In the first group project of this semester, I develop the idea that there should be a degree of interaction for different projects. Hence, I start thinking of all projects according to a certain ratio, instead of simply whether deciding whether they are interactive or not. The second theory that I develop is that the two-way process of communication during the interaction should be considered as a key concept. After almost two months since I finished my group project, now my definition of interaction has developed more comprehensive compared with two months before. I realize that it is different between let people feel simply interested and let people feel inspired. We can more easily to create interesting projects, but it is always harder to create some inspiring and thoughtful works.
I found two projects online which are meaningful to analyze here. The first one called GĂ©omĂ©tries Irrationnelles from Galerie municipale de Vitry at 2008. In this project, people are able to change the image on the screen by twisting a string beside the screen. By touching the string in different ways and direction, the strings in the screen will change accordingly. For this project, I may say it has a slight difference in my definition of interaction. I do see the connection between the string and the screen and also people can engage with it to change the outcome of this process. however, I see more about a one way movement which is the machine show different appearance based on audiences’ action, but I do not see a clear procedure of the backwards. The relationship between human beings and the machines are still fixed as a subordinate category.
Video
The other project I find is very different from this one. Its name is Akousmaflore which is made by Scenocosme. This project connect the speaker with plants, and whenever people touch the plants, speakers will play different sounds. From my description, this project is less attractive, however, after watching the video, I do believe this project achieve a higher degree of interaction and at the same time, it creates a more intellectual conversation between human being and plants. Designers give the plants a way to express them vocally. We are so used to plants to be silent. They are sending the message that we cannot catch or understand. With this project, plants have more humanity and we are able to get feedback from the engagements we have with them. This is a two way communication, and surely provides audiences with more inspiration to think of the relationship between human being and nature in terms of having a engagement with plants.
For now, the interaction for me has changed a little bit after I learn up the theory of “human-centered” for design thinking from Norman. He claims that designers should consider human beings as the essential motivation to create something new. Norman also points out that design cannot be only for artistic enjoyment but also for exposing problems and searching for a solution for society. He writes that
“Instead of long periods of deep analysis, thought and planning, designers move rapidly to experimentation, to construction of artifacts or new procedures which they use to probe the world relevant to the issue at hand, using the responses as evidence on how to proceed. Instead of deep, abstract thought, it is deep embodied thought, embodied in action, in physical structure, and informed not by abstract principles but by the real evidence of the responses to the probe” (Norman).
From Norman and his theory of design thinking, I realize that I use to focus on the idea much more than on the physical appearance and completeness of projects. Ideas cannot survive without the support of the technological completeness. The process of interaction happens only when the project is both spiritual and physical attractive in a certain way. If we do not have a proper design for the project, our ideas will fail to convey to the users. Hence, now my definition of interaction adds more emphasis on the way that we take effort to show the process of the two way communication instead of just the core idea of the project. Therefore, my understanding now for interaction suggests that it should be the combination of both inspiring ideas and proper appearance. Besides, it is also important to distinguish the difference between amusement and inspiration when we intent to create something that is interactive.
Works Cited
Norman, Don. “The Future of Design: When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It.” Jnd.org, Jnd.org, 3 Dec. 2018, jnd.org/the_future_of_design_when_you_come_to_a_fork_in_the_road_take_it/.
“Irrational Geometrics, 2005-2016.” Pascal Dombis, dombis.com/works/irrational-geo/.
“The Art Cricket | Irrational Environments: Pollock & Dombis.” Theartcricket, www.theartcricket.com/blog-13012018.
Dombis, Pascal. “Pascal Dombis, Irrational Geometrics.” YouTube, YouTube, 12 Oct. 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwgxHFIHM9c.
Lasserre, Gregory, et al. “Scenocosme – Digital Art – Interactive Art.” Scenocosme Art NumĂ©rique Interactif, CrĂ©ation Artistique, Installation Immersive Innovante, www.scenocosme.com/akousmaflore_en.htm.