Beyond Distance: The Aesthetic and Ethical Impact of Touch in Art
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15793442Keywords:
Aesthetic Distance, Participatory Art, Touch and Affect, Informed Consent, Ethical ResponsibilityAbstract
This paper explores the aesthetic and ethical implications of touch in contemporary art, challenging the Kantian notion of aesthetic distance, which has long privileged vision and hearing as the primary senses for experiencing art. Through the analysis of selected works of art, the paper argues that participatory and haptic art redefines aesthetic experience by engaging the body directly, transforming the viewer from a passive observer into an active participant. This shift not only expands the boundaries of aesthetic theory but also introduces new ethical challenges concerning bodily proximity, consent, and participant agency. Drawing on the concept of informed consent from medical ethics, the paper examines whether similar ethical guidelines—focusing on disclosure, comprehension, voluntariness, competence, and the right to withdraw—should be applied to participatory art. The paper concludes that while informed consent could provide a useful ethical framework, it also raises tensions between protecting participants and preserving artistic freedom, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to the ethics of contemporary art.
References
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berenson, B. (1906) The Florentine Painters of the Renaissance. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso Books.
Bishop, C. (2012) ‘Delegated Performance: Outsourcing Authenticity’, October, no. 140, pp. 91–112.
Bishop, C. (ed.) (2006) Participation. London: Whitechapel; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boyd, E. (2015) ‘The Impossibility of Informed Consent?’, Hastings Center Report, 45 (3): pp. 44–47.
Bullough, E. (1912) ‘Psychical Distance as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle’, British Journal of Psychology, 5(2), pp. 87–118.
Carroll, A. S. (2010) ‘Muerte Sin Fin: Teresa Margolles’s Gendered States of Exception’, TDR (The Drama Review), 54(2), pp. 103–125.
Dickie, G. (1961) ‘Bullough and the Concept of Psychical Distance’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22 (2), pp. 233–238.
Eco, U. (1989) The Open Work. Translated by A. Cancogni. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published as Opera aperta. Milan: Bompiani, 1962.
Eliasson, O. (2019) In Real Life. London: Tate Publishing.
Eyal, N. (2014) ‘Using Informed Consent to Save Trust’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 40 (7), pp. 437–444.
Feist, R. (2017) ‘Thinking About Touch’, in Rovers, M. et al. (eds.) Touch in the Helping Professions. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 33–50.
Goldberg, R. (2001) Performance Art: From Futurism to the Present. Thames & Hudson.
Höller, C. (2006) Test Site. London: Tate Publishing.
Kant, I. (1987) Critique of Judgment. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. First published 1790.
Lauter, E. (2001) ‘Art/Ethics: Reframing the Ethics and Aesthetics of Judgment’, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 18(4), pp. 307–336.
Montero, B. (2006) ‘Proprioception as an Aesthetic Sense’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64(2), pp. 231–242.
Neto, E. (2010) The Edges of the World. London: Tate Publishing.
Paterson, M. (2007) The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford: Berg Publishers, eBook.
Perricone, C. (2007) ‘The Place of Touch in the Arts’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 41(1), pp. 90–104.
Plate, S. B. (2018) ‘Interreligious Aesthetics: From Dialogue to the Senses’, in Taylor, M. C. (ed.) Re-Imagining Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–335.
Westcott, J. (2010) When Marina Abramović Dies: A Biography. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
