bishop and relational aesthetics

Having read both Claire Bishop’s October article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics”, Liam Gillick’s response, and Bishop’s counter response I make the following points:

The most interesting thing that stood out for me in Bishop’s article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” is the way in which Bishop questions how we can evaluate the effectiveness of ‘relational aesthetic’ work. What is interesting for me is Bishop’s critique of relational aesthetics on the depth of relationship being developed. Bishop states for Bourriard what Tiravanija cooks, how, and for whom is irrelevant - the most important outcome is that the food is free.

Bishop argues that she is not ‘suggesting relational art works need to develop a greater social conscience’, however I do think this is in part makes up an important part of her argument, and I think is entirely valid. Bishop argues we need to consider why are we creating these works, what kinds of relationships do we think are important to create? I think a critique based on the sorts of social relationships we’re creating/ affirming and the ones we are not is incredibly relevant. Bishop goes on later to critically question the kinds of democratic relationships occurring within a field of artists, and later heralds the work of Santiago Sierra for it points to the sorts of power inequalities which exist under capitalism.

The difficulty I see in works such as Sierra’s which is pointed out by Gillick (though his over all response was irritating) in his response is that these works don’t seek to go beyond exposing the inequality. Sierra himself has said “I don’t believe in the possibility of change”, yet Bishop argues that his works which create antagonism hints that ‘their boundaries are both unstable and open to change’. Whilst I think this is an interesting point, and I think that the work could potentially have flow on effects creating conciousness and change it is a depressing depiction of powerlessness, which I don’t actually think assists a process of change. This fact does not necessarily cheapen the work, but I think is relevant when comparing it to a strategy within ‘relational aesthetics’ which is an attempt at creating some sort of change.

I really appreciate the work of Sierra’s as I think it’s an honest representation of race and class inequalities which need to be reflected. This kind of reflection is missing in works such as Tirivanjia ‘(Untitled) Tomorrow is another day” , though I appreciate the strategy of creating a space which allows social relationships to evolve. However I think for it to be truly meaningful it needs to take up the questions raised by Bishop regarding “what sorts of relationships and communities do we want?”