Interactive Narrativity in The Context of Participatory Arts and Power 

Introduction 

This thesis investigates how interactive narrativity within participatory arts can challenge societal power structures and foster social change, drawing upon both theoretical insights and my own practice-based research. Beginning with “Reflecting Power in Art,” it 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. Followed by “Interaction in Computational Arts”, which extends this exploration into the digital realm, analysing 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. 

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. This resonates with Paulo Freire’s concept of “conscientization” (critical consciousness), which encourages audiences to reflect on structures of oppression and social empowerment by experiencing control processes firsthand (Freire, 1970). In the context of interactive and participatory art, artistic practice should involve active reflection and action, fostering individuals’ critical examination of oppressive social power structures. 

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). 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). In responding to social oppression under Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1960s, 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 artistic and societal experience, revealing art’s potential to liberate thought and challenge societal power structures. 

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 works like Santiago Sierra’s 160 cm Line Tattooed on 4 Women’s Backs (2000), the act of hiring economically disadvantaged participants to perform prescribed roles highlights how power dynamics are embedded within participatory art itself. While these individuals appear to have agency through their involvement, their participation is tightly controlled, reflecting the artist’s ultimate authority. This dynamic also exposes broader societal inequities, as participants’ limited roles contrast sharply with the audience’s freedom to observe and interpret. Participatory artworks frequently give the impression of empowerment while leaving the underlying systemic power structures intact. 

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 an alternative view of empowerment based on critical engagement rather than participation. 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. Jenny Holzer exemplifies this characteristic in her work. 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) uses a collage-style visual presentation to address 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. 

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’re exploring how digital technologies reshape interaction and participation in computational art compared to socially engaged practices. While socially engaged art emphasizes direct human interaction and collective agency, computational art relies on digital systems, such as algorithms and interfaces, to mediate participation. This creates distinct dynamics, as interactions are often shaped by pre-designed frameworks and technological constraints rather than open-ended collaboration. Computational art extends Rancière’s concept of the ‘emancipated spectator’ by challenging audiences to critically engage not only with societal power structures but also with the invisible control exerted by digital systems, highlighting the tension between agency and technological mediation. 

Similar to socially participatory practices, computational art positions audiences as co-creators of meaning while reflecting real-world power structures and it often lacks the tools to facilitate tangible social transformation. For example, 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. At the same time, 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 these works ultimately position viewers in a contemplative rather than active role, stopping short of providing tools for real-world resistance (Lozano-Hemmer, 2015). These examples underscore a common critique of participatory art: while it raises awareness, it often lacks the means to facilitate concrete social change. 

The critiques of socially participatory art are equally relevant to computational art, which faces similar challenges. 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, artistic 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 and reinforce the power structures they seek to critique (Tufte, 2017; Manyozo, 2012). 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. 

Control in digital environments can sometimes be even stricter than in the physical world. Claire Bishop highlights that while the art practice democratizes the creative process, it can confine participants to predetermined roles within the artwork’s framework, thus reinforcing existing hierarchies (Bishop, 2012). Addressing this phenomenon, 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). In computational art, this translates into a framework where artists encode pathways for audience engagement, limiting the scope of agency while maintaining an illusion of freedom. These protocols, while seemingly neutral, subtly restrict user actions, creating an invisible framework of control. Computational artworks, governed by programmed boundaries, may guide users through specific pathways without enabling real disruption to systemic power. For instance, in Lozano-Hemmer’s Pulse Room (2006), audiences influence light bulbs through their pulse, seemingly interacting freely. However, their engagement is constrained to a single pre-programmed output, revealing how protocol can govern behaviour subtly and predictably. Computational art protocols share similarities with the control structures crafted by artists in participatory art, as they remain invisible within the artistic process while simultaneously enabling and constraining interaction. 

In summary, computational art reshapes interaction by relying on digital systems that mediate participation through algorithms and protocols. While it shares participatory art’s aim of engaging audiences as co-creators, it often inherits similar limitations, such as reinforcing pre-designed frameworks that restrict true agency. Computational art explores the balance between empowerment and control, demonstrating how digital systems can encourage critical reflection while facing challenges in driving tangible social change. 

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 behaviours and perspectives.  

In Unit 1, inspired by 2022 Iran 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 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. 

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. 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. 

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 behaviour 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 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. 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. 

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 Moon grants 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. 

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 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, 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 behaviour, 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. 

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 behaviour 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. 

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 Waves and 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. 

Bibliography

Benjamin, W. (1968) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Arendt, H. (ed.) Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, pp. 217–251. 

Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso. 

Bourriaud, N. (2002) Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Réel. 

Bruguera, T. (2008) Tatlin’s Whisper #5. [Performance]. Tate Modern, London. 

Farocki, H. (2009–2010) Serious Games I–IV. [Video installation series]. 

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books. 

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. 

Galloway, A.R. (2004) Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Harrebye, S. (2016) Social Change and Creative Activism in the 21st Century: The Mirror Effect. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Holzer, J. (1977–1979) Truisms. [Text-based public art series]. 

Kester, G.H. (2004) Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Kruger, B. (1989) Untitled (Your Body is a Battleground). [Photographic silkscreen print]. 

Lialina, O. (1996) My Boyfriend Came Back From the War. [Web-based artwork]. 

Lozano-Hemmer, R. (2015) ‘Public Art Needs Reprogramming’, e-flux Journal, 64. 

Lukes, S. (2005) Power: A Radical View. 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Manyozo, L. (2012) Media, Communication and Development: Three Approaches. London: SAGE Publications. 

Oiticica, H. (1967) Tropicália. [Interactive installation]. 

Oliver, J. (n.d.) Surveillance Speaker. [Interactive installation]. 

Rancière, J. (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum. 

Rancière, J. (2009) The Emancipated Spectator. London: Verso. 

Sierra, S. (Various years) Various participatory artworks highlighting social inequalities. 

Tiravanija, R. (1992) Untitled (Free). [Interactive installation]. 

Tufte, T. (2017) Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

About the Author

Roy Jianing Cheng is a London-based computational artist, working in the field of social power and interactive art. He graduated from Camberwell College of Arts, MA Fine Art: Computational Arts in 2024. Check his research on: https://jianingcheng.cargo.site/