From what I am understanding in this article, is that the writer believes most electronic and technological art has failed to not serve a purpose. Most art in this nature must posses a purpose for being created, it must be productive to humans in some sense. That we as humans have a complex nature with these objects, they surround our everyday lives, and how we desire the changes they create.
It’s interesting to consider most of our electronic gadgets as being comprised of two things: the electronic object, and the electronic technology. One being the “brain” or programming and circuits and chips that are what make the device function, and the other being the device that houses” the first part. Like in our phones, in an iPhone or Android you have the internal hardware that makes all the programming run, but then they have also carefully designed the outer shell to be both aesthetically pleasing and function smoothly and allow for easy control of the internal processing. Phones used to have small screens and large buttons, which make using them slow and cumbersome; now they’ve evolved to touch screens and allow for a more fluid functionality.
Neil Denari’s argument for combining and connecting our architecture to the world of electromagnetism and spatial inhabitation is a very interesting thing to consider. While we have begun to do just that in a few places, it would be interesting to see how much it will have advanced in the future. Instead of introducing smart objects into the home, actually building the home to function as a smart object. The results could be both astonishing and frightening. I know I’ve seen enough sci-fi movies where smart houses mess you up that I would be a little concerned. But I think for the most part it would be an amazing difference in quality of life.