For the past field trip, I got a chance to closely observe some of the most cleverly conceived modern technology-based art pieces. One thing that particularly inspired me is by watching those art pieces work and considering over its operating logic, I realized that the relationship between technology and art is actually working mutually. That is to say, not only could technology acts as a vehicle and a platform for art, but art could also be a reflection to reveal how the technology works. Like this installation:
It’s basically a nest-like network, built with wooden frame, woolen wire, and weights. Though it’s established as an art piece, it perfectly displays how some underlying algorithms of computer work: with weights going up and down, some computing boards sending a signal to wires, the device in the middle would simulate lots of images and keep transforming. Besides, there’s also device like:
I consider this device as a project which is not that “interactive”. As I talked about in my midterm post, my midterm project is self-enclosed because it didn’t show many possibilities on the concept of “interaction”. And so did this device. Though the idea was great, using a series of gears to reflect the passing of time, it’s not, as a matter of fact, as interactive as other installations, for it restricted itself thus it could only work in a settled way. Another installation is an irrigating device, which would construct a pile of an object consisting of oil, sand, transistor, and water depending on users’ input. It’s interactive as well, apparently.
As for my final project, firstly, as I mentioned in the midterm blog, “…put our feet in users’ shoes, to think about how to help a “rookie” easily understand our design and help him/her to achieve goals. Think, and think like an idiot, that would be the key”. I consider the perspective of designer the most important, for it should be set from 100% user’s view. Thus I set a new goal for my final work: a project that the user could know how to use it from the first sight. Secondly, As Crawford claims: “The quality of the interaction depends on the quality of each of the subtasks (listening, thinking, and speaking). And many things commonly held to be interactive are not”. So I’m thinking about constructing a multisensory project, which requires users’ applying multiple sense organs to “play the game” (maybe). Finally, one of the greatest ideas I abstracted from that exhibition is, technology-based art can be used to display things of various aspects. Different from the midterm project, I would like to build a philosophical and sociological program, which would lead the audience to a deeper level of thinking. That’s just goals and I’m about to start. We’ll see.