INTRODUCTION
Somaesthetics is a concept introduced by philosopher Richard Shusterman, which focuses on the body as both a locus of sensory appreciation and a site for cultivating heightened bodily awareness through aesthetic practice (1). This concept is useful to delineate a situated definition of interfaces in digital art. Drawing on David Rokeby’s assertion that “interaction is about encounter rather than control” (2), we propose an understanding of the interface that transcends mere functional control. This perspective challenges widely accepted notions, such as the standardisation of interaction modes and their functional role as intermediaries. It prompts reflection on the complexities of creating an interface that resists subordination.
The present research emerged from artistic practice through the creation of two interactive installations, which explore the interface as an artwork in its own right: ON/CONTACT and EN/GLOBE. In both works, people are invited to interact within a multimodal installation, which engages multiple sensory modalities while allowing the interface to serve as a platform for self-expression and creativity.
AN UNDERSTANDING OF INTERACTION
Reframing the interface and interaction beyond the concept of control creates opportunities for deeper connections and exchanges, fostering the development of diverse dynamic relationships between participants and the system.
Control is defined as “power or authority to guide or manage”, which translates into action as “to have power over”, and refers to “a function or mechanism used to regulate or guide the operation of a machine, apparatus, or system” (3). This notion primarily emphasises function and subordination, making it ideal for interactions that demand precision and efficiency to produce consistent outcomes aligned with the user’s intentions. However, “artists may specifically not want to exercise precise control over their works, preferring to let them gradually transform through the actions of spectators, without actually seeking to know where this transformation will lead” (4). They may explore alternative forms of interaction, to uncover unexpected and emergent outcomes.
In his text “Transforming Mirrors”, David Rokeby examines the implications of interactive media from the perspective of artists. He argues that such art functions as a mirror, reflecting participants back to themselves while situating their sense of self in relation to their environment. The dynamics of control and encounter are expressed through the interplay between the participant’s actions and the system’s responses, revealing how identification processes shape the relationship between them:
“Interaction is about encounter rather than control. The interactive artist must counter the video-game-induced expectations that the interactor often brings to interaction. Obliqueness and irony within the transformations and the coexistence of many different variables of control within the interactive media provide for a richer, though perhaps less ego-gratifying experience. […] The interactive artist must strike a balance between the interactor’s sense of control, which enforces identification, and the richness of the responsive system’s behaviour, which keep the system from becoming closed.” (5)
The idea of encounter proposed by Rokeby redefines the duality of control and entertainment by transforming the relationship between the user and the interface. This shift places emphasis on creative exploration, which lies at the heart of interactive art. It prioritises the process of engaging with the interface and the role of the interface itself, moving beyond a focus on the outcomes or results of that engagement.
An example of encounter emphasising bodily experience in interactive digital art can be found in Rokeby’s Very Nervous System (1986-1990), an interactive sound installation where video cameras and computers translate body movements into real-time audio (6). The installation employs a diffuse, invisible interface that fosters a dynamic, evolving relationship between the system and its participants. This constant feedback loop enables mutual influence, dissolving traditional notions of control into a deeply immersive encounter. As Rokeby describes it, “The interface becomes a zone of experience, of multi-dimensional encounter”.
Another example is Re:MARK by Golan Levin and Zachary Lieberman (2002). This installation uses voice analysis, motion sensing and real-time animation to transform speech into animated letters and shapes that appear to rise from the speaker’s shadow. Participants can interact with these forms by manipulating them with their own body shadows. Recognised phonemes are displayed as letters, while unrecognised speech generates abstract shapes that reflect the vocal timbre. As the artists describe it, “The result is a playful illusion in which visitors become actors in a shadow world of reactive cartoon language” (7). In this way, the artwork functions as a mirror, reflecting a transformed image of the self.
