A: the Chronus exhibition:
I used to think that all technology-based art pieces contains interactions and allows people to participate in it. But after seeing this exhibition, it changes my perception about technology-based art. Those arts could be executed by itself, not involving any interactions with the audience. And I realized that the concept and meanings behind a work is far more important than the interaction itself. The piece I enjoy the best is Beholding The Big Bang by Arthur Ganson. The device has a 1.32 hundred million spinning cycle which let the audience to think about the question of deep time, the past and the future.
（Beholding The Big Bang image from http://www.chronusartcenter.org/cac-jwistmtcsisu/)
I think there are both differences and similarities between the technology-based art pieces and the non-technology based ones. The differences are some of the technology-based art works’ appearance are not as impressive as some of the non-technology based ones like paintings or sculptures or installation arts and the technology-based art works are often motional while the non-technology based ones are often static. So the difference in experience is I always want to know how it works when seeing a technology-based art piece but do not have the curiosity of knowing how the painting is painted or how the installation is installed. The similarities are they all convey meanings behind the work and allows free interpretations.
B: research two other projects:
The first one interactive clouds: https://www.likecool.com/An_Interactive_Cloud_Made_of_6_000_Light_Bulbs–Projects–Gear.html
According to a blog post from likecool.com: “The cloud is made from 1,000 working lightbulbs on pull-chains and an additional 5,000 made from donated burnt out lights donated by the public. It was appeared on September 15th as part of Nuit Blanche Calgary in Alberta, Canada. Visitors to the installation could pull the chains on and off creating the flickering aesthetic of an electrical cloud.”
I think this work is super interactive and beautiful. The most successful parts are: first it really trigger’s people motivation of interaction. I would want to change the appearance of the cloud when walking on the street. Second, this is a cooperative artwork, different people can involve and there are many many possibilities of the final outcome: the appearance of the cloud. Third, it reflects people’s mental state: if I am sad, I may turn off one of the light balls. So it’s a output of people’s inner thoughts.
The second one is called DWI Modular：
According to “Created by Felix Luque, DWI Modular is a system comprised of 10 rhombic dodecahedrons, geometrical objects part of the family of ‘Space- filling polyhedra‘: shapes that can be assembled to generate a tessellation of an infinite space. These forms act as the building blocks for a sculpture generator.”
I really like how it allows users to explore different possibilities of infinite space. I think it’s quite interactive but I am not sure whether technology achieve its best usage in this device. Building blocks can probably achieve the same results.
C: come back to the definition of interaction
An definition of interaction given by Crawford “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak” (1) is very accurate and helpful. To achieve a successful interaction, I want to emphasize the words “cyclic” and “think” . “Cyclic” means that there are multiple rounds of actions and reactions. A one-round interactive movement is certainly not a good one. And the “thinking” process makes interactive distinguished from responsive. The users need to process the information given by the device in order to make the next movement. After researching the two projects I adds more to my definition of a successful interaction. First, I think it’s better to involve more body movement and more people to make this interaction more interesting. Second, the the output is better to be thought-provoking to make this interaction more meaningful.