The article by Joshua Davis really struck true to me. I tend to try things rather than research them. When I'm working in Maya, I'll try to figure out how something would work or how to do it rather than look up one of the many tutorials online. There's, for me, more satisfaction in doing it myself than using the cheat codes of the internet. yeah that person has already done the bulk of the work for you and it frees up more time for you to do other things, but I feel like I cheated if I just rely on those tutorials. I think there is more room for happy accidents in Photoshop though. In programs like Maya, there just seems to be less room for improvisation, unless you want it to look unnatural, then you're fine. In Photoshop there are the different blend modes and filters that you can apply to your work that may give it an unexpected kick.
I enjoyed the article by Joshua Davis a lot more than the second article. Like Maxim Magazine, Joshua's article spoke to me while Ken Feingold's spoke down to me. Those articles are hard for me to read and I often times find my ADD kicks in when I'm forced to read these kinds of things.
If I was to do an interactive project, I would like to do a kind of machine where I could have people play with it, maybe make it do stupid things. I don't know really, I haven't thought in the realm of mechanics or that in depth of interactivity. Recently, while celebrating my birthday with some friends, I saw a fortune teller machine in the resturaunt we were eating in. It was one that was supposed to tell you your future job by placing your hand on a metal plate. It was pretty darn acurate I'd say. It said I was going to be an Artist. I don't know how they do it, but I was impressed. There are just somethings that you don't want to learn the secrets behind. It's fun to believe in magic.