THE NATURE OF THE INTERFACE IN INTERACTIVE ARTWORKS
Interfaces are often associated with computing, yet the term originates in chemistry (8), and broadly refers to liminal spaces. As Jean-Paul Longavesne explains:
“Before being technological, the interface is fundamentally a space, a margin, a zone for articulating communication and spatial and temporal interrelations between two worldviews — a zone of friction and exchange between two spaces […]. It is a place of coexistence […].” (9)
The power of the interface lies in the relationships it establishes, where the result transcends the sum of its parts. Gérard Chazal elaborates:
“The power of the interface lies in the strength of relationships. When two things are connected, the result may sometimes be a mere juxtaposition, in which case the interface is absent. However, more often, something new is created, with properties that are not simply the sum of the attributes of the connected components.” (10)
This phenomenon highlights the interface’s emergent property, described as a characteristic arising from the connection of elements, belonging to the whole but not to its individual components (11). Laurent Diouf notes:
“In the strictest sense, digital arts are the origin of true ‘inter-action’, prompting a movement from the artwork towards the viewer and, conversely, from the viewer towards the artwork. […] Artwork and viewer mutually interact through various modalities.” (12)
This back-and-forth interaction can be seen in Luc Courchesne’s Portrait One (1990), an interactive artwork that facilitates a “framed encounter”: a digitally mediated interaction between the audience and a computer-generated character (13). The work allows participants to engage in an experience resembling a face-to-face meeting, fostering an exchange that is both dynamic and participatory. The interaction is defined by specific boundaries, much like a portrait frames its subject within set constraints; as Courchesne explains, “a portrait of someone is an account of an encounter between the author and the subject” (14). Its design utilises a conversational framework, composed of fragments from the artist’s initial interaction with the digital character. The interface, as a point of contact, also unveils dialogues between the artist and the public. In summary, this piece delves into the complexity of meeting others and examines how such encounters can deepen our understanding of ourselves through the lens of digital interaction.
The artistic creation and exhibition of interactive works foster the generation of a type of knowledge that actively involves the community. In this process, “the artist is no longer the sole creator of a work but often serves as the mediator or facilitator of interactions between the audience and the artwork” (15). These interactions position the artist as a bridge, enabling meaningful engagement between the audience and the piece. Consequently, interactive artworks serve as conduits for discussions about the nature and role of interfaces, creating an environment that encourages participation, exploration, and reflection on the connections between technology, creativity, and human experience.
BEYOND CONTROL AND SUBORDINATION
In digital art, the interface can serve purposes beyond control or subordination, prompting several key considerations. The first consideration examines the body as an interface, the second explores the role of perception in shaping the experience, and the third addresses the artwork’s position as a mediator between the artist and the audience.
Building on the idea that the interface transcends control and subordination, Rokeby asserts:
“Our interface with reality is not only multi-sensory or multimedia but also “multi-modal.” […] We can interpret, analyse or simply enjoy the raw sensation. It’s only a multi-modal approach with multiple simultaneous levels of meaning and communication that can properly express that complex experience of reality.” (16)
Olivier Zattoni further emphasises the essential role of the body in experiencing and understanding the world (17). He argues that the body is not merely a boundary separating the tangible physical world from the intangible realms of imagination or the virtual. Instead, it serves as a continuity — a place where organic materiality merges with the conceptual and emotional interiority of the self. David Le Breton supports this by asserting that “the body is a semantic filter [and] there is nothing in the mind that has not first passed through the senses” (18). This perspective highlights that knowledge is not solely deduced through logic but also shaped by sensory perception, offering rich creative and conceptual potential.
This potential raises critical questions in the context of a hypermediated, technology-driven world. For instance, the 2006 exhibition Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology and Contemporary Art presented artworks that exposed discrepancies between the promises of technology and the intentions of users (19). As Anja Bock observes, “when the sensorium is questioned, the operational definition of the self is disrupted” (20). However, multimodality in digital art has the power to evoke states of consciousness that precede thought and resist articulation through language (21). The interface between the body and technology, even when mediated through physical devices, generates its own metaphors and frames of reference, offering a fertile space for exploration and interpretation.
Notably, the dominance of sight — referred to as the hegemony of vision, where one sensory modality overrides others — characterises Western societies, but that is not irreversible (22). Many technological artworks prioritise other senses, particularly touch and gesture, previously absent in the art-viewer relationship (23).
This shift into multimodality informed the development of ON/CONTACT and EN/GLOBE, the artworks discussed in this article. These works emphasise a multi-sensory engagement that moves beyond traditional, vision-dominated experiences. Their creation and public presentation have highlighted the diverse abilities of the audience. To facilitate a wide range of engagements, the design of our interfaces accounts for varying levels of proficiency and accessibility. The interface must be intuitive enough to be understood with minimal or no instructions, enabling users to engage effectively within a short time frame. At the same time, it should be captivating enough to encourage the audience to spend time exploring its possibilities. The gestures involved in interacting with the interface should also be meaningful, enhancing the overall experience.
