MEKÂNA ÖZGÜ SANAT BAĞLAMINDA YAPIT-İZLEYİCİ ETKİLEŞİMİNDE TEKSTİL SANATININ OLANAKLARI: THE POTENTIALS OF TEXTILE ART IN ARTWORK–AUDIENCE INTERACTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SITE-SPECIFIC ART

Vildan TOK DERECİ

doi:10.5281/zenodo.17219607

Authors

Vildan TOK DERECİ Marmara Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-1094

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17219607

Keywords:

Site-specific art, textile art, audience interaction, digitalization, cultural memory

Abstract

This article investigates the interactive and multi-dimensional relationships established by textile art with its audience within the context of site-specific art, adopting an interdisciplinary perspective. The study explores the sensory, cultural, technological, and social dimensions of textiles through both theoretical discussions and a set of internationally selected case studies. Janet Echelman’s large-scale public net installations, Do Ho Suh’s transparent fabric architectures evoking migration memory, Ernesto Neto’s organic textile formations that encourage bodily engagement, Refik Anadol’s data-driven digital surface projections, teamLab’s immersive spatial experiences, and participatory practices such as urban knitting are analyzed as exemplary cases that illuminate the potential of textile in artistic contexts. The findings demonstrate that textile art fulfills three primary roles within site-specific practices: offering opportunities for sensory and bodily participation, making visible layers of cultural memory and identity, and facilitating collective processes that strengthen social bonds. Digitalization and new media technologies extend these functions beyond the boundaries of physical space, reproducing them within virtual environments and thereby broadening the aesthetic experience. The study concludes that textiles should not be understood merely as material, but rather as an aesthetic, cultural, and communicative interface in site-specific art, providing new theoretical and practical perspectives for artists, curators, and researchers.

References

Andrew, S. (2008). Textile semantics: Considering a communication-based reading of textiles. Textile. The Journal of Cloth & Culture, 6(1), 32-65. https://doi.org/10.2752/175183508X375290

Andrew, S. (2013). The medium carries the message? Perspectives on making and viewing textiles. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 12(2), 195-221. https://doi.org/10.1386/jvap.12.2.195_1

Auther, E. (2008). Fiber art and the hierarchy of art and craft 1980–80. The Journal of Modern Craft, 1(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.2752/174967808783489442

Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Verso.

Bourriaud, N. (1998). Relational aesthetics. Les presses du réel.

Bourriaud, N. (2005). Postproduction: Culture as screenplay: How art reprograms the world. Lukas & Sternberg.

Buschmeier, A. (2013). Interactive art: Practices and debates. Transcript Verlag.

Echelman, J. (2014). As if it were already here [Public art installation]. Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. https://www.echelman.com/project/as-if-it-were-already-here

Echelman, J. (2018). Sculpting public space. Oz, 40(6), 18-22.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

Göçmen, E. C. (2019). Mekân ve izleyici bağlamında çağdaş sanat yapıtında etkileşim. Yüksek lisans tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.

Grau, O. (2003). Virtual art: From illusion to immersion. MIT Press.

Haveri, M. (2013). Urban knitting: The soft side of street art. Synnyt/Origins: Finnish Studies in Art Education, 2, 1-19.

Hayeur-Smith, M. (2012). Weaving wealth: Cloth and trade in Viking Age and Medieval Iceland. SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen.

Helgadottir, G. (2011). Nation in a sheep’s goat: The Icelandic sweater. Form Akademisk, 4(2), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.171

Jakobson, R. (1987). Language in literature. Harvard University Press.

Karppinen, S. (2008). Craft-art as a basis for human activity. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 27(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2008.00558.x

Kwon, M. (2002). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. MIT Press.

Luutonen, M. (2008). Handmade memories. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 12(3), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2008.3.08

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1945)

Nimkulrat, N. (2010). Material inspiration: From practice-led research to art education. Craft Research, 1(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1386/craft.1.1.63/1

Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books.

Panofsky, E. (1972). Studies in iconology. Harper & Row.

Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (2nd ed.). Pantheon.

Papanek, V. (1995). The green imperative: Ecology and ethics in design and architecture. Thames & Hudson.

Paul, C. (2015). Digital art (3rd ed.). Thames & Hudson.

Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Vols. 7–8. Harvard University Press.

Petti, L., Trillo, C., & Makore, B. N. (2020). Cultural heritage and sustainable development targets: A possible harmonisation? Insights from the European perspective. Sustainability, 12(926), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030926

Pöllänen, S. (2011). Beyond craft and art: A pedagogical model for craft as self-expression. International Journal of Education through Art, 7(3), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.7.3.111_1

Pöllänen, S. (2015). Elements of crafts that enhance well-being: Textile craft makers’ descriptions of their leisure activity. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2015.11950354

Quaranta, D. (2013). Beyond new media art. Link Editions.

Refik Anadol Studio. (2018). Machine hallucinations [Art installation]. Refik Anadol Studio. https://refikanadol.com

Rhodes, G. A. (2014). Augmented reality in art: Aesthetics and material for expression. In V. Geroimenko (Ed.), Augmented reality art (pp. 127–137). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06203-7_10

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Sage.

Serrao, F., Chirico, A., Gabbiadini, A., Gallace, A., & Gaggioli, A. (2024). Enjoying art: An evolutionary perspective on the aesthetic experience from emotion elicitors. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1341122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1341122

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

TeamLab. (2015). Teamlab borderless [Digital art museum]. Mori Building Digital Art Museum. https://www.teamlab.art/e/borderless/

Tiffany, S. (2004). Frame that rug: Narratives of Zapotec textiles as art and ethnic commodity in the global marketplace. Visual Anthropology, 17(3-4), 293-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949460490888556

THE POTENTIALS OF TEXTILE ART IN ARTWORK–AUDIENCE INTERACTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SITE-SPECIFIC ART