relational object and isms

Looking briefly at the video Alex posted, "Art Safari- Relational Art: is it an ism?"
The investigation of relational aesthetics as a possible "ism" art movement seems unnecessary as, from what i gather, relational aesthetics exists at some level in all art.
All art relates to the world, other artworks, or the audience, and as Bourriaud suggests "any artwork might thus be defined as a relational object."
* i think this is what you were getting at Georgia?

Although all art can be seen to be relational, the works described in the reader are differentiated by their focus on conviviality. Scenarios involving feasts and other everyday sociable activities are effective at attracting the participation of the public, so i suppose this common theme amoung the works isn't surprising.

One question though, do people see the audience or public who participate in these works to be collaborators?

they certaintly are necessary for the completion or even existence of the work, but i for one don't feel they have collaborated with the artist. I bring this up in regards to Sophie Calle's encounters with strangers, which Bourriaud describes as, "a biographical experience, which leads her to "collaborate" with the people she meets." I feel this term is misplaced (even with it's tentative quotation marks) as the starngers weren't involved from the artworks conception to it's completion.