The role of the body and gesture in somatic experiences with the interface is exemplified in Metamorphy (2013), by Scenocosme (the collaborative name of French artists Grégory Lasserre and Anaïs met den Ancxt) (24). This interactive installation invites participants to engage with a flexible screen, which responds to touch by generating evolving visual and auditory feedback. It transforms the physical act of touch into a dynamic dialogue between the body and the digital world, fostering a heightened awareness of one’s somatic presence within the interactive environment.
Building on their exploration of somatic interaction via touch, Scenocosme’s Lights Contacts extends the concept of encounter through a more social and collaborative approach (25). While Metamorphy focuses on an individual’s interaction with a responsive surface, Lights Contacts involves multiple participants, fostering connections between bodies. The installation features an interactive sphere that responds to electrostatic contact, generating real-time sounds and colours based on the intensity and proximity of participants’ physical interactions. This shift from individual to collective engagement allows for a broader range of social reactions, from intimate exchanges to playful group activities. By encouraging participants to explore how touch influences auditory and visual feedback, Lights Contacts creates a shared sensory experience that transforms physical contact into extraordinary and diverse encounters.
Adopting an approach that emphasises sensory and interactive multimodality has proven fruitful in terms of experience. First, during the creation stage, it serves as a means of finding creative solutions to both technical and conceptual challenges. Second, from the audience’s perspective, they encounter artworks that diverge from the conventions of current audio-visual practices. This allows each individual to engage with the work in their own way, shaped by their abilities, knowledge, and interests. Through this process, the artwork and its spectators develop their own shared rules of interaction, forming feedback loops. Ultimately, the artist’s role is to create a context that facilitates these feedback loops, enabling a dynamic dialogue between the artwork and its audience.
SOMAESTHETICS: THE ROLE OF THE BODY IN AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES
To assess, understand, and integrate the body in the creation and experience of artworks, establishing a structured theoretical framework can be particularly valuable for both artistic practice and analytical insight. Somaesthetics, as a theoretical and practical field, proves well-suited for research-creation, as its outcomes encompass “an artifact or artistic performance accompanied by discursive production” (26).
Somaesthetics, the philosophy developed by Shusterman, grounds on his research about pragmatism, aesthetics and philosophy as a way of life (27). Succinctly, it is defined as “the critical study and meliorative cultivation of our experience and use of the living body (soma) as a site of sensory appreciation (aisthesis) and creative self-fashioning” (28). As an embodied philosophy, it also investigates discourses and structured knowledge of the soma (29), moving away from a mechanistic view of the body and passive receptivity towards recognising it as a “living and sensing body” (30). It emphasises that sensory perception enhances understanding, extending beyond what logic alone can apprehend (31). The body is understood as an intersecting locus of experience; it is both the embodied consciousness of the individual and our primary instrument for grasping the world (32).
Somaesthetics seeks to unify perception and gesture through the lens of aesthetics (33). It provides a means to account for the interactor’s experience, both in relation to the artwork and the broader world it reflects (34).
This suggests a threefold conception of encounter. First, it encompasses an encounter with oneself, involving the refinement of sensory perceptions to foster a deeper understanding of the body through immediate personal experience, as well as self-expression and self-creation (35). Secondly, it promotes an encounter with others, encouraging the “appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of other selves and other things” (36). Finally, it implies an encounter between art and the individual. As Shusterman explains:
“More broadly, our appreciation of the beauties of art has a significant bodily dimension, not so much because we apprehend them through our physical senses (such as proprioception, which aesthetics has traditionally overlooked) but because of the emotional values of art, which, like all emotions, can only be experienced physically. By educating and cultivating the sensitivity of our somatic awareness to enhance our physical perceptions and performances, we not only increase the material means for producing art but also for enjoying it.” (37)
Somaesthetics proves particularly useful as a method by structuring the relationship between sensations and emotions, transforming them into distinct yet interconnected sources of knowledge for art and aesthetic experience. Sensations are understood as immediate, physical perceptions — such as touch, proprioception, or temperature — while emotions are the subjective, embodied responses that arise from these sensations, imbued with personal and cultural meaning. By fostering awareness of these dynamics, somaesthetics enhances our understanding of our own sensory and emotional experiences.
In dance, for instance, the expressive and fluid movements of the body serve as a direct embodiment of somaesthetic concepts. While firmly rooted in art and aesthetic experience, dance uniquely underscores the integration of sensation, emotion and gesture. Contemporary dance, in particular, highlights the body’s role in conveying emotions and narratives, reflecting somaesthetic principles through its physicality and the sensory dimensions of performance.
