Reading over some of the stuff mentioned in the article, there seemed to be some pretty awesome stuff happening in response to gallery spaces/social customs ect. Although the stuff was pretty cool, a lot of these works seemed a little one dimensional as they were purely gallery space/social critiques. At the time they were made I think that definitely would have been ok, because the whole relational aesthetics thing was still pretty exciting, but 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. In Rikrit Tirajaniva's case he has a bunch of other elements that keep his work interesting, and that's probably true of a lot of the other artists, so I probably don't even know what I'm talking about now.
Anyway, I guess the point is these days it seems people are free to create work in any kind of ways, so no one cares if you are or are not using a traditionE
People are still very much making these sorts of work - they are really a major part of contemporary art practices. But the idea that you want more is interesting, something to develop
ReplyDeletepeople still make all kinds of work that isn't interesting. doesn't have to be literally gone to be dead.
ReplyDeletethat's not to say there isn't some great relational work around, but it all has other elements that keep it interesting!