P H Y S I C A L C O M P U T I N G

Myron Krueger's article, "Responsive Environments," was an interesting description of the construction of several pioneering interactive art pieces. Krueger's initial experiments attempting to identify the correct balance between the responsive nature of the piece and audience awareness was particularly fascinating. The author raised several questions: should the viewer be aware that an art piece is responding? Should the user be aware exactly what responses their actions generate? (Krueger eventually concludes that the user should be generally aware of how the piece is responding).

While reading the piece, I could not help but consider my largely negative responses to many "interactive" art pieces I have encountered. During trips to galleries, I am prone to falling in love with a painting or a sculpture or an installation, but usually dismiss interactive pieces displayed. On the other hand, I have always been fascinated by using some form of a computer as an artistic medium...

At first I assumed that my generalized disinterest was purely from lack of exposure to interactive works. Originally, this probably was the case since my main artistic experience was in static mediums. However, I started to appreciate the potential of interactive art after being captivated by an installation called 'Listening Post', at the Whitney a couple of years ago. The piece consisted of several suspended panels (maybe 10 feet long) filled with LED panels. A phrase or word was chosen at random and live data from various chat rooms was printed across the LED screens. The screens seemed to light up in a somewhat random order (sometimes they were all off) and were syncopated with a voice reading particular chat room clips and chimes. The overall effect was impressive and beautiful. A word such as "peaches" would prompt text from porno sites, farmers in Idaho, cooking groups, band discussions, etc..

However, a key aspect of the above piece is that it did not require any work on my part to elicit the intended results. At least in theory, putting forth a personal effort to arrive at the result of a piece is a rewarding experience. Yet at crowded galleries, it is almost impossible to put forth the necessary focus and participation to properly appreciate a piece. After recognizing this phenomenon, I explicitly attempted to exert a concerted effort in to understanding interactive pieces and began noticing some trends in the medium that perhaps had been another aspect in my perceived difficulty in enjoying interactive pieces.

In particular, I was disturbed by some pieces that expected a particular and controlled response from a user and reacted in a rigid manner to make a single point. In the lab I work at, I was fortunate enough to watch the development and progress of an interactive art piece that was very successful - it won multiple awards and was shown around the world. The project involved a spotlight that tracked unsuspecting individuals in large open spaces (later auditory input was added - the targeted person could hear messages that others in the area, but others nearby could not). The expected result of the project was that people would be surprised and perhaps alarmed at being targeted - however in most of the testing this rarely was the reaction nor feeling that participants expressed. Especially in a warehouse or gallery setting, the spotlight itself became uninteresting. In fact, I found the most interesting part of the piece was the behind scenes video running the clustering algorithm used to track people in large crowded scenes… the algorithm involved sampling hundreds (thousands ?) of points and was overlaid on live video - the results were striking. However, even though most did not react as intended and the piece did not create the suspicious and alarmist setting desired, the original concept was not modified .

In the class discussion of the reading, others voice similar sentiments regarding Krueger's descriptions of interactive works. In particular, Krueger's requirement that the numer of participants in a piece be limited raised criticism. Having a narrow scope for a piece and not evolving with the actual circumstances of the situation is a fundamental flaw. As a viewer, I find being forced to react or interpret a piece in a set manner alienating for several reasons. The first reason is that the artist is trying to "control" the situation - which is an impossible goal and perhaps much less interesting than more organic events. Second, truly powerful pieces speak to many senses/interpretations - a work should allow for different ways of thinking, viewing etc - and not be reduced to a single punch line.

My final reason is more of a personal mission statement that many will perhaps disagree with :: in my own mind I have defined art as being in part a subconscious process. When one reaches the point where she is completely involved in working on an idea and the subconscious guides through the pitfalls and numerous questions that need to be solved and answered - art is created. When this occurs, the original idea is usually modified. Art is more than the execution of a single idea - it should be an evolution of an idea.

Project drawings and concept can be found here.