Interactive Narrativity in The Context of Participatory Arts, Power and Social Change
(Essay for the Research Festival)
Introduction
This thesis investigates how interactive narrativity within participatory arts can challenge societal power structures and foster social change. Beginning with "Art and Social Change," it explores how art acts as a catalyst for imagination, dialogue, and critical reflection, contributing to discussions about power, identity, and transformation. The section "Reflecting Power in Art" delves into theoretical perspectives from thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Rancière to understand how power dynamics are represented and can be subverted in art. "Interaction in Computational Arts" extends this exploration into the digital realm, analyzing how digital technologies reshape the dynamics between artists and audiences, often introducing new forms of control. Finally, "My Practical Based Research on Interaction and Power" reflects on my own art practice, evaluating how my projects attempt to engage audiences critically while navigating the tensions between artist control and audience agency.
Art and Social Change
Art has long served as a potent catalyst for social change, transcending aesthetic boundaries to engage with ethical, political, and cultural dimensions. It sparks imagination and dialogue, fostering critical consciousness that can lead to both personal reflection and collective action. This section explores how participatory and interactive art practices offer new ways to perceive, question, and challenge societal structures, contributing to discussions about power, identity, and transformation.
Imagination
Herbert Marcuse, a member of the Frankfurt School, argued in The Aesthetic Dimension (1978) that art possesses the potential to imagine alternative realities beyond the constraints of the current system. He emphasized that art's ability to evoke emotional and intellectual responses can foster a "radical imagination," encouraging audiences to question their social conditions and consider possibilities for transformation (Marcuse, 1978). Art, in his view, expands the horizon of what is imaginable and achievable in terms of social change.
Similarly, Maxine Greene asserts that art cannot be separated from ethical, political, and social spheres. Her concept of "releasing the imagination" suggests that art's transformative power lies in awakening individuals to new ways of thinking and seeing, fostering deeper engagement with societal issues (Greene, 1995). Through engaging with art, individuals are encouraged to critically assess dominant ideologies and power relations, paving the way for personal and societal transformation.
An example is Olafur Eliasson's The Weather Project (2003) at Tate Modern, where he created an enormous artificial sun using mirrors to transform the space into a reflective world. Visitors could lie on the ground, observe their reflections, or bask in the golden glow. This installation challenged perceptions of natural phenomena, prompting reflection on humanity's fragile connection with nature. Eliasson's work exemplifies how art can present new possibilities for addressing environmental issues, inviting audiences to engage emotionally and sensorially in discussions about social change.
Dialogue
Nicolas Bourriaud's concept of "relational aesthetics" highlights how contemporary art practices, especially participatory and interactive art, create social spaces for interaction and dialogue (Bourriaud, 2002). For Bourriaud, relational art focuses on the interhuman relations it produces rather than the aesthetic object. Participatory art thus functions as a social laboratory where new modes of interaction can be tested, blurring the roles of artist and audience. This framework suggests that art can serve as a microcosm for social change, fostering new ways of relating that challenge existing societal hierarchies.
Grant Kester extends this idea with his theory of dialogical aesthetics, emphasizing dialogue and collaboration in socially engaged art. In Conversation Pieces (2004), he argues that participatory art facilitates conversations among diverse participants, generating shared critical awareness of social issues. This dialogical process allows for co-construction of meaning, where participants collectively reflect on their roles in society and explore possibilities for change (Kester, 2004). Unlike traditional art forms that often reinforce passive consumption, dialogical art invites active participation and empowers individuals to engage critically with the world.
Suzanne Lacy's The Roof is on Fire exemplifies this approach. In this project, 200 teenagers sat on car roofs in Oakland, publicly discussing issues related to race, gender, violence, and everyday life. Lacy aimed to break mainstream media stereotypes of youth, offering a platform for teenagers to share their struggles and perspectives directly with the public.
Perception
Jacques Rancière's notion of the "distribution of the sensible" examines how art shapes our perception and understanding of the world. In The Politics of Aesthetics (2004), Rancière argues that art determines what is visible, sayable, and thinkable within a society. By challenging and reconfiguring this distribution, art can disrupt dominant ideologies and create new forms of political subjectivity (Rancière, 2004). Art is thus seen as an active agent in shaping perceptions and experiences of reality, holding the potential to break down hierarchies that define social and political life.
