Firstly, as a response to Luke Calarco’s post – esp where he states:
“…now I guess if people were making these kinds of works they would need another element. I'm not actually sure if anyone is making these kinds of works these days, but I hope not.”
From what I gather in the first section , Participation and Transivity, relational aesthetics can be used as a framework in which to read artworks. Many works might be defined as relational. There are heaps of works which study relations external to those within the art world. A recent example that comes to mind is the ‘Snail Piece’ presented last weekend by the Wollongong collective Appelspiel for Underbelly Festival. Their work relied on relationships which evolved during audience members for the piece – that determined its ending. The full work is on the Appelspiel blog.
The work is relational because explores subjective relations between positions – in this case it got stuck on positions of ethics and animal cruelty (you had to decide whether the artist should smash a snail with a brick).
I also think its hard to imagine a contemporary work which doesn’t acknowledge/exploit/parody a tradition. That’s the nature of contemporary work.
Ok, if you want to be super nerdy – here a half hour video that critic Ben Lewis makes where he tries to find out if relational art is an ‘ism’. It’s a nice little introduction to the topic and he interviews relational artists such as Rirkrit Tiravanija. It helped me understand the terms introduced in the reader.
Art Safari - Relational Art: Is It An Ism?
Here's another one for nerds! You can buy the book here for about $25 including postage.
i watched this video ages ago and have been racking my brain for what it is called. thanks for the link
ReplyDeleteTo be honest Caleb I found it when I went to the relational art wiki page.
ReplyDeletedam why didn't i think of that!
ReplyDeleteYou know the snail piece you were just discussing reminds me so much of a work that (almost won/was nominated for) the Turner Prize, where a guy put goldfish in a blender. But rather than the audience deciding whether or not the artist should kill the animal, they had the option to turn the blender on themselves. Then when somebody did there was this huge outrage and nobody was sure whether they should be fining the artist for putting the fish in the blender or the audience member for turning it on!
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to a newspaper article about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/goldfish-in-blenders-cause-outrage-724729.html
Nice!
ReplyDeleteThe Appelspiel piece actually caused considerable drama's for the organisers of underbelly - who had to consult arts lawyers and the like to see if the work could actually go ahead. Not sure if any snails actually got smashed, as I didn't actually go to the festival, only a lab tour.