In theatre, somaesthetics manifests for both performers and audiences by emphasising the sensory and perceptual dimensions of the body in performance. For performers, this is achieved through choreography and staging that foreground bodily sensations, movements and interactions. For audiences, it often involves performances designed to alter or challenge their perceptions of space and movement. This somaesthetic approach fosters a heightened awareness of bodily sensations and spatial relationships, enriching the theatrical experience.
In music, the interplay between bodily rhythms and emotional states creates an immersive and somatic listening experience. Genres such as electronic dance music utilise rhythm and beat to engage listeners on a physical level, encouraging movement and bodily interaction that deepens the connection to the music.
Similarly, in literature, vivid descriptions of physical sensations and movements immerse readers in the embodied experiences of characters, enabling them to sense the physicality of the narrative and fostering a more tangible connection to the story.
Somaesthetics is not a universal solution, but it has proven effective in exploring and articulating the concepts of encounter related to the soma and the aesthetic experience, offering a rich foundation for further inquiry.
AN ARTISTIC RESEARCH PROJECT
This section describes two interactive installations linked through a same research project. They were developed during two research-creation residencies at Hexagram (an interdisciplinary network dedicated to research-creation addressing the relationships between arts, cultures and technologies), which culminated in exhibitions at Ars Electronica 2023 and EuroHaptics 2024. These works approach the interface as an artwork in its own right, enabling participants to engage with the piece while using it as a medium for communication and self-expression. They draw on creative principles inspired by somaesthetics, exploring dynamic relationships between the body, sensory perception and artistic interaction.
ON/CONTACT
ON/CONTACT is an interactive installation in the form of a haptic column that the interactor presses against their body. A closer physical interaction, such as wrapping their arms around the column or leaning into it, activates a custom-made analog tactile sensor. This unfolds a soundscape composed of familiar sounds, renewed with each contact. Simultaneously, it activates a vibratory experience induced by tactile transducers. See Fig. 1 and Video 1:
Figure 1: Different interactions and embraces of the haptic column ON/CONTACT as presented during an art residency at Hexagram 2022. Photos by Flore Boubila @flore_bbl
Video 1: ON/CONTACT during art residency at Hexagram in 2022, presented in DEMO26.
Notably, the terms encounter and contact share semantic connections: encounter refers to the act of coming into intentional contact or relation with others and the world, while contact extends to include both intentional and accidental interactions with an object (38).
ON/CONTACT’s interface acts as a catalyst for encounters, offering multiple interaction modalities through the tactile exploration of its surface. The embrace of the column generates a dynamic sonic and vibratory landscape, while the touch-sensitive surface leaves modulated textures and patterns as traces of interaction (Fig. 2). The soft, inviting material covering the column enhances the tactile experience. During public presentations, it was common to see groups of people interacting with the installation in a collective embrace (Fig. 3). By fostering physical closeness, the artwork can also function as an interface for encounters between individuals.
Figure 2: The surface is modulated when touched, leaving textures and patterns as testimonies of the encounter.
Figure 3: Group embraces during the presentation of ON/CONTACT at Ars Electronica in 2023.
When contact is established, a shared space forms between the human and the haptic column, creating a literal interface. This interface is not merely a mediator but a zone of exchange and connection. It functions as the artwork-in-itself: the audience engages in self-encounter through its feedback, while also connecting to the artist’s intention of fostering interpersonal relationships. These relationships incorporate the diversity of symbolic interpretations expressed by the audience at the point of contact — the haptic column. Furthermore, observing how others interact might be engaging as well, raising intriguing questions about a grey area between encounter and contact. Like any artwork, ON/CONTACT expands beyond existing concepts.
EN/GLOBE
EN/GLOBE is an immersive and interactive installation featuring three spheres that offer a variety of sensory stimuli. It was showcased during an open art residency at Hexagram in 2023, as well as during the symposium Interdisciplinary Encounters — Sensory Environments held at Agora Heart of Science in 2024 (39).
The spheres display video projections that respond to presence and movement, while various mechanisms create physical sensations. A fan emits a gentle breeze scented with peppermint. Meanwhile, sound exciters (which vibrate surfaces to produce sound) transform a sphere into a loudspeaker, generating spatialised audio directly from the sphere. Additionally, a servo motor moves soft filaments that lightly caress the head. See Fig. 4 and Video 2:
Figure 4: Immersive installation EN/GLOBE, where interaction triggers generative visuals and electronic devices. Hexagram, 2023.