Beatriz da Costa's PigeonBlog is an artwork related to this belief, which involved equipping pigeons with small sensors to monitor air pollution during their flights, sharing the data with the public through blogs. This project used technology to intuitively illustrate air pollution, effectively raising environmental awareness.
Furthermore, Paulo Freire's concept of "conscientization" (critical consciousness) is essential in understanding how art can serve as a tool for social empowerment (Freire, 1970). Freire believed that education, including artistic education, should involve active reflection and action, enabling individuals to recognize and challenge oppressive social structures. In the context of interactive and participatory art, this suggests that art can foster critical reflection, encouraging audiences to question societal power structures.
An example is Ai Weiwei's Fairytale (2007). It invited 1,001 Chinese citizens to Kassel, to participate in Documenta. The project explored issues of individual freedom, social control, identity, migration, and nationhood. Through their participation, individuals reflected on their roles within globalization, while audiences contemplated global migration and state control. This critical exploration resonates with Freire’s concept of critical consciousness.
Society
Pitirim Sorokin's theory of social and cultural dynamics further elucidates the relationship between art and societal change. Sorokin argues that art reflects prevailing cultural values and undergoes cyclical changes alongside shifts in these values. He distinguishes between three primary cultural types: sensate culture (focusing on material reality and sensory experience), ideational culture (emphasizing spiritual and abstract ideals), and idealistic culture (balancing the material and the spiritual) (Sorokin, 1985). According to Sorokin, art serves as both a reflection of societal values and a potential force for change as these values evolve.
The London-based art commissioning agency Artangel has adjusted its strategies in response to social and economic changes, reflecting contemporary societal issues. In its funded works, Rachel Whiteread's House (1993) was a public art piece that cast a cement mold of a demolished house. Situated on an empty plot in East London, it symbolized lost homes and forgotten histories, responding to the sense of loss amid rapid urbanization and transformation. The project prompted public reflection on identity and belonging in the face of urban change. Similarly, Steve McQueen's Queen and Country (2006–2010) commemorated British soldiers who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The work featured stamps depicting fallen soldiers' portraits and was funded by both private and public sources. This project reflected public attitudes toward war and its social trauma. PJ Harvey's Recording in Progress (2015) transformed her album recording process into a public art performance. Audiences watched the recording sessions through a one-way glass wall, witnessing music creation in real time. This project bridged music and art, exploring new modes of artistic interaction and dissemination in the digital age.
Theodor Adorno, a key figure in discussions of art's capacity for resistance and social change, argued that in a commodified capitalist society—where culture is reduced to mass consumption products—genuine art offers a form of resistance. In Aesthetic Theory (1997), he posited that art holds a critical, autonomous space separate from everyday life, allowing it to resist commodification pressures and offer a "negative dialectic" to reveal contradictions inherent in modern society. Art's capacity to resist social norms lies in its ability to operate outside capitalism's instrumental logic, encouraging a critical stance toward societal structures shaping daily life.
Chantal Mouffe's work on agonistic pluralism offers another perspective on art's engagement with social change. Contrary to the ideal of consensus-based democracy, Mouffe argues that conflict and disagreement are inherent in democratic societies. Art, according to Mouffe, can create spaces where these antagonisms become visible, allowing for dissent and contestation of dominant power relations (Mouffe, 2007). Interactive and participatory art can thus explore societal tensions and contradictions, making visible struggles often obscured by a facade of harmony.
This relationship between art and cultural change is further complicated by the rise of participatory and interactive art practices, which actively engage audiences in creating meaning and social critique. Joseph DeLappe and Laura Leuzzi explore how contemporary artists use technology and social participation to engage with political and social issues. DeLappe highlights the role of digital platforms in expanding the reach of political art, using examples from his work involving online games and virtual environments as spaces for political protest (Burrough and Walgren, 2022). This aligns with Kester's theory of dialogical aesthetics, where art becomes a space for public discourse and collective reflection rather than a static object to be consumed.
