6 ms·
Ask HN: Where are all the touch-based art forms?
For every major sense but touch there's a major form of art.
For vision, our most dominant sense, there is literature, painting, sculpture and film.
For hearing there is music.
For smell there is perfumery.
For taste there are the culinary arts.
Touch seems like the odd one out - it's playing second fiddle to taste in food, and to appearance in sculpture and clothing. You only very rarely find some artwork where the main draw is the tactile experience. Why is this?
- eimrine 3y agoMartial arts, Kamasutra, Dvorak layout, Braille display, anti-fake measures on banknotes. Sculpture is underpreciated by you, have you tried to build at least a basic brick wall? This process involves almost no sight and a lot of touch.
- sargstuff 3y agoLikely because of social concepts of space where haptics serving as 1st fiddle pretty much requires some type/association of direct/close contact/feedback without context. Haptics playing 2nd fiddle allows for context for interpretation. aka raised dot on j & f keys of a qwert keyboard. responsiveness of keyboard keys for touch typist vs. non-touch typist. Examples: https://www.creativeapplications.net/?s=touch https://www.creativeapplications.net/?s=touch
- brudgers 3y agoSounds like something you might explore as an artist. Good luck.
- d--b 3y agoCause it doesn’t scale. I mean there are a bunch of gadgets that are somewhat interesting to touch, but the real stuff would require someone to do something to you (the robotics isn’t there yet to create an experience that is both interesting and reproducible). A bunch of contemporary artists actually focus primarily on the sense of touch. A French artist for example named Myriam Lefkovitz does pieces in the dark.
- gnramires 3y agoI think something like a touch-based display would be cool. Like an array of low cost transducers (maybe there's a way to multiplex the output mechanically like we do with electronics (so only 2*sqrt(N) motors are needed), but in mechanics inertia and speed should be a more significant problem) I 6x6 matrix of solenoids for example doesn't cost much, and you could reasonably control them individually I think?
- saltcured 3y agoYou've also left out the other sense: proprioception. To have art deliver such signals, I guess you'd have to like being a marionette... ;-)
- NeoTar 3y agoDepending on your definition, there are anywhere between five (the classic) and upwards of twenty senses - e.g. is the ability to sense temperature a part of touch, or a separate sense?
- LarryMade2 3y agoThese skills are greatly enhanced by your tactile abilities Massage Keyboard/Piano Tactile trinkets like Rubics Cube/Figet Spinners Pottery/Sculpture Construction Climbing, Obstacle Courses Cleaning/Washing Cooking
- robobro 3y agoLockpicking is an obvious hacker hobby! Very zen...
- stemlord 3y agoBut it's interesting that there's no widely recognized fine art medium where physically feeling is the core communicated experience Then again texture is half the experience of flavor in food Touch response is pretty much entirely what sounds of pre-electronic musical instruments are, making electronic sound being simulations of touch response in a way Fashion is also dominated by visual appeal, the uncomfortableness of women's heels for example
- dragonwriter 3y ago> But it's interesting that there's no widely recognized fine art medium where physically feeling is the core communicated experience Because “fine art” is mostly a distinction drawn based on how distant a thing is from practical, tactile experience fornthe audience (its also why culinary arts aren't, contrary to your list, usually included), anchored in elitism that equates physical engagement as pedestrian and lower class. If you can't put a “do not touch” sign on it, its viewed as practical art and not fine art.
- Aardwolf 3y agoForce feedback steering wheels and joysticks for games, where video games is the art form
- mdgrech23 3y agoThese are the best examples yet. Consumer products held in the hand are probably at the forefront of this space. I'm baffled by how shitty the Apple Mouse is to hold. I think they didn't want to give off the appearance of a gaming mouse but that group hit the touch/ergonomics on the head.
- reality_inspctr 3y agoMartial _arts_
- shermantanktop 3y agoPeople have dirty, dirty hands.
- reifyx 3y agoIn Italy I saw a replication of Fra Angelico's Annunciation as a sculpted relief intended for the blind.
- pricedownx 3y agoclimbing
- Freak_NL 3y agoLiterature is not really art appreciated through vision. It is a mental exercise. Reading by seeing the text is just one form of uploading the text into your brain; Braille and audio are two others. The layout and appearance of the text can add to the experience, but this is mostly¹ not required except to make reading the text as relaxed and comfortable as possible. For a blind person sculpture can surely be as engrossing as for a sighted person. 1: Notable exceptions exist; e.g., House of Leaves.
