Hey all! Sorry I wasn’t able to be at critiques on Thursday. Great job on all your projects! Here are my thoughts:
Ilana (“Moving Pollution”): I like that there was a definite connection between the image produced and the idea (“pollution”) behind your project. I think you should consider playing with some more complex relationship between the user’s action and the resulting change in the image, because it was a little predictable. I find it interesting that you kept a very similar color palatte between this project and your last one. Do you think you’ll continue that?
Eli (“Ode to Heavy Industries”): This was really poignant. I appreciated the simplicity of your font choice and your white on black, in your face visual. The irregularity of the text’s appearance got me thinking: my experience with consumer-targeting is that it is a nonstop barrage of propaganda, an onslaught of you-need-this-now word vomit without a moment’s hesitation. As the “voice” gets less confident, the message seemed to get more irregular, then more pulsating as it became more seductive… I am still thinking about what this means. I liked it a lot.
Thea (“Red Orange”): This was a really beautiful piece. I thought the color scheme was very soothing, and I was reminded of wheat blowing lazily in the midday sun. I think it would be nice to add that same “billowing” effect that you have when the mouse is still to the action that happens when the user moves the mouse, as if allowing the user to control the wind instead of directly moving the piece of wheat.
Stephanie: I liked how you seemingly restricted the random “movement” of the circles and ellipses to vertical and horizontal lines. I’m not sure if this was deliberate, or an optical illusion formed by all the ellipses having the same orientation, but either way, it was very effective. I would like it if the color transition didn’t jump quite as much at the end, I find it a tiny bit disruptive of the general flow of the piece. That said, the entire piece kind of reminded me of those little blips at the start of an old movie, so if that’s what you were going for, leave the jump, because it continues that effect.
Christine: Cool effect with the springing brushes. I had a hard time (as you said I might) getting the brushes to work, especially the lower one. Also, should changing the brushes cycle the background color? Because it did for me. Smart kid that I am, it took me a really long time to figure out what I was doing because my browser was set so I couldn’t see the instructions at first. It might make it easier if they were part of the piece itself, instead of written below it?
Justine (“Sins”): Wow. I think this is one of the most powerful pieces I’ve seen so far. I wonder how this ever came out of what you were originally playing with (You can make it stop…) I loved it. The quotes for each sin were beautifully chosen, and the resizing circles were visually great. I would have omitted the little red dot for the pointer. I think the circles could have done it on their own. Otherwise, wow.
Diana: Nice use of objects, especially their interaction with one another. I noticed that the big bubble always wins. It might be cool to randomize the winner. Also, I liked the randomness of the splatter in the squares and circles case, and it might be nice to be consistent by making the triangles random, too.
Nikki (“Newspaper Doodles”): This was a really great use of a common interaction (we all doodle on / deface newspapers at some point or another). I liked the bleeding effect; it was really powerful. I would like it if the first line didn’t return to normal when I start drawing a second line; I feel like the first should keep bleeding. I do like how the bleed seems to slow to a creep as it spreads out to cover almost the entire paper.
Samantha: Nice! I am reminded of a top-view of what happens when Mario hits one of the giant power buttons in Super Mario World for Super Nintendo and releases all the power-ups. Anyone? Anyone? No. But anyway, I like the illusion of multidimensionality in the piece. It’s very soothing to watch, and I’m glad you didn’t feel pressured to make it interactive.
Shae: What a great statement on sexual/gendered boxes we put ourselves into. When I got down to 4 matches remaining, I couldn’t click anymore. Was this a glitch, or intentional? At any rate, I thought it was a really beautiful vignette into the social space occupied by queer people of color.
Tonje: This is a really interesting idea, getting a computer to recognize emotion. I’m on the fence as to how I am interpreting this. On the one hand, I felt a little cheated, because the program only recognizes a specific set of emotions, and then sorts them in a somewhat predictable way. On the other hand, this is about all we can expect from computers, They are not capable of understanding emotion, the best we can hope for is a predictable yet appropriate response, and the notion of reducing the predictability while increasing the appropriateness of this response is the underpinning of human-like simulators. When I look at it from this latter perspective, I no longer feel cheated, but rather feel that you’ve struck to the heart of why machines will never truly replace human companionship, however hard we try. ☺
Marissa: I liked your visual a lot. It was a nice abstraction of a very comfortable and familiar scene, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It would be even more powerful if your grass wasn’t moving uniformly, but had some level of randomness as does real grass. Ditto the fireflies.
Sarah: Great use of an alternative input system. I haven’t quite figured out how all my actions affect the image, but the good part is that it’s continuing to keep me engaged, and I’ll probably keep playing with it for quite a while.
Check my site when you get the chance and see what you think of my static. Note: requires a working camera.