However, Chantal Mouffe provides a critical lens on art's role in democratic societies, emphasizing that art's purpose is not necessarily to resolve conflicts but to offer a forum where differences can be expressed and negotiated (Mouffe, 2007). Interactive art, by encouraging participation and dialogue, can function as a space for contesting dominant narratives and power structures, fostering democratic engagement and social critique.
In summary, art's transformative potential lies not only in inspiring individuals but also in reshaping collective perceptions and fostering social engagement. Through imagination, dialogue, and critical reflection, artists challenge dominant ideologies, offering alternative perspectives on pressing societal issues. As interactive and participatory art practices evolve, they provide fertile ground for exploring new possibilities of social change, encouraging audiences to actively participate in reimagining and reshaping the world.
Reflecting Power in Art
Power is a central concept in social, political, and cultural theory, essential for analysing its representation and manipulation in participatory and interactive art. Michel Foucault redefined the understanding of power in contemporary society, arguing that it is diffused and pervasive throughout all levels of society—not merely localized in institutions of authority. Power manifests not only through repression but also through the production of knowledge and regulation of desires and behaviours (Foucault, 1980). His concept of "disciplinary power" illustrates how individuals internalize social norms and expectations, extending control beyond overt force into self-regulation.
Foucault's notion of power is evident in interactive and participatory art, where power is exerted through both the content and the mode of audience participation. In Tania Bruguera's Tatlin’s Whisper #5 (2008), two mounted policemen directed audience movement in the Tate Modern gallery through gestures and commands. This act of controlling the audience mimicked coercive power structures, forcing viewers to reflect on their roles within societal power systems. Bruguera revealed the latent power governing daily life, encouraging critical reflection on power and control complexities in society. Echoing Freire's theory of critical consciousness, the artwork drives viewers to reflect on structures of oppression by allowing them to experience control processes firsthand.
Interactive art often invites viewers to engage in ways that grant them agency within the artistic experience. Nicolas Bourriaud, who coined "relational aesthetics," examined power's role within participatory art. He contends that relational art practices reconfigure the audience's role, shifting them from passive consumers to active contributors in creating meaning (Bourriaud, 2002). In Tropicália (1967), Hélio Oiticica encouraged viewers to enter and experience constructed environments, allowing them to walk, touch, and perceive the artwork—thereby becoming part of it. This directly challenged the "disciplinary power" traditionally exercised by the artist or institution, which controlled the art experience. Oiticica's work responded to social oppression under Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1960s, revealing art's potential to liberate thought and challenge societal power structures.
This relational shift allows new forms of social interaction and engagement. François Matarasso notes that such art redefines the artist-audience relationship, allowing non-professional participants to contribute to meaning-making, undermining hierarchical structures traditionally associated with artistic creation (Matarasso, 2019).
However, while this process appears to empower participants, scholars like Claire Bishop caution that simply involving participants doesn't necessarily dismantle systemic power structures (Bishop, 2012). Participatory art aims to democratize the artist-audience relationship, but artists often retain ultimate control over participation's structure and outcome. In Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, Bishop argues that interactive art frequently maintains hierarchical structures, with artists controlling interaction parameters. For instance, in Santiago Sierra's works, low-income individuals are hired to perform simple tasks, such as moving objects or sitting still during exhibitions. While these individuals participate in the artwork, their involvement is limited to following instructions, leaving the artist in control of the artistic process. Thus, the artist retains significant authority despite appearing to redistribute creative power.
Bishop further criticizes forms of participatory art that, while seemingly empowering the audience, remain symbolic gestures failing to enact meaningful social change. For example, Rirkrit Tiravanija's Untitled (Free) (1992) involved serving free food in a gallery and inviting viewers to dine together. While this piece broke traditional artistic forms and created space for social interaction, Bishop argues that such art creates only a temporary sense of participation without generating lasting social impact or driving change.
Similarly, Grant Kester challenges the notion that participatory art fosters genuine empowerment, arguing that it often provides only a simulation of democratic engagement (Kester, 2004). He critiques interactive projects that present an illusion of audience agency while maintaining the artist's control over the process and outcome. This calls into question the extent to which interactive art can genuinely redistribute power, particularly when the artist retains authority over engagement terms.