- soneca 3y agoIf think listening audio books is a significantly different experience than reading a book. The narrator’s voice always add interpretation to the text, no matter how neutral they try to be. A monotone voice change how you interpret a character shouting or distressed. It might be a less intrusive interpretation of a written book than, e.g., a film adaptation. But it’s still very different from reading it. Braille, I presume, it’s the same. Nothing interpreting the words except your own mind.
- drewcoo 3y agoWell . . . maybe literature began orally but was experienced through some kind of group "individual imagination." And maybe today it's transmitted (when not by computer) in dead-tree tomes but, again maybe, the transmission is not the thing. Maybe the play is the thing. Or the story is. Whatever. For blind people, non-sequential events and non-serial stories exist. In fact, just like unfortunately distractedly-sighted people, that's most of real life. I realize seeing all sorts of ADHD stimuli might lead you to think you're "more aware," but everyone has an ability to process reality, which happens in real time simultaneously in many places at once.
- 65 3y agoSlime is pretty popular as a touch based art form. Same with fidget toys.
- tompottery2024 3y agoas a dedicated potter, I'm quite offended; although I'd refer to what I do as craft, rather than art, as I'm not trying to convey any particular idea through my pots, other than say, "this is a nice bowl"... unfortunately, unlike a drawing, it is hard to share awesome pots in the way they are meant to be appreciated, you do need to pick them up and see how they sound and feel... this wouldn't work out well in a museum
- dahart 3y agoOffended by the question? Why? I’m sure you’re joking a little, but the question isn’t well formulated, not worth even being mock-offended over, and anyway, it was primarily about the audience’s point of view, not the artist’s. There are lots of crafts made for touch: linens, knives and utensils, clothing, furniture, violins, etc.. And lots of art is made with the hands, like sculpture & music. Isn’t pottery’s main criteria to hold things well and secondarily to look good while holding things? Unless it’s made as a sort of musical instrument, when is the sound of a pot important for evaluating it? I can see enjoying the touch & sound of certain decorative pottery (which may means it’s intended to be non-functional visual art, to be looked at and not meant to hold anything?), but generally even if I wanted to, I can’t pick up and touch other people’s decorative pottery or handle museum pottery unless explicitly invited. So yeah, if sound & feel is the intent, I can see it being quite difficult to share that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- f6v 3y agoYou definitely haven’t seen a sculpture with polished breasts, buttocks, or penis.
- notnaut 3y agoIndeed! All art is based in the visceral. No matter how heady a thing you try to put out, when people pick it up, they’re using their dirty little hands.
- oneoffacct7646 3y agoI love this parody https://www.theonion.com/struggling-museum-now-allowing-patrons-to-touch-paintin-1819571056 https://www.theonion.com/struggling-museum-now-allowing-patr...
- Olesya000 3y ago[dead]
- josephfung 3y agoThe way clothing feels is a large part of the experience. So arguably fashion is not just vision, but also touch. Also, 4D theatres where they add motion, wind and water to enhance the experience. Arguably, amusement park rides are all about messing with your sense of touch (proprioception, balance, etc)
- Takennickname 3y agoSports and sex.
- 131012 3y agoI don't know for sports, but sex indeed. And just like any other art form, some are absolute virtuosos and some draw cheap logos and are about to be replaced by AI.
- Takennickname 3y agoOther than competitive team sports like football, you also have figure skating and synchronized swimming. But the vast majority of sports are art.
- atto 3y agoI do pottery as a serious hobby (though, people buy my stuff), and was recently talking with a friend about how—for me—it's not really about producing art, but the personal experience of making pieces. I'm glad people like what I make, but I do it not to say something, and rather to experience something. https://andrewconner.com/pottery/ https://andrewconner.com/pottery/
- johnchristopher 3y agoI recently had a conversation with a friend about that, it's a pet peeve of mine. My angle is that looking at a picture, a painting, I can have a rough idea of what it felt like to produce it (because at some point or another I draw a doodle or tried drawing). Ditto for dancing or singing. But sculpture seems different. I am separated from sculptures in two ways: first I don't have the experience of sculpting so I am not connected to the experience of creating a sculpture (what the artist experienced, granted I never can but I don't even have a rough idea) ; secondly I can't touch the piece of art, it's really rare when you are allowed to touch the sculpture or the installation and I think it's something that doesn't happen with paintings or dancing. The art of painting and dancing are more accessible to me just by watching but sculpting escapes me. I think my feeling is that I believe I'd appreciate sculptures more if I could touch them. I don't need to touch a painting or a dancer to appreciate them. It's visual for me (and kinetic for the dancer). Sculptures are visual but I think I am missing out by not being able to touch them.
