A Dialogue With Myself.
Side 1: While the term 'Relational Aesthetics' is still quite new, the idea is not. In his book Relational Aesthetics Bourriaud tells us that 'the artworld is essentially relational'. Every work that has ever existed is about instating a dialogue, a relationship between the work and an other, whether that be a man in the sky or, more commonly in contemporary art, an audience of viewers. No art can exist within a vacuum. So my question is, if a relationship between art and the viewer is inevtible, an integral part of every work, why do Bourriad's 'relational artists' feel the need to make it such a literal part of art? Why make work about something that already exists within all works?
Side 2: Bourriaud also discusses art as a commodity, a popular topic among every artist and his dog. He says that art began as being 'universally available', but as value and rarity became synonymous art was commodified and made precious, and therefore more difficult to see and experience. One of the ideals of relational art is to turn away from the 'art as commodity' mentality, to decentralise the idea of ownership and authorship, and to return to the purely experiential. Which is sweet.
Side 2: Bourriaud also discusses art as a commodity, a popular topic among every artist and his dog. He says that art began as being 'universally available', but as value and rarity became synonymous art was commodified and made precious, and therefore more difficult to see and experience. One of the ideals of relational art is to turn away from the 'art as commodity' mentality, to decentralise the idea of ownership and authorship, and to return to the purely experiential. Which is sweet.
And yet from what I gather even Rirkrit Tiravanija's artworks happened in major galleries, which automatically institutionalizes the works.
ReplyDeleteBut does that necessarily mean it commodifies them? I dunno.
And then there's the fact that this book that Bourriaud's chosen to write is obviously going to be discussed within an institutional critique, whether that be the institution of the gallery or of a univesity.
ReplyDeleteBourriaud is taking ownership, or authorship, over a group of ideals that abhor the very thought of authorship!
I think it is still commodification - his work exists within the framework of the artworld and its "use" value. Instead of an individual buying a work, the institution buys it for display in large exhibitions (biennale). Also one could buy his empty beer bottles and noodles etc
ReplyDelete