In the essay "The Uses of Democracy" (1992), Jacques Rancière notes that "participation in what we normally refer to as democratic regimes is usually reduced to a question of filling up the spaces left empty by power." Participatory art seems to act as a socialist structure, allowing those previously excluded from the art world to participate. However, in reality, it may be a method through which the ruling class retains actual power while symbolically transferring a small sense of control to other social strata (Bishop, 2012).
Steven Lukes offers another critical perspective with his theory of the "three dimensions of power" (Lukes, 2005). His framework is useful for understanding subtle, invisible forms of power in interactive art. The first dimension focuses on observable decision-making; the second examines how certain issues are kept off the agenda—what he calls "non-decisions." The third and most crucial dimension involves shaping people's preferences, thoughts, and desires without their awareness.
This form of power is highly relevant to interactive art, where audience participation can function as ideological critique. By engaging viewers in meaning creation, interactive art can reveal hidden control structures operating in everyday life, compelling participants to recognize their complicity within these systems. In Pipilotti Rist's Pixel Forest (2016), for example, digital technologies metaphorically manipulate emotions and desires through sensory stimuli. While the audience actively engages with the artwork, their behavior is guided by the installation's parameters. This invisible control mechanism reflects Lukes' third dimension, prompting viewers to reflect on how technology influences their perceptions and emotions in today's digital age.
Jacques Rancière offers a nuanced view of the relationship between power, participation, and spectatorship. In The Emancipated Spectator (2009), he argues against the assumption that active participation necessarily leads to empowerment. He suggests that the traditional distance between artist and audience is not inherently oppressive. Instead, true emancipation comes from creating spaces where the audience can engage critically, interpreting the work on their own terms rather than being drawn into a pre-designed participatory process.
Rancière's view complicates the active/passive binary by suggesting that reflection and interpretation can be as empowering as physical participation. The goal is not to eliminate the distance between artist and audience but to cultivate spaces where spectators become critical agents in their own right. His concept of the "emancipated spectator" offers an alternative view of empowerment based on critical engagement rather than participation.
Jenny Holzer's Truisms (1977–1979) presents thought-provoking phrases addressing social, political, gender, and cultural issues in public spaces. Phrases like "Abuse of Power Comes as No Surprise" prompt audiences to reflect on social structures and personal stances through unconscious reading. Similarly, Barbara Kruger's Untitled (Your Body is a Battleground) addressed debates on women's reproductive rights, highlighting tensions between the body, power, and societal control. These works help viewers recognize how power structures shape their lives, fostering awareness of influencing forces.
The shift from active involvement to reflective interpretation provides a framework for examining how interactive art might challenge power—not by involving the audience directly in creating the work but by encouraging critical reflection on their role within broader societal power structures (Bishop, 2012).
In summary, participatory art exposes both visible and invisible ways power operates within society. By encouraging audience participation and reflection, such artworks reveal complexities of control, agency, and empowerment. While participatory practices offer spaces for dialogue and engagement, the balance of power often remains contested. This discussion provides a foundation for exploring how computational arts use interactivity to engage audiences in complex power dynamics.
Interaction in Computational Arts
Building on the discussion of power in participatory art, we explore how digital technologies reshape the dynamics among artists, viewers, and societal control systems. By engaging audiences as active participants, computational art blurs the lines between creator and observer, prompting reflection on technology, control, and societal change. This interaction extends the dialogue from traditional participatory practices into the digital domain, where new forms of control emerge.
As art historian Claire Bishop suggests, participatory art inherently challenges traditional hierarchical structures by involving viewers as co-creators of meaning (Bishop, 2012). In computational art, this co-creation is often shaped by the audience's interaction with digital systems, mirroring real-world power structures. Walter Benjamin noted that art’s transformative potential lies in shifting viewers from passive spectators to active participants—transforming "consumers" into "producers" (Benjamin, 1968). This shift aligns with computational art, where meaning arises through audience participation.