Video 2: EN/GLOBE during art residency at Hexagram in 2023, presented in DEMO26.
These subtle and remarkable experiences, sensed within the spheres without relying on sight, create an ideal context for immediate awareness and interaction between bodily experience (proprioceptive, kinesthetic) and sensory experience (tactile, auditory, visual, olfactory). This approach fosters a holistic integration of sensations within an aesthetic experience.
Additionally, the artwork unfolds dynamically in space and time: the sensory devices generate sounds and movements, while the spheres are enveloped in generative visuals that evolve in response to interactions. The interplay between the audience and the installation, forming an interactive sensory environment, constitutes the universe of the artwork. The ecosystem of the installation and its components acts as an interface, offering different interaction modalities that align with the three modes of encounter: with the artwork, with other audience members, and with oneself.
The stimulation of senses typically underutilised by interfaces, such as smell or passive touch, invites the discovery of subtler sensations across different parts of the body. The imposing size of the spheres encourages full-body movement and gestures on a larger scale than those typically used in manipulation or digital interaction. By combining electronic devices and interaction data to generate evolving visuals and a rich palette of sensory stimulations, the installation merges physical and digital matter, creating a unique environment for sensory experimentation. This space becomes an interface: a zone of contact and exchange, conducive to interactions and encounters.
Through this interplay, the encounter with the artwork and the resulting bodily movements provoke an awareness of personal, immediate experience. Somatic perception surfaces into consciousness, integrating with the flow of thoughts that materialise through a person’s engagement with the work.
The multimodal design of EN/GLOBE accommodates diverse sensory capabilities and modes of expression; various possibilities for perception and interaction.
Firstly, the artwork space acts as an interface that reacts to the audience’s presence, where the meeting between the artist’s intentions and the audience materialises through interaction. The audience completes the “circuit” of the artwork by consciously participating in the event.
Secondly, direct engagement with the artwork involves a combination of sensory perceptions, including movement between the spheres, bodily positioning in space, and triggering sound devices. The artwork becomes an interface that connects audience members as they interact within its shared space.
Finally, each sphere offering a distinct sensory interaction through tactile, olfactory and auditory experiences. In this way, the interface itself transforms into an artwork, enabling encounters with oneself through feedback from the “artwork-interface” (Fig. 5).
Figure 5: EN/GLOBE – Space of the artwork, space of the audience’s encounter, space of each person’s encounter with themselves.
LAYERS OF ENCOUNTER
The concept of encounter applies to the audience’s first experience with an interactive artwork. This encounter begins with the voluntary movement of onlookers toward the interface, followed by contact, interaction and feedback (40). Within this connection space, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts (41). The interface transcends its role as a simple intermediary, serving as the point of contact between the audience’s imagination and the universe embodied by the artwork (42). It reveals its potential for encounter, enabling diverse interpretations, experiences, and modes of interaction (43).
These interactions invoke the concepts of agency and multimodality. Multimodality may stem from the artist’s intentions during the creation of the artwork or arise as interactants discover new ways to engage with it. An interface grounded on encounter offers significant agency to the interactant, allowing them to actively shape their relationship with the artwork through participatory experience (44). The encounter also extends beyond the individual, encompassing interactions among audience members, with the artwork acting as a locus for shared contact and exchange. Finally, there is the encounter with oneself, achieved through the feedback loop created by engaging with the artwork (45).
These three modalities — interaction with the artwork, others and oneself — designate the interface as both the subject and object of the encounter, elevating it to the status of a work of art. Ultimately, the interactive artwork becomes a metaphor for encounter.
The concept of encounter is also embedded in the technology used in ON/CONTACT and EN/GLOBE. Both artworks rely on widely accessible electronic devices and basic programming, with their originality stemming from how these tools are utilised. Rather than prioritising precision, accuracy and efficiency to produce consistent results, the focus is on exploring the diverse outcomes that arise from different uses of technology and evaluating their creative potential. What might traditionally be seen as a limitation is reframed as a valuable feature or advantage in specific contexts. This perspective opens up a wide field for investigating interaction and its expression in creative and innovative ways.
