When I went to the Chronus exhibition, not only did I think it was different from the non-technology based artwork, but I felt like it was different from the technology based art work I’ve visited before as well. The exhibit itself I felt was pretty hard to understand, even with the descriptions and explanations, I felt like it was just there and I was often confused by what the art pieces were trying to convey. At the same time, I did find it very interesting that they used components that I’ve used before but yet made them into such complicated pieces of art. There is a lot of difference between this exhibit and non-technology based art work. The non-technology based art work that I’ve been to usually have a meaning or deep story behind it. Although the pieces at the Chronus exhibit had a story behind it, I felt like it wasn’t as deep as I would’ve expected it to be. On the other hand, I felt like there was so much thought and creativity put into each and every one of the projects and I find that to be similar in non-technology based art work as well.
FLUTTER- LA, CA
Flutter is an interactive art exhibit in Los Angeles that features 6,000+ square feet of art that is meant to be touched. They have different types of exhibits that range from digital, to hands on art. The reason I found this exhibit is from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRscfX8O44
I love the type of interactive art that has to do with animation that reacts with motion of people. I think this is successful because museums and exhibits like these lure more people in because it either looks very cool, unlike other things before, or people want to experience it for themselves.
Their website: https://flutterexperience.com/
AURORA ORGAN – Camille Utterback
Camille Utterback is a very well-known interactive media artist. This piece specifically drew me into her artwork. The Aurora Organ is currently displayed in St. Louis Park, Minnesota in a shopping mall. This piece is designed for customers and people within the mall to interact with it. The organs are basically just hanging pipes and they change/add colors once someone touches it. The amount of color that adds on differs by each motion, whether you are tapping or holding the railing. From their website:
“The colors in each column animate in various ways – moving faster or slower, up or down, depending on how people tap or touch the railing. Holding the railing sensor creates a long streak of color, while tapping creates shorter bursts. New colors overlay and blend with previous patterns, visually merging past and present activity at the railings. If all six sensors are touched simultaneously, general properties of the system, like gravity, are reversed – causing a major change in the behavior of all the colored elements. Each column of Aurora Organ becomes a temporal history and amplified visual trace of people’s presence and activity in the atrium.”
I feel like although the Flutter exhibit seems more fun and people would pay just to go and experience it, The Aurora Organ seems like a more successful interactive experience to me. They both represent interaction very well but in my opinion, The Aurora Organ is more personalized and you can basically make it do whatever you choose. Whereas the Flutter exhibits are more general and one of those things you just walk through and watch, not as much as hands-on interaction like The Aurora Organ.
Camille Utterback’s website: http://camilleutterback.com/
The Aurora Organ: http://camilleutterback.com/projects/aurora-organ/
During the group project, our definition of interaction was:
“Interaction is a continuous conversation between two or more corresponding elements.”
Basically meaning whether or not there was an input or output, the machine would still keep running on it’s own and the only way it would be considered interactive is if it responds to an action given by the user. After the midterm project, I would still agree that in order for an interactive project to be successful, there must be an input and output for the project as well as it keeps on running on its own if there is no input. For example, my midterm project was a game called “Simon” where it would only start if the user presses a button. At the same tie, the game would keep running and/or restarting on its own even if there was no user pressing the button.
With that being said, I did not feel like the Chronus exhibit was a good representation of interaction because not all of them had to do with a user giving input and it reacting to it. The exhibit was very interesting as I’ve never been to an exhibit much like that one, but it did not fit my definition of a successful form of interaction. As for both the Flutter Art Gallery (https://flutterexperience.com/) and The Aurora Organ by Camille Utterback,(http://camilleutterback.com/projects/aurora-organ/) I would consider to be successful for many reasons. First, both exhibits require human/user interaction in order for it to fully function. Second, if there isn’t human/user interaction, the exhibit is still fun or nice to look at and at the same time, still operates. The Flutter exhibit will have the animations still keep going and the Aurora Organ will still have the lights changing colors.