Olia Lialina’s My Boyfriend Came Back From the War (1996) exemplifies this dynamic, presenting a fragmented, interactive narrative. Users navigate HTML frames, revealing different images and text sequences, allowing each viewer to shape their own story. This engagement demonstrates how digital artworks invite audiences to construct meaning.
However, while such works foster critical reflection, their ability to effect tangible social transformation remains debated. For instance, Harun Farocki’s Serious Games I–IV invites participants into military simulations to critique the normalization of militarization, subtly shaping viewers' perceptions and beliefs—a phenomenon Steven Lukes describes as the "third dimension of power" (Lukes, 2005). Similarly, Julian Oliver’s Surveillance Speaker exposes participants to the invasive nature of surveillance by replaying their monitored conversations, highlighting issues of privacy and autonomy. Yet both works ultimately position viewers in a contemplative rather than active role, stopping short of providing tools for real-world resistance. These examples underscore a common critique of participatory art: while it raises awareness, it often lacks the means to facilitate concrete social change (Lozano-Hemmer, 2015).
Scholars have raised concerns about participatory art’s tendency to stop at symbolic gestures, providing audiences with awareness but limited tools for actionable change. For example, Søren Harrebye argues that without deeper engagement, participatory practices can leave viewers with a sense of understanding while offering little empowerment to challenge underlying structures (Harrebye, 2016). Furthermore, Thomas Tufte notes that participatory art often assumes that involvement in an artistic process will naturally lead to empowerment, which is not always the case. Without deeper structural engagement, these artworks risk replicating the very power dynamics they aim to disrupt (Tufte, 2017).
These critiques have significant implications when applied to computational art, where digital interaction is often shaped by preset parameters in the code, restricting the potential for true agency. Interactions are often limited by the artist’s framework or the digital platform's constraints, potentially mirroring existing hierarchies rather than subverting them.
Similarly, Linje Manyozo’s assertion that participatory art may inadvertently reinforce the power structures it seeks to critique (Manyozo, 2012) is particularly relevant in digital contexts. Alexander R. Galloway’s concept of "protocol" highlights how control operates in decentralized digital networks, where power is enforced not through central authority but through coded standards governing digital interaction (Galloway, 2004). These protocols, while seemingly neutral, subtly restrict user actions, creating an invisible framework of control. Galloway's perspective emphasizes that even in open digital spaces, power structures persist, reinforcing hierarchies through coded limitations. Computational artworks, governed by programmed boundaries, may guide users through specific pathways without enabling real disruption to systemic power.
Claire Bishop, in her analysis, also highlights the potential pitfalls of participatory art by emphasizing that while it democratizes the creative process, it can confine participants to predetermined roles within the artwork's framework, thus reinforcing existing hierarchies (Bishop, 2012). This reflects a broader critique of interactive art: while it enables viewers to engage critically with power dynamics, it often falls short in facilitating direct or sustained social transformation.
In summary, computational art encourages audiences to reflect on issues of power and control, though its potential to enable real change may sometimes be constrained by digital frameworks and preset codes. While it opens spaces for critical engagement, these interactions can occasionally remain more symbolic than empowering.
My Practical Based Research on Interaction and Power
Based on my understanding of the role of art in social change, my MA-level art research focuses on issues of power, aiming to guide the audience to reflect on the invisible forces in society that subtly influence our behaviors and perspectives.
In Unit 1, inspired by a specific social protest, the subsequent treatment of the protesters, and the government’s report on the incident, I delved into areas of social power, control, government propaganda, information dissemination on social media, and shifts in public discourse.
