing their ability to sustain a long face-to-face conversation. This project offers people not only laughter (because hearing it talk is in itself so entertaining), but also reflection on the relationship between human and technology.
link: https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/team-avocado/chatty-coasters-e6b6a0?ref=tag&ref_id=interactive&offset=5
One project I have found that does not necessarily fit my definition of interaction is “Interactive Mario Mushroom Block.” It is a Mario block that users can punch and in turn get a mushroom out of it. It imitate the classical game scenario and people can literally use their head to hit the block. But this project does not go to far in terms of interactivity. It is with a fixed input and output – the users can predict the outcome after experiencing it once. I think it is more responsive and repetitive than really interactive. Also the project does not have a very meaningful purpose behind it – it is primarily for the fun of imitating the game scenario. When I do my final project, I would strive to make the experience more interactive and the reflection on the experience more meaningful.
link: https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/sclandinin/interactive-mario-mushroom-block-2235dd?ref=tag&ref_id=interactive&offset=2
C.
When I did my group project, my definition of interaction involved “a clear input, a processing procedure of the input and an output that is different from the original input.” This idea is inspired by the Crawford reading where the author discuss the nature of interactivity. I focused on the processing of the input and the generation of a new output. Usually a human devotes an input, and some machine processes it and then generates some feedback as an output. What I emphasized in my definition was the output should be different from the original input, so that the interaction becomes meaningful.
When I began to brainstorm for my midterm project, I modified my definition of interaction. Inspired by the class discussion, I realized an interactive project should not be merely responsive. A responsive process would also involve an input and an output, and they are likely to be different, but it may not be really interactive. An “interactive” project should ask the user to respond to the different feedback of the device. The device does not offer a fixed output, but it offers a variety of different reactions, and the user reacts to those different situations accordingly. My midterm project also follows this definition. My project NOT A MOUSE would act unexpectedly to human/cat action, and would try to escape from the catch. While the “Mario Block” project I have researched this time is more repetitive and responsive. I think a good “interactive” project means more than a mere fixed response.
This time for the final project, I would like to explore the deeper meaning associated with “interaction.” Interaction is so widespread in society, whether it is human-machine interaction or interpersonal interaction. A central element that makes interaction so intriguing is that the feedback of interaction outcome is often unpredictable. The user may be delighted with what he/she gets at the end of the process, or he/she may learn something new that he/she had not expected. An interactive project can sometimes be a declaration or statement piece. The interactive process can be a journey of exploration, and that is what attracts the users to participate. The result of the participation can often be enlightening. For example, the belt piece by Lozano Hammer shown in class is so meaningful because it catches the essence of surveillance through an interactive process. Statement like this would leave a deep impression on participants as the project presents itself as a metaphor for users to chew on. Also, the “chatty coasters” I have research this time functions as a conversation starter which can improve interpersonal relationships in this world dominated by technology. These projects are metaphoric expressions of really insightful thoughts, and they inspire us to reflect on the relationship between humans and technology. So for my final project, I want to aim for something that could tell a story or show something meaningful through an engaging interactive process.
Works Cited
Crawford, “What Exactly is Interactivity,” The Art of Interactive Design, pp. 1-5.
Clandinin, Scott. “Interactive Mario Block.” https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/sclandinin/interactive-mario-mushroom-block-2235dd?ref=tag&ref_id=interactive&offset=2
Hemmer, Lozano. “Standards and Double Standards.” http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/artworks/standards_and_double_standards.php
TEAM AVOCADOS UNLTD. “Chatty Coasters.” https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/team-avocado/chatty-coasters-e6b6a0?ref=tag&ref_id=interactive&offset=5