In response to Erik Rietveld’s text “The affordances of art for making technologies,” this commentary probes art’s affordances for what Rietveld calls behavioral “changeability.” I ask, how can a view of art’s affordances help to better understand collective and relational affects and habitual behaviors? Can artworks help to “radically change the affordances available in our surroundings,” to generate collective social action and behavioral change?
CrowleyJ. E. (1999). The sensibility of comfort. The American Historical Review, 104(3), 749–782.
2.
HongR. (2017). Office interiors and the fantasy of information work. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 540–562.
3.
MühlhoffR.SlabyJ. (2018). Immersion at work: Affect and power in post-Fordist work cultures. In Röttger-rösslerB.SlabyJ. (Eds.), Affect in relation: Families, places, technologies (pp. 155–174). Routledge.
4.
NoëA. (2015). Strange tools: Art and human nature. Hill & Wang.
5.
PropstR. L. (1966). The action office. Human Factors, 8(4), 299–306.
6.
RietveldE. (2016). Situating the embodied mind in a landscape of standing affordances for living without chairs: Materializing a philosophical worldview. Sports Medicine, 46(7), 927–932.
7.
RietveldE. (2019). The affordances of art for making technologies [Inagurual Lecture]. University of Twente.