Foucault’s theories have profoundly influenced my understanding of the relationship between knowledge and control. In designing an art installation that explores the power of discourse, I referenced Foucault’s concept of the “panopticon,” applying it to the design of an interactive system to reveal the omnipresence of power. The image 1 shows the artwork Waves. As Foucault stated, power is not only localized within institutions of authority but permeates every layer of society; my work attempts to present this within the interactive system. In the installation, a central speaker plays the user’s voice, while surrounding speakers connected through internet technology broadcast sounds from social media and news in real-time, creating an atmosphere of public opinion. When the user speaks, their voice is recorded and played along with societal sounds, with ripples forming on the liquid surface symbolizing the dissolution of individual discourse within public opinion, suggesting the potential shaping of individual ideas by society. Through this setup, the artwork allows the audience to feel their marginalized position within social discourse. Although they appear to have the right to express themselves, the interactive process is constrained by predefined rules, embodying Foucault’s notion of “disciplinary power”—that power influences individual behavior through regulation. Additionally, by displaying dynamic information from social media and news, the work reveals the hidden control interwoven with power and knowledge, making the audience aware that the knowledge they encounter is filtered by social power structures.
Image 1: Artwork Waves
Waves seeks to artistically present Foucault’s theories on the shaping of personal perspectives and the influence of social opinion, while exploring issues of discourse power through audience participation. However, as Claire Bishop pointed out, the roles of the artist and the audience are not equal, a reality also reflected in my work. Although the audience can participate by inputting their voice to receive visual feedback, this interaction essentially remains confined within the framework I’ve established. The artist acts as the architect and enforcer of power within the installation, while the audience can only act within guided boundaries, akin to being an observed participant within a “panopticon,” forced to follow a predetermined path. Furthermore, while this interactive experience seems to grant the audience space for self-expression, it effectively becomes a form of “symbolic participation.” Despite the diversity of voices, their responses ultimately circulate within similar patterns due to the limitations of the system structure, failing to break through the existing power framework. This limitation exposes a common paradox in participatory art: while critiquing power structures, the work itself becomes enmeshed in a similar system of control.
The work Individuals is a supporting project to Waves yet holds independent value, meriting in-depth analysis. By labeling identical potatoes with different names and prices, the work illustrates how power in human society classifies and evaluates individuals through labels (image 2). This labeling presentation prompts the audience to reflect on how labels affect individual behavior and self-perception, questioning the relationship between external labels and intrinsic qualities, and emphasizing individuality and autonomy. By allowing the audience to select and place the potatoes, the work encourages them to consider the contradictions between social identity, value judgments, and individual essence, challenging traditional systems of social classification and value evaluation. It highlights the conflict between one’s intrinsic nature and societal identity, inviting reflection on social power and value judgments and encouraging a re-evaluation of the relationship between individual identity and collective society.
Image 2: Artwork Individuals
However, in terms of interaction between the audience and the artwork, the impact is limited. Guided by the artist, the audience selects a potato and places it where they feel appropriate. The artist’s expectation of this behavior is a reflective practice that explores the conflict between individual roles, destiny, and intrinsic qualities. However, from the audience’s perspective, they are merely being guided to find an appropriate spot for a potato. Lacking narrative support, the audience may feel confused, struggling to grasp the deeper meaning behind their actions, potentially viewing this interaction as merely an “interesting game” rather than an art experience that evokes thought. This form of symbolic participation, while granting the audience a certain degree of freedom, fails to deeply provoke contemplation of social labels and individual essence, potentially rendering the interaction superficial. This limitation contrasts with Rirkrit Tiravanija’s Untitled (Free), which, through an open interactive form, allows the audience to freely socialize and communicate, constructing a more authentic network of relationships.
In my work for Unit 1, I attempted to explore the positioning of individuals under social power structures and identity labels. However, limitations persisted in terms of deep interaction and co-construction with the audience, as most participants remained at the level of “symbolic participation” without achieving profound critical reflection. I realized that a completely artist-designed interactive process often fails to sustain audience interest in a real exhibition setting. These observations led me to reconsider the interactive design of the work, recognizing the importance of simplifying interactive logic, enhancing immediate feedback, and, importantly, focusing on increasing the audience’s agency, allowing them to be not just participants but co-creators of the work.
In Unit 2, to address the issues identified in Unit 1, I applied more direct interaction methods to lower audience participation barriers and further delve into themes such as social power dynamics, public media dissemination, and the shaping of individual perspectives. Inspired by the “disappearance” of Chinese laborers in international discourse within archive research, I began to contemplate the interplay between social power and discourse, attempting to use art to express the influence of information manipulation and power on individual cognition.