- tompottery2024 3y agoso, quickly, most pots are made of two materials, a glaze and a clay body; the sound a pot makes when you strike it is a good proxy for the fit of these two materials... if you looked into this in detail you would discover that the larger North American audience has little understanding of good vs bad ceramics which makes it difficult to sell high quality ceramics here. The asian market is much better attuned to what make a pot good vs bad
- the_af 3y agoPretty good take! I'll add that, as someone who likes seeing the brush strokes in a painting up close, I'd enjoy being able to touch the texture of the painting (if it was allowed and this didn't damage the painting, which sadly it does).
- goblinux 3y agoI think something like yoga or dance would qualify. If you’re exclusively looking for things where you can put your hands on stuff then maybe a petting zoo?
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoTextiles?
- damascus 3y agoIncentives, the opportunity cost of time, and monogamous cultural influence, mostly. Touching another person is widely considered an intimate act and most of the general mainstream today are only intimate (physically, or emotionally) with their romantic partner. Broadly speaking we've lost emotional intimacy with close friends and small groups that we've had in the past. So with that, what is the incentive for the artist to create? He can't sell his work. He can't distribute his work. Touch-based art is highly dis-incentivized in our modern western culture.
- Solvency 3y agoi've never seen the word incentive used more in my life than on hacker news. Is there some famous tech talk by a programming idol that involved the word incentive that's caused it to become such a weird fixture in this community? Sure, the entire world can be reduced down to a laundry list of incentives. But that's also incredibly reductionist, generic, and boring.
- futureshock 3y agoI think it gets used a lot here because it’s a compact way to say “the world works in the way that it does because we have set it up to reward certain things and punish other things. This isn’t a static feature of reality, but something we are choosing as a society and can change.” Don’t see it as reductionist, more like a callout that we’re dealing with a social feature, not some physical law.
- Solvency 3y ago"why do octopi have camouflaging capabilities? because of natural incentives!" it's essentially a trite truism/platitude. you can apply it to everything and if you don't want to delve deeper, why say it.
- futureshock 3y agoI think that’s incorrect. octopi have camouflage because of natural selection. Incentives are things that humans create, intentionally or unintentionally. There are the selection pressure of the human cultural world but they are the opposite of natural. They are the things we can choose to change. By calling them out, we implicitly question if we should be changing them. It can end up being a bit pseudo-intellectual on HN (say it ain’t so!), but there is a real rhetorical context in which it makes sense to talk about incentives.
- matt_morgan 3y agoSculpture can be tactile. I know it's not purely tactile, but thinking of it in that way is becoming a lot more common (eg at the Louvre). And then I went to find a URL for the tactile dome at the Exploratorium in San Francisco (https://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/tactile-dome https://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/tactile-dome) and it turns out there are lots of tactile galleries now: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tactile+gallery&t=fpas&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tactile+gallery&t=fpas&ia=web
- keiferski 3y agoYeah it's probably worth mentioning that many historical sculptures were meant to be touched, not simply looked at in a protected gallery.
