Writing down my thoughts and organizing the text: STUDIO DAYS – AN ARCHIVE OF/FOR THE CREATIVE PROCESS.
I think that the project has become more defined. I feel more comfortable with the idea that I am working to build a body of work which will lead to producing interactive objects. They will be the focus of the installation but they will not stand alone. The final project starts now, here in this studio. Everything that I do from now on can potentially exist in that final installation.
Only a month ago it became obvious that I needed a space to work in. I have been dragging this project since february. The fact is that I have no space at home and uni is far, and although there we (Digital Arts) have a room of our own, it is a bit difficult to get your set space.
Once I understood that I needed a space to do this project it also became clear that It had to be time bounded with the setting up of the show. That it had to be simplified in terms of technology and that I wouldn’t be satisfied with it having a technological aspect only, because even though I really want to develop my technical geeky skills, that is not enough for an experience and that doesn’t represent the way in which I carry my practice.
It also became quite important for me to document the whole process from beginning to end.
I could say that Interactive Art is a relatively unexplored territory for me, and that confronting my practice (a very much design based) with that interactive dimension adds a layer of inexpectability. I can’t yet understand where my practice is situated in Interactivity and I am obviously open to failure.
The history of Interactive Art is itself very recent and suggests that its emergence lies in the juxtaposition of art and technology. But how much of each should one add to the mixture and why do certain projects fail to create any meaning? Some suggest that the answer lies in the distinction between creative technologies and Interactive Art, and that your ability to understand that is what defines where your practice stands.
If I think of the most recent exhibition that I’ve been to that had that interactivity label, it is obvious that there was something missing. It seems like the concept was great because it makes the audience feel intrigued and excited to participate but after a few minutes into it there are no more surprises and the magic is gone. Is that we want out of interactive experiences? The constant surprise effect? Endless combinations of outcomes? I am not entirely sure about what we, the audience, want out of an interactive experience.
I want my work to reside between technology and human response ,to create a meaningful experience. I wish to use technology as ways to produce meaning and to follow an aesthetic trajectory that allows for the recognition of new qualities in human experience that go beyond the technological dimension into new forms of experience and artistic practice.