-

For the most part i find Bourriaud's writing a struggle. Although i do like many of the artwork's discussed in the reading, i think that if social relations is the trend to contemporary art than is it really art at all? All you are doing here is forcing art as society! To me art is an expression of an individual, no matter if it is completely personal or if is a blatant social/political/whatever statement. Who are we to judge an expression of another individual? Or, god forbid, determine it’s worth?! Overall I don’t agree with this type of art. I think that if art is to be social that there then should be breaches to its own self, as the ‘vandalism’ by Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi to Tracey Emins instillation My Bed or Pierre Pinoncelli to Marcel Duchamp’s Urinal, and once again Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi to the Urinal. These artist’s have been condemned by the ‘art world’ - the gallery owners, the people who put a price on art - often being made to pay the legal fee’s/charges/replacement of the original work because it is not considered by them to be ‘good’, ‘worthwhile’ or ‘important.’ If it can exceed the boundaries of society, then it can exceed the boundaries of art.
On another note, one of the biggest question that the reading brought to mind of me was as Jean-Luc Goddard explained that it takes two to make an image? Does that mean that art needs to be seen to be art? Or that what we see, for example a tree resembling a naked woman to our subconscious, art/not art? To me it's rubbish, the most beautiful images to come from our world may never be seen by the human eye, let alone in the art world.