- keiferski 3y agoIn the modern era, this is likely because touch doesn't scale. Think about it: we are all using devices which can replicate sound and visuals. Taste doesn't scale via electronic devices, but restaurants and home cooking ingredients are extremely commoditized and widespread. Visuals of food also are extremely popular – think of all the cooking YouTube videos out there. Smell has perfumery, but this is a small thing compared to other art forms. Both food and perfumes also fit well into the market system and have an obvious market incentive for their propagation. Touch-based art forms don't scale electronically (as we lack devices for implementing and sharing different touch sensations) and they don't have an obvious practical art purpose either, in the way that graphic design (for visual art) or music (for sound) does. As a side note, I think touch is probably just as important to food as taste. Otherwise, why not just eat flavored mush? The key word you want to look for on this is haptic art. Here's a good post about this topic, too: https://ivanisakov.medium.com/haptic-art-7f55e995c576 https://ivanisakov.medium.com/haptic-art-7f55e995c576 Edit: I was looking into this more and came across an essay by Johann Herder, which is probably of interest: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/annotations/herder.htm http://csmt.uchicago.edu/annotations/herder.htm https://www.jstor.org/stable/25622078 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25622078 Part One lays out the foundation for Herder’s argument for the virtues of sculpture by distinguishing between seeing and touching. He recounts several stories of blind people who did not understand the concept of seeing to point out the fact that we see sculpture as three dimensional only because we have grown up using our senses of touch and of sight in tandem. Were it not for touch, vision would merely be a field of colors and shapes. In this distinction we find a theme common to media theory, the problem of distinguishing the ways we interact with our surroundings, while at the same time recognizing their interdependence. While Herder realizes that our understanding of sight as forms depends on our sense of touch, he would have us define our understanding of forms only through touch and forget about sight. For him, since the essence of sculpture is "beautiful form and beautiful shape," and a "physically present, tangible truth," (p. 40) to understand it only as a vision is a profanation, a grave underestimation of its potential.
- zachrose 3y agoI think it has to do with what you’re considering as artwork! There’s a traditional distinction between “fine arts” and “applied arts.” Fine art, like painting, is almost definitionally not supposed to be touched. Applied arts include fibers (knitting, weaving), ceramics, jewelry and metalwork, etc. Stuff that’s meant to be pleasing and functional. Whether something should be touched is almost _the thing_ that moves a field from one category to the other. Applied artists, and their product designer cousins, will spend a lot of time exploring and pursuing tactile qualities.
- drewcoo 3y agoAbsolutely textiles! And if woodworking isn't some kind of tactile art, why do people always want to touch wooden furniture or art? Always. Just watch it happen. I'd like to know if that's how all apes react or just we. I would argue that food "mouth feel" is pretty important (as is the feeling of eating with hands - that's something to turn into art for a third of the planet daily and the rest of us on lucky occasion). Arguably, whatever's going on with haptics in VR is art. Even if it's porn. Porn is almost as good for spreading art as it is for spreading tech!
- Dave_Rosenthal 3y agoA lot of people saying stuff like sports or pottery. But I have a hard time thinking of those as art forms meant to be experienced through touch. What comes to mind for me is something like the "Tactile Dome" at the Exploratorium in SF--an exhibit for kids where it's dark and you move through it feeling different things with different sensations. I think food is also a good candidate. One thought is that vision and hearing are all 1->many senses. That is, many people can stand around and experience one fireworks show, or one musician, or one painting. We've even invented ways of amplifying the "many" with speakers, projectors, etc. Perhaps this makes these art forms more commercially viable than touch, where a single person experiencing it excludes anyone else from the same experience? Maybe we need to invent a "touch multiplier" before the genre will take off?
- karaterobot 3y agoI wouldn't say literature is a form of art made for the eyes. You read with your eyes, if you're sighted, but you can still appreciate literature without seeing words on a page. You can listen to someone else read it, and if you read braille you're still appreciating literature in a way that's a little different but still obviously counts. To answer your rhetorical question, I don't think there's a form of art that is exclusively made to be appreciated with the tactile sense. But elements of many other arts have a tactile component: for example, cooking isn't just for taste, there's a major tactile component (and a major vision component, and a major smell component). On a related note, drinking is not just about taste, but about the effect of a substance on your body, how it makes you feel, and so on. The same is true for other substances. What counts as art? I think architecture has a tactile component: the feel of the materials used, or how a space can make you feel big, or small, or cozy, or cold, etc. I also think athletics, if we can call athletics an art form, aren't only visual but have a sympathetic physical component—we feel a version of what the athlete we're watching is feeling. Even music wouldn't be the same without a sense of touch. Feeling music with your body is important, not just hearing it (what's the difference again?). This is especially true for live music, which is to say all music up until pretty recently. I'm not sure how much I buy all of the above. It's an interesting question though. I think my real answer is: why should we think there has to be? There's no rule that says that for every sense there must be a discrete form of art. It's just a coincidence that we can map different art forms onto different senses, but we can't even do that cleanly, as most of your examples appeal to more than one sense anyway.
