I think that the “Living Skins” of
buildings are both plausible and implausible for the future. They are
plausible because they obviously already have made an appearance in
society as the article showed in its examples. It is an interesting
way to engage the public and make typical, commercial spaces more
interesting and interactive.

However, this is also implausible
because it is usually true that not everyone will agree upon what
idea should be used for the space everyone has to share. With large
commercial buildings, such as the ones we have in Chicago, this can
be an issue. The more people are involved in changing an environment
they are in almost everyday, the more discrepancies there will be
based on what should be done to change that environment. For people
who don’t have an interest in art or technology this may also be
seen as an unnecessary expense.

However, this may impact our future
positively in two ways. When something is new and exciting for the
public, we are more likely to spend more time with it. This buzz
around downtown areas may trigger people to spend more time there and
therefore more money, which might stimulate our economy. New or
renovated spaces also usually influence people to keep these areas
clean, reducing city pollution.

Gaming factors into this because
creating an interactive piece (no matter how large or small) engages
people to further explore the possibilities of the art. One idea can
lead to another, so these buildings and their “skins” may just be
the beginning of a game-like environment. If one person adds a twist
or finds a new way to interact with the building this may cause a
chain effect for others to play with the work.