CONVERSATION PIECES: Community and Communication in Modern Art

Reading "Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art" by Grant H. Kester has definately opened my mind up to these new 'windows' (which we described in class) and has made me think more about the world and the context of art. Where art stands and doesn't stand.
Reading this introducion has certainly inspired me to learn alot more about political situations and possibly even explore my art practise as a means for addressing issues (such as the ones in Conversation Pieces) - something else other than expressing my personal emotions and thoughts..
This course is making me see that art does not always have to be object-based (something i am so used to in painting, especially after coming out of highschool less than two years ago)

Conversation Pieces starts out addressing the fact that artists began creating "performative, process-based" works which lead the meaning of their work to be found within the context rather than the content. Here artists began to move away from their obsession with object.
The object usually being created out of traditional art materials was replaced with "sociopolitical relationships"
-Relational Aesthetics definately arises here as these works are almost purely based on communication & exchange -the exact definition that Kester describes for Bourriad's Relational Aesthetics.

Here the concern was "in the ways in which aesthetic experience can challenge conventional perceptions and systems of knowledge" (p.3)
- let go of the old and let in the new!
Communitive and collaborative work,"The Roof Is on Fire" draws upon a concern with the media and language that has been used to describe different races of teenagers such as stereotyping and cliches. This work confronts these issues of society by giving these teenagers a chance to "take control of their own image"
-What i gather from this work is that the artwork is outweighed by the intention of the work (the intention being more important) which would be the aim of raising awareness of such issues & helping attack these issues.
The response of such works is immediate as these works are active and not a refined object.

"These projects all share a concern with the creative facilitation of dialogue and exchange" (p.8)
Kester goes on to discuss "conversational art" and "dialogue-based art" with his term, Dialogical.
As object has been replaced with conversation, for example in "Code 33", a taped performance of conversations between 100 cops and 150 students- the dialogue here is heard, it is audial.
But i could not help but question written dialogue that is sometimes used within works.
I have been reading books and books of Sophie Calle and she uses alot of dialogue within her works, written letters or descriptions of memories etc - does this relate to the definition of dialogical works that Kester discusses? (or maybe it is something completely different, i'm not sure)
But written words/dialogue (i am exploring this extensively within my own work at the moment) is using the same language in which we communicate verbal words/dialogue - so is it the same or different because we are using different senses in recieving that communication?
[if that makes sense..]

"The concept of dialogical art practice is derived fro the Russian literary Theorest Mikhail Baktin, who argues that the work of art can be viewed as a kind of conversation - a locus of differing meanings, interpretations and points of view" (p.10)

Kester begins to delve into the problems with criticism of these communitive/collaborative/dialogical works: "mainstream art criticism focuses on the formal appearance of physical objects"
-Problems were sure to arise in critically engaging and analysising these works.
We are used to a physical object to analyse that can sit still in front of us so we can carefully analyse it, unlike the immediate response these conversation works require of us.
(i hate to say it, but for example the structual frame used in highschool with dot points of composition, colour, tone, shapes etc..)
"criticised for being unaesthetic..suppressing visual gratification" (p.