The work Darkside of the Moon (Image 3) is an interactive installation about post-truth and social power, designed to rotate so that the audience can only view a fixed side. This work symbolically expresses how online censorship and centralized discourse power influence public access to information, presenting a singular perspective. Inspired by the moon always showing one face to the Earth, only allowing us to see its illuminated side while the other remains hidden in darkness, it draws a parallel to public discourse, where information is often presented through a single perspective, concealing the truth and making it difficult for audiences to explore the full content behind it.
Image 3: Artwork Darkside of the Moon
Based on Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge, power is not only explicit control but also deeply rooted in the production and dissemination of knowledge. The rotation mechanism of the work restricts the audience to seeing only one side, metaphorically representing the singular perspective presented to the public after power filters information, preventing them from seeing the “truth behind the scenes.” This design reveals the invisible power control individuals encounter in information dissemination.
Compared to the more fixed interactive process in Waves, Darkside of the Moongrants the audience greater freedom of participation, allowing them to choose movement paths and observation positions to explore surface information through different strategies. As described by Steven Lukes in the “third dimension of power,” this work attempts to reveal how power subtly influences people’s cognition. Every attempt by the audience to uncover the truth is affected by the framework of power, symbolizing the continuous control individuals face in the information society. This design enhances the audience’s sense of exploration of the theme, prompting them to reflect on the power control hidden beneath the surface of information.
Despite the improvements in interaction, the experience of Moon still has limitations. The overheating and power reduction of the motor affected the smoothness of the installation’s rotation, reducing the immediacy of interaction. These technical issues limited the interactive effect of the installation, making the audience’s exploration experience less ideal.
On the level of interactive logic, although the audience was given greater freedom of choice, the work still did not fully escape the control and application of power as pointed out by Claire Bishop, where the artist retains control over the interactive process. Ultimately, the audience’s actions remained restricted by the predefined framework, allowing them only to “attempt to explore the truth” by changing positions, but they were powerless in the face of “exploration failures” caused by the rotation of the installation. This situation mirrors the dilemma faced by audiences in Harun Farocki’s Serious Games I-IV, where the artwork offers an opportunity to reflect on social power but fails to provide the tools for real-world resistance. It enhances the audience’s awareness without genuinely promoting social change.
In terms of narrative, I drew on the text art style of Barbara Kruger, using concise text and visual effects to convey the underlying control intentions embedded in seemingly neutral information by social power. Most audiences reported being able to quickly grasp the work’s themes of conspiracy theories, truth versus falsehood, online information, and political issues. However, this direct narrative style limited the audience’s associative space, lacking openness and metaphorical layers typical of art. Some audience members felt that while the work was informative, it lacked ambiguity, confining their thinking within the framework set by the artist, preventing deeper self-reflection.
In Unit 3, my research goal was to explore issues of power and control within interactive art, further contemplating the implicit inequality between the artist and the audience. Although I attempted to explore social power issues with the audience in previous projects, I realized that power relations in interactive art are quite subtle, with the artist still retaining significant control within the interactive framework of the work. Therefore, in the Unit 3 piece Ball of Truth (Image 4), I attempted to create a space for critical participation, allowing the audience to interpret the work in their own way, breaking free from the pre-designed participation process. By reducing the artist’s control over the audience’s behavior, the audience was given greater interpretative freedom during their participation, aiming to materialize Jacques Rancière’s concept of the “emancipated spectator” in an exhibition setting.
Image 4: Artwork Ball of the Truth
The artwork Ball of Truth combines wind power, audio, and visual interaction to explore the delicate relationship between political power and personal beliefs. The black metal base symbolizes the rigidity of power, while the suspended white balloon represents the fragility of individual beliefs, forming a strong visual and metaphorical contrast. The balloon’s suspension and trembling hint at the instability of beliefs under the influence of power, further emphasizing the tension between power and freedom. With the addition of audio, a sense of oppression is created in the exhibition space, allowing the audience to reflect on how power acts upon their beliefs within this atmosphere.