In ON/CONTACT, a custom analogue sensor circuit detects contact from the participant’s body, activating a sonic and vibratory landscape through tactile transducers. The circuit features a distinctive, non-linear pattern that challenges conventional applications of such technology. The interface was intentionally designed not to function as a musical instrument, with its custom-made sensor featuring a staggered grid pattern to reflect this intention. The concept of control, often linked to a ‘tool for creative expression’ (46), posed challenges when juxtaposed with the idea of encounter. The installation is designed for the general public, who are responsible for shaping their own aesthetic experience.
In EN/GLOBE, the sensor triggering the generative visuals and devices within each sphere is a standard video camera without infrared capabilities. While the camera’s limitation — interpreting images only on a frontal plane, not in depth — might seem restrictive, it was creatively repurposed to integrate the entire space into the installation, forming a cohesive ecosystem. Approaching technology with a mindset of encounter allows the artist to rethink conventional tools and explore innovative possibilities.
CONCLUDING: OUR SITUATED APPROACH TO INTERFACES
In the context of interactive installations, the concept of multimodal interface implies various levels of interaction, which together form its ecosystem. This perspective offers a specific definition of the interface as an artwork, rooted on the principles of encounter and somaesthetics. Each component of the ecosystem — whether it’s a physical object, sensory stimulus or interactive mechanism — can take on the role of an interface; each can serve as the point of interaction between the participant and the artwork.
This approach is defined by three interaction modalities, each corresponding to a mode of encounter. Firstly, there is the encounter with the artwork, where the entire ecosystem functions as an interface, allowing the artist’s intentions and the audience’s engagement to materialise through interaction. The audience completes the artwork’s circuit by actively participating in the event. Secondly, there is the encounter among audience members, with the artwork serving as a zone of contact and exchange. Here, interaction emerges from movements and interrelations within the shared space. Lastly, there is the encounter with oneself, realised through the feedback generated by the artwork as an interface.
Together, these three modalities establish the interface as an artwork, positioning it as both the subject and the object of the encounter.
Openness to others and introspection are core principles shared by the somaesthetic and encounter models. Somaesthetics encourages us to use our natural sensory and cognitive abilities to appreciate somatic and aesthetic experiences as sources of knowledge and growth. In interactive artworks, the engagement of sensory perceptions and emotions enhances self-awareness. Since each participant interprets the artwork uniquely, aesthetic experiences vary widely. There is no singular “correct” way to interact with an artwork — the right way is the one conceived through the participant’s dialogue with the piece. The interface-artwork invites us to draw on personal, immediate experiences to connect with ourselves and others.
This somatic-aesthetic approach has yielded meaningful experiences for both participants and the artist. For the artist, it is deeply rewarding to work with diverse materials — exploring, listening to, transforming, and drawing inspiration from them to create experiences that transcend language and are accessible to all. The depth of this sensory landscape enables people to develop unique and enriching interactions. Likewise, the concept of the encounter-based interface offers fertile ground for artistic, formal, expressive and technological exploration.
Our creative practice proposes innovative ways to engage with digital art and address the pervasive influence of digital technology in society. By recognising the body as both a medium and the support of sensory knowledge, somaesthetics encourages us to somatically experience and actively shape our relationships with the digital, transforming us from passive spectators into active participants (47).
Building on this foundation, interactive arts contribute to the broader artistic field by integrating ‘original symbolic strategies’ and technological innovations reflective of the present era (48). By offering transformed visions of our identity, human and social nature, interactive arts draw inspiration from technology but are not limited to it. They shift away from the artistic concerns of presenting personal experience, creating interpersonal relationships through their ability to generate ‘specular experience’ (49). This research-creation echoes Jean Dubois’s proposition that interactive art has the ability to “develop a critical poetry of human relationships”, embracing “terms specific to an artifice of encounter” (50).
Through its expressive and self-constructive nature, this perspective adopts a moral and inventive stance. It can be enriched by the concept of encounter, which is essential for the interface to fully embody its status as a work of art. While aesthetically autonomous, interfaces-artworks could also inspire the development of new forms of therapeutic interfaces. This opens opportunities for further experimentation and research into somaesthetic-inspired interfaces, enabling a deeper, broader understanding of encounter-based designs.
Creative exploration in digital arts drives the development of new interfaces, inspiring fresh attitudes and prompting reflection on the future of our relationship with technology. This evolution offers opportunities to engage new audiences and consider the human experience holistically, encouraging a re-examination of concepts like interface and interaction. By centring on the concept of encounter, this project provides a renewed perspective on interfaces, contributing to the creation of a more thoughtful and desirable future (51).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Richard Shusterman, Conscience du Corps: Pour Une Soma-Esthétique (Paris: Éditions de l’Éclat, 2007).