- aristofun 3y agomartial arts
- dahart 3y agoTouch based art forms are everywhere, the question’s premise is wrong. Textiles and clothing and industrial and consumer product design around touch experience abound. Linens and car interiors and furniture and kitchen utensils and even all hand tools are all meant for touch and you can find high end artists focusing on the touch experience and selling expensive bespoke products. These are every bit as much art as perfumery and culinary arts. Kids museums and science museums have touch exhibits all the time, even art exhibits on occasion do too. The making of musical instruments is an art form dedicated to a product that is enjoyed and experienced by the player through touch as much as sound.
- navane 3y agoA nice watch. Luxury fabric. Quality objects: cutlery, handles on your doors and cars, your pots and pans. These make the entirety feel cheap or expensive.
- futureshock 3y agoIt’s called sex. There’s no way to mass produce it, but it’s not called the art of seduction for nothing. Massage also qualifies in my book.
- havelhovel 3y ago"When questioned about the relationship between art and sexuality, Pablo Picasso once replied, 'It’s the same thing.'" https://time.com/archive/6671960/sex-in-the-city/ https://time.com/archive/6671960/sex-in-the-city/
- futureshock 3y agoOh I do believe he thought that! He had this style of portrait he liked to do of women and their distorted faces. It seems so surreal and imaginative, but in a way, it’s not at all. Picasso painted exactly what he saw in bed with these women. Close up he saw double images of their face from two angles, a bit grotesque if you think about it, but then sex is a bit grotesque as well;) https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/gallery/8122/picasso-the-artist-and-his-muses/0 https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/gallery/8122/pica...
- EForEndeavour 3y agoWhere can I read more about this theory that Picasso's two-angle distorted portraits are somehow connected to what he saw during sex? Did you make this up, or is this interpretation discussed elsewhere?
- futureshock 3y agoI believe I read it on one of those little plaques describing the painting in a museum. I suppose everything was made up by someone though, including the time when Picasso made up these paintings.
- hypertexthero 3y agoDrawing https://www.drawright.com/ https://www.drawright.com/ Native American basketweaving https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/woven-legacies-basketry-native-north-america https://www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/woven-legacies-basketr... Renaissance sculpture https://www.collezionegalleriaborghese.it/en/collezione/scultura https://www.collezionegalleriaborghese.it/en/collezione/scul... Origami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami Pottery https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/master-potter-encourages-students-to-refine-craft/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/master-potter... Textiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile Dance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance Etc. Anything you make with your body, really, so also typing and literature :) Two books I like about art: The Hand - How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture by Frank R. Wilson https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/191866/the-hand-by-frank-r-wilson/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/191866/the-hand-by-... The Creative Act: A Way of Being by Rick Rubin. This one speaks about how anything you do can be considered a form of art. A book with positive vibes. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/717356/the-creative-act-by-rick-rubin/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/717356/the-creative...
- cryptonector 3y agoCulinary arts -> consumable. Touching artworks can -typically does, albeit slowly- destroy them, thus touchable art is also a consumable. All forms of art consumed through vision are not consumables -- they don't wear out from use. Well, some types of media, such as paper books and film do wear out from use, but not the actual contents. Artists who want to make a durable impact on the world will -probably?- prefer to appeal to senses where the media can be non-consumable or slowly-consumable.
- navane 3y agoAll music used to disappear on consumption.
- cryptonector 3y agoTrue, but it could be re-created. Culinary arts can also be recreated. Hmm.
- smokel 3y agoIf you'd extend touch to sensor input for gravity and acceleration, I suppose theme parks and carnivals provide the art form you are looking for. Making this kind of categorization leads to a question to which the answer probably says more about the categorization, than about the individual items. I guess it is exactly due to these kinds of categorizations that there are institutions and/or art prizes that cover only a single sensor. Personally, I don't mind mixing culinary arts and music with contemporary art, but tastes differ.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- itishappy 3y agoHere's a few interesting/controversial takes: 1. Food is a touch-based art. Texture is such a critical and underrated component. Do you prefer the corner or center brownies? 2. Clothing is a touch-based art. Ask anybody on the spectrum. 3. Product design is a touch-based art. Feel how well your phone fits in your hand. Feel how well your ass fits your car seat or computer chair. Ever felt the finish of a nice pair of binoculars? 4. Craftsmanship is a touch-based art. Woodworking, metalworking, pottery. The end result can obviously be touch-based, but I'd argue the process is as well. Cutting, shaping, grinding, polishing, these are all intimately physical acts! Even CNC work has a physical connection. 5. Music is a touch-based art. Ask someone deaf.