Intimate Aesthetics and Facilitated Interaction

  • Lian Loke
  • George Poonkhin Khut
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


With the recent emergence of intimate Live Art and performance practices in the past decades, involving artists and audiences interacting in close physical proximity and one-to-one communication, the body is brought centre stage as the site and material of aesthetic experience. Artists working with these modes of address aim to heighten and intensify the experience of the artwork, through the charged energy of face-to-face confrontation, exchange and close bodily proximity. Our particular interest as artistic practitioners is in intimate body-focused aesthetic experiences, mediated by digital technologies that explore the interactions between physiological processes, bodily sensation and subjectivity. In contrast to autonomous art objects that can be experienced by an individual without any assistance by others, we propose a model of aesthetic experience in which facilitation by artists and witnessing by others are integral components. The guidance and facilitation by artists through an experience is intended to provide safe structures and pathways within which a participant can surrender to the potentially immersive and reflective states of consciousness offered by the artwork. Our framework describes four stages of audience experience and participation that can be used to develop and evaluate body-based Live Art encounters: (1) Welcoming, (2) Fitting and Induction, (3) The Ride, and (4) Debriefing and Documentation. We show the application of our model through two case studies from our artistic practices, illustrating our particular perspective on evaluation as a form of facilitated critique and reflection for audience, as well as artists.


Aesthetic Experience Bodily Experience Lung Station Reflective State Core Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abramovic M, Celant G (2001) Marina Abramovic: public body: installation and objects, 1965–2001. Charta, New York/MilanGoogle Scholar
  2. Benford S, Giannachi G, Koleva B, Rodden T (2009) From interaction to trajectories: designing coherent journeys through user experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, pp 709–718Google Scholar
  3. Bilda Z, Costello B, Amitani S (2006) Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience. J CoDesign 2(4):225–238, Taylor and FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biserna E (2012) Exhibition reviews: ‘The Abramović Method’, PAC Padiglione d’Arte Contemporanea, Milan (March-June 2012), NECSUS. Eur J Media Stud 1(2):338–346Google Scholar
  5. Bishop C (ed) (2006) Participation. Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press, London/Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourriaud N (2002) Relational aesthetics. Les presses du reel (English trans), DjonGoogle Scholar
  7. Candy L (2014) Evaluation and experience in art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 25–48Google Scholar
  8. De Looz PA (2011) Pedro Reyes Brings Sanity to Brooklyn. In: Art in America, June 2011Google Scholar
  9. Dewey J (1934) Art as experience. Capricorn Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Edmonds E (2010) The art of interaction. Digit Creat 21(4):257–264CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmonds E (2014) Human computer interaction, experience and art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 11–23Google Scholar
  12. Forlizzi J, Battarbee K (2004) Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing Interactive Systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’04). ACM, New York, pp 261–268Google Scholar
  13. Grau O (2003) Charlotte Davies: Osmose. In: Virtual art, from illusion to immersion (Revised edition MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 193–211)Google Scholar
  14. Heddon D, Iball H, Zerihan R (2012) Come closer: confessions of intimate spectators in one to one performance. Contemp Theatre Rev 22(1):120–133, Special issue: live art in the UK, Taylor and FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Höök K, Sengers P, Andersson G (2003) Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’03). ACM, New York, pp 241–248Google Scholar
  16. Khut G (2006) Interactive art as embodied enquiry: working with audience experience. In: Edmonds E, Muller L, Turnbull LD (eds) Engage: interaction, arts & audience experience. Creativity and Cognition Studios Press, Sydney, pp 156–167Google Scholar
  17. Khut G (2007) The heart library project.
  18. Khut G, Muller L (2005) Evolving creative practice: a reflection on working with audience experience in cardiomorphologies. In: Anastasiou P, Smithies R, Trist K, Jones L (eds) Vital signs: creative practice & new media now. RMIT Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. Kortbek K, Grønbæk K (2008) Communicating art through interactive technology: new approaches for interaction design in art museums. In: Tollmar K, Jönsson B (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: building bridges. ACM international conference proceeding series, ACM, New York, vol 358, pp 229–238Google Scholar
  20. Latulipe C, Carroll EA, Lottridge D (2011) Love, hate, arousal and engagement: exploring audience responses to performing arts. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, pp 1845–1854Google Scholar
  21. Loke L, Khut GP, Kocaballi AB (2012) Bodily experience and imagination: designing ritual interactions for participatory live-art contexts. In: Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference (DIS ’12). ACM, New York, pp 779–788. doi:  10.1145/2317956.2318073,
  22. Muller E, Robertson T, Edmonds E (2006a) The object of interaction – the role of artefacts in interaction design, experience workshops. In: Proceedings of workshop, OZCHI 2006, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  23. Muller L, Turner G, Khut G, Edmonds E (2006b) Creating affective visualisations for a physiologically interactive artwork. IV 2006. Tenth international conference on information visualization, 2006, London. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 651–657Google Scholar
  24. O’Reilly S (2009) The body in contemporary art. Thames & Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Osthoff S (1997) Lygia Clark and Hélio Oiticica: a legacy of interactivity and participation for a telematic future. Leonardo 30:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saltz DZ (1997) The art of interaction: interactivity, performativity, and computers. J Aesthet Art Crit 55(2, Spring): 117–127, Perspectives on the arts and technologyGoogle Scholar
  27. Schechner R (2003) Performance theory. Routledge Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Shusterman R (2000) Performing live: aesthetic alternatives for the ends of art. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  29. Stenslie S (2010) Virtual touch – a study of the user and experience of touch in artistic, multimodal and computer-based environments. Oslo School of Architecture and Design, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. Stenslie S (2010) The blind theatre – 5 manifests for the female sensuality [Online]. Available:
  31. Turner V (1982) From ritual to theatre: the human seriousness of play. PAJ Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Gennep A (1960) The rites of passage. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Reprint 1977. Originally published 1960Google Scholar
  33. Vergine L (2000) Body art and performance. Skira Editore, MilanGoogle Scholar
  34. Warr T, Jones A (2000) The artist’s body. Phaidon Press Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Zerihan R (2009) One to one performance: a study room guide. Live Art Development Agency, London. Available at: Accessed 20 Feb 2014

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Design LabThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.College of Fine ArtsUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations