Tate Sensorium: Offer Another Way into an Artwork

Read the campaign story

Tate Sensorium opened at Tate Britain in August 2015 as the winning IK Prize project by Flying Object. Contemporary accounts describe four paintings encountered through combinations of sound, scent, taste and touch-related technology. In an Aesthetica interview, co-founder Tom Pursey explained the collaborative development process and the intention to invite personal readings rather than impose a single interpretation. The installation is studied as one project, not four separate artwork cases.

The sources document the experience and its creators, not a general law that adding senses improves learning. Some launch reporting describes optional physiological measurement. This case does not adopt those descriptions as proof that a device could identify a visitor’s specific emotion or explain why a person responded. It also does not claim that an unusual installation is automatically accessible to everyone or that publicity demonstrates lasting engagement with art.

Editorial interpretation: changing the encounter can interrupt a familiar habit of glancing, reading a label and moving on. A sensory cue may prompt someone to notice a shape, rhythm or association they had not considered. Its value depends on the relationship with the artwork and on giving the visitor room to disagree. An experience that dictates what someone should feel can reduce interpretation rather than open it.

The design also asks the institution to manage practical differences between visitors. A scent, sound or taste that enriches one person’s visit may be unwanted or unsuitable for another. A responsible adaptation should provide clear information, informed choices and an equivalent route without the added stimulus. The art remains the focus, while technology and sensory material serve a bounded interpretive purpose rather than becoming a test of willingness to participate.

Choose one interpretive question before adding a stimulus

Identify what the visitor might examine differently and why the additional cue belongs with that question. Do not add effects simply because the equipment is available. Try a plain visual or written prompt first, then ask whether another mode offers a useful choice. The team should be able to explain the relationship without insisting on one correct response. An unexpected association is valuable only if the visitor can still make sense of the encounter on their own terms.

Make participation genuinely optional

Tell people what they may encounter before entry, provide a way to skip each component and keep the ordinary artwork experience available. Consult appropriate specialists about access, allergens, sensory sensitivities and venue requirements. Do not treat declining a stimulus as a failed visit. Staff need a clear response to discomfort and a practical way to change the experience. Choice should be built into circulation and timing rather than left to a visitor to negotiate publicly.

Evaluate interpretation without pretending to read emotions

Use voluntary conversation and simple tasks to understand what visitors noticed, questioned or remembered. Keep self-reported experience distinct from behaviour and from any physiological signal. Do not infer a specific feeling from a bodily response or use novelty ratings as evidence of understanding. Where research is proposed, give it its own qualified review and consent process. An exhibition can be engaging without collecting intimate data or claiming scientific authority for every design decision.

A small test for another brief

A small gallery tests an optional, captioned sound accompaniment for one rights-cleared artwork, alongside the same work presented silently with a written prompt.

Measure new observations, understood context, preferred access options and discomfort reports. Separate enjoyment, novelty and time spent from durable learning.

Pause if the cue overwhelms the artwork, causes avoidable discomfort or becomes a claim about what visitors must feel.

• Use original licensed audio and explain the interpretive question.
• Provide an equally accessible silent route and easy stopping.
• Ask consenting adults what they noticed without collecting physiological or health information.