Spatial Narrative and Experience Expression of Contemporary Art Exhibitions under the Parasitism Concept
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/7r2k4r65Keywords:
Parasitism concept, Contemporary art exhibitions, Spatial narrative, Experience expression, Field symbiosisAbstract
Based on Michel Serres's philosophy of parasitism and the current development of contemporary art exhibitions, this article explores the deep mechanism of integrating parasitism concepts into exhibition space creation and narrative construction, and analyzes the interdependent and symbiotic relationships between art fields, work carriers, and public spaces, offering practical approaches for contemporary curatorial innovation and public art intervention. The article combines theoretical tracing and empirical analysis, selecting the traditional white cube exhibition mode, Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism\Architecture (UABB), Hong Kong Para Site Art Space, and UCCA Art Project as typical samples, and conducting discussions from five dimensions: theoretical tracing, spatial attachment, institutional intervention, cultural symbiosis, and experiential reshaping. This study finds that the parasitism concept can break the spatial constraints of traditional exhibition models, reconstruct narrative expression logic, and encourage audiences to shift from passive viewing to immersive on-site experiences. This article summarizes the practical value and existing limitations of parasitic narrative, clarifies the balance criteria of art exhibitions in space utilization, narrative construction, and public experience, and opens up a new path for integrating art space into urban life scenes.
Downloads
References
[1] Wineman, J. D., & Peponis, J. (2010). Constructing spatial meaning: Spatial affordances in museum design. Environment and Behavior, 42(1), 86-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509335534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509335534
[2] Brown, S. D. (2002). Michel Serres: Science, translation and the logic of the parasite. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276402019003001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026327602401081503
[3] Thompson, N. (Ed.). (2012). Living as form: Socially engaged art from 1991-2011. MIT Press.
[4] Beyes, T. (2010). Uncontained: The art and politics of reconfiguring urban space. Culture and Organization, 16(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2010.492283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2010.503499
[5] Németh, J., & Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.007
[6] Bishop, C. (2004). Antagonism and relational aesthetics. October, 110, 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1162/0162287042379810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0162287042379810
[7] Alexander, V. D. (2018). Heteronomy in the arts field: State funding and British arts organizations. The British Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12283
[8] Jones, C. A. (2020). The global work of art: World's fairs, biennials, and the aesthetics of experience. University of Chicago Press.
[9] O’Neill, P. (2007). The curatorial turn: From practice to discourse. In J. Rugg & M. Sedgwick (Eds.), Issues in curating contemporary art and performance (pp. 13-28). Intellect Books.
[10] Pallasmaa, J. (2024). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119941253 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394200702
[11] Brinck, I. (2018). Empathy, engagement, entrainment: The interaction dynamics of aesthetic experience. Cognitive Processing, 19(2), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0843-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0805-x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Art and Design
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