During the exhibition, I collected audience feedback to evaluate their responses to the work under different conditions. By testing the presence or absence of audio and enabling or disabling interactive features, I aimed to further understand whether the interactive framework designed by the artist limited the audience’s behavior and experience.
Without audio, the audience tended to relate the work’s visuals and dynamics to their personal experiences. Some considered the balloon a symbol of life’s uncertainty and fragility, while others viewed it as a symbol of eternity. This open interpretive quality aligns with Jacques Rancière’s concept of the “emancipated spectator,” allowing the audience greater freedom of interpretation without explicit guidance.
However, with the addition of debate audio related to the 2024 British Prime Ministerial election, the audience’s attention was drawn back to the political power issues the work sought to address. At this point, the audio not only reinforced the narrative but also heightened the atmosphere of anxiety and tension, with some viewers resonating with the sense of political anxiety reflected in the balloon’s instability under the wind’s influence.
Many pointed out that the work’s interactive mechanism reminded them of surveillance and power structures within society. The wind force and volume would change based on the audience’s distance and position. The audience felt a sense of invisible “being observed,” as their behavior was subtly “monitored” and “controlled” by the visual recognition system. This phenomenon reveals that power is not only a direct oppression but can also be achieved through suggestion and environmental control, as Foucault described: an invisible but omnipresent influence of power. In this design, the audience is not just a passive observer but also an “observed subject” within the interaction, where every action seems to be scrutinized by some invisible power. This experience prompts the audience to reflect on whether they are similarly monitored by power and societal norms in real life, sparking critical thoughts about personal freedom, privacy, and social surveillance.
On the other hand, for audiences who did not experience changes in wind force, they tended to view the work as a dynamic sculpture. When touching the balloon, they could feel its softness and fragility, which evoked internal emotions—whether relaxation, healing, or a potential unease. The act of touching the balloon is not only a physical interaction with the work but also a process of emotional release and free interpretation. The tactile experience brings emotional resonance, allowing the audience to find meaning related to their own experiences through this contact. Meanwhile, this free interaction model enables the audience to have a personalized experience, surpassing the interpretive framework set by the artist and allowing for richer self-reflection.
Additionally, I attempted to place white balloons outside the exhibition space, inviting the audience to record their personal experiences on them (Image 5). Although most did not associate these message balloons with the main exhibit in the gallery, this open interaction encouraged maximum freedom of participation, sparking creativity and a desire for self-expression. This part of the experiment shows that when the audience interacts in a completely free space, their enthusiasm for participation is higher, though it often strays from the original theme of the work.
Image 5: Artwork Narrative Ball
Unit 3’s practice reveals that achieving full audience empowerment within interactive art focused on power and control remains challenging. Although I attempted to grant the audience more free space through diversified interactions in Ball of Truth, narrative-driven works still require a certain framework to convey the core themes. There exists an irreconcilable tension between the audience’s freedom and narrative clarity; while complete openness enhances audience participation, it may dilute the expressive content of the work.
In summary, in my practice-based research on interaction and power, I created interactive art installations inspired by Foucault's concepts of disciplinary power, aiming to expose and critique societal power structures. However, as Claire Bishop points out, the artist often retains control over the interactive framework, resulting in symbolic participation rather than genuine audience empowerment. Despite efforts to enhance audience agency in works like Wavesand Ball of Truth, I found that the inherent power dynamics between artist and audience persist. This underscores the challenge of achieving true emancipation in interactive art, as the tension between guiding narratives and allowing interpretative freedom remains a significant obstacle in dismantling the very power structures the art seeks to critique.
Conclusion
This exploration of interactive narrativity within participatory arts underscores both its significant potential to challenge entrenched power dynamics and promote social change, and the complexities inherent in achieving this. While these art forms invite audiences to become active participants and co-creators, they often grapple with inherent tensions between narrative clarity and audience freedom, sometimes replicating the very power dynamics they aim to disrupt. Reflecting on theoretical insights and my own art projects, the thesis emphasizes the necessity for artists to navigate the delicate balance between guiding critical reflection and allowing interpretative freedom. Achieving genuine empowerment in interactive art requires a conscientious approach that addresses underlying power dynamics, contributing to a more equitable and reflective society.