BACK
2. David Rokeby, “Transforming Mirrors: Subjectivity and Control in Interactive Media”, in Critical Issues in Electronic Media (New York: Suny Press, 1995) p. 148.
BACK
3. Definition of “Control” from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
4. Anne-Gaëlle Baboni-Schilingi, “Installations et interactivité numérique”, Les Cahiers du Numérique 1, No.4 (Éditions Lavoisier, 2000) p. 171.
BACK
5. Rokeby (1995) p. 148. [2.]
BACK
6. David Rokeby, Interactive Installations : Very Nervous System (1986-1990) at <http://www.davidrokeby.com/vns.html>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
7. See Golan Levin and Collaborators’s Re:MARK at <http://www.flong.com/archive/projects/remark/index.html>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
8. Definition of Interface from the Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales (CNRTL), <https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/interface>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
9. Original French text: “Avant d’être technologique l’interface est essentiellement un lieu, une marge, une zone d’articulation de communication, d’interrelations spatiales et temporelles entre deux conceptions du monde, une zone de friction et d’échange de deux espaces […]. Elle est le lieu d’une coexistence […].” Quoted from Jean-Paul Longavesne, “Esthétique et Rhétorique des Arts Technologiques. Les Machines Interfaces”, Ligeia 45-48 (2003) p. 167.
BACK
10. Original French text: “La puissance de l’interface réside dans la puissance des relations. Lorsqu’on relie deux choses, on peut parfois n’obtenir qu’une simple juxtaposition, l’interface est alors absente, mais le plus souvent, on crée une chose nouvelle dont les propriétés ne sont pas la simple somme des propriétés des composants ainsi reliés.” Quoted from Gérard Chazal, Interfaces: Enquêtes Sur les Mondes Intermédiaires (Seyssel: Éditions Champ Vallon, 2002) p. 268.
BACK
11. In French, this property of the interface can described as follows: “Propriété [dite] émergente, c’est-à-dire de propriété apparaissant lors de la liaison des éléments, propre au tout ainsi formé et n’appartenant à aucun des éléments.” See Chazal (2002) p. 267 [10.]
BACK
12. Original French text: “Au sens strict, les arts numériques sont à la source d’une véritable ‘inter-action’, en sollicitant un mouvement de l’œuvre vers le spectateur et, inversement, du spectateur vers l’œuvre. […] Œuvre et spectateur interagissent mutuellement, selon des modalités multiples.” Quoted from Laurent Diouf, Anne Vincent and Anne-Cécile Worms, “Les Arts Numériques”, Dossiers du CRISP 81, No 1 (2013) p. 13.
BACK
13. See Jean Gagnon, Blind Date in Cyberspace or the Figure that Speaks, Fondation Daniel Langlois, 1995, <https://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=158>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
14. See Jean Gagnon (1995). [13.]
BACK
15. Original French text: “L’artiste n’est plus l’unique créateur d’une œuvre, mais souvent le médiateur ou l’animateur des interactions entre le public et celle-ci.” Quoted from Diouf et al. (2013) p. 7. [12.]
BACK
16. David Rokeby, “The Construction of Experience: Interface as Content”, in Digital Illusion: Entertaining the Future with High Technology (Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional/ © ACM Press, 1998) p. 149.
BACK
17. See Olivier Zattoni, “Du Corps Virtuel au Corps Paysage: Présence à l’Autre et Affectivité à l’Ère Numérique”, Interfaces numériques 7, No. 2 (2019). p. 344.
BACK
18. Original French text: “Le corps est un filtre sémantique [et] qu’il n’est rien dans l’esprit qui ne soit d’abord passé par les sens.” Quoted from David Le Breton, “La Conjugaison des Sens : Essai,” Anthropologie et Sociétés 30, No. 3, pp. 19–28 (2006).
BACK
19. The exhibition Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology and Contemporary Art took place at the MIT List Visual Arts Center from October 12th 2006 to April 8th 2007. It was the subject of a book of the same name – see <https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262101172/sensorium>, accessed 10 December 2024.
BACK
20. Original French text: “Lorsque le sensorium est remis en question, la définition opérationnelle du soi est perturbée.” Quoted from Anja Bock, “Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and Contemporary Art”, Art Papers 31, 3 (2007) p. 58.
