Interactions are all around us, yet it can be difficult to visualize them on paper…
That being said it is important to try in order to understand the mechanics in which these interactions can be modeled and replicated for use in interactive installations. The specific interaction will likely convey the most important elements of a work due to its corporeal proximity to the viewer, or interactee if you will.
For example, how would one interact with the blockchain aside from conducting a transaction or personally coding your own blockchain network? Could it possibly be sonified as to allow the interactee to interpret the copious amounts of information through sound? How could it be visualized? The hashes for single transactions and entire blocks are made up of simple hexadecimal strings; a format of information that can be translated into practically anything–color and sound included.
Another example that is immediately pressing is the effect of man-made noise on the internal functions of our bodies. Obviously, research on this has been conducted at the scientific level for years but the question lies with the average person’s understanding of this continuous bombardment they are undergoing. Is everyone going to be able to understand the dense research papers on this topic or do they need to have an experiential understanding? Can providing a juxtaposition of urban vs. natural environments help to promote new awareness? We can close our eyes but we can’t close our ears, so is it only the sonic component that matters, or is a visual component important to include as well?
One last example I’m pondering lately revolves around the effect of the government on the natural world. How is it appropriate for officials to decide the use of land in this country? Yes, I understand the concept of highest and best use but since when did convening with nature get knocked off the totem pole? In a time when it is clear that energy should be coming from sources with little to now planetary detriment, why are oil and logging still so prevalent? I think this interaction relates to the previous example and it will be very important for these two instances, and an understanding of their underlying effects, to be made available for a larger population so that something might actually change.
Is it wrong for me to think that it could actually make a difference? Is it bad to think that the accepted uses of technology are the wrong uses? I’m in a program that is promoting the continuing evolution and invention of technology, but can I hate where technology is going and what it is doing to us on a subconscious level?