BACK
21. Bock (2007). [20.]
BACK
22. Le Breton (2006). [18.]
BACK
23. Original French text: “Les œuvres d’art ‘technologique’ privilégient d’autres sens: en particulier le toucher, ainsi que la gestuelle, absente jusqu’alors de la relation art-spectateur.” Quoted from Diouf et al. (2013) p. 13. [12.]
BACK
24. See Scenocosme, Metamorphy, <https://www.scenocosme.com/metamorphy_e.htm>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
25. See Scenocosme, Lights Contacts,<https://www.scenocosme.com/urban_lights_contacts_e.htm>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
26. Louis-Claude Paquin and Cynthia Noury, “Définir la Recherche-Création ou Cartographier Ses Pratiques”, ACFAS Magazine (2018).
BACK
27. See Shusterman (2007) p. 8. [1.]
BACK
28. See Shusterman (2007) p. 11. [1.]
BACK
29. See Shusterman (2007) p. 32-33. [1.]
BACK
30. See Shusterman (2007) p. 11. [1.]
BACK
31. Richard Shusterman, “Conscience Soma-Esthétique, Perception, Proprioceptive et Action”, Communications 86, No. 1, (2010) p. 15.
BACK
32. See Shusterman (2007) p. 13 and p. 34. [1.]
BACK
33. Richard Shusterman, “La Soma-Esthétique de Merleau-Ponty”, Critique d’Art 37, Printemps (2011).
BACK
34. See Barbara Formis, “Richard Shusterman, Conscience du corps. Pour une Soma-Esthétique”, Mouvements 1, No. 57,(2009). p. 156.
BACK
35. Shusterman (2007). [1.]
BACK
36. See Shusterman (2007) p. 12. [1.]
BACK
37. Original French text: “Plus généralement, notre appréciation des beautés de l’art possède une dimension corporelle importante, non pas tant parce que nous les appréhendons à travers nos sens physiques (telle la proprioception que l’esthétique a traditionnellement négligée) mais en raison des valeurs émotionnelles de l’art qui, à l’instar de toutes les émotions, ne peuvent être vécues que physiquement. En éduquant et en cultivant la sensibilité de notre conscience somatique dans le but d’améliorer nos perceptions et performances physiques, nous ne faisons pas qu’accroître les moyens matériels destinées à produire de l’art mais aussi à en jouir.” Quoted from Richard Shusterman, “Le Corps et les Arts : le Besoin de Soma-Esthétique”, Diogène 1, No. 233-234 (2011) p.28.
BACK
38. The French translation of “Encounter” is “Rencontre”. It can be defined as: “fait d’entrer en contact, en relation, de manière intentionnelle, avec autrui et le monde, [le] fait de se trouver en contact, accidentellement ou non avec un objet”. Quoted from Trésor de la Langue Française Informatisé, <https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/rencontre>, accessed 30 November 2024.
BACK
39. The original name of this symposium, held March 25 to 28 in 2024, is Rencontre Interdisciplinaires — Environnements Sensoriels: Les Agentivités Plurielles en Art Numérique. The talk titled EN/GLOBE occurred March 27.
BACK
40. See Longavesn (2000) [9.].
BACK
41. See Chazal (2002). [10.]
BACK
42. Sandra Gaudenzi and Samuel Gantier, “Vers un Canevas Méthodologique Pour le Design d’Oeuvres Audiovisuelles Interactives”, Interfaces Numériques 7, No. 3 (Université de Limoges, 2008).
BACK
43. Baboni-Schilingi (2000). [4.]
BACK
44. Jean Dubois, “Reflexive Figures: The Encounter in Interactive Arts”, Esse Arts + Opinions 63 (2008). Also available in French : “Figures Réfléchies : la Rencontre en Arts Interactifs”.
BACK
45. Ibid. [44.]
BACK
46. See Tim Murray-Browne, Di Mainstone, Nick Bryan-Kinns, and Mark D. Plumbley, “The Medium is the Message: Composing Instruments and Performing Mappings”, International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (2011).
BACK
47. See Sylvain Brétéché, “L’Incarnation de <<L’Entre>>”, Interface 8 (2015) p. 26.
BACK
48. See Dubois (2008). [44.]
BACK
49. Ibid. [44.]
BACK
50. Ibid. [44.]
BACK
51. These research-creation projects are associated with a research program on sensory environments in digital art (Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture), led by the Mimesis laboratory at NAD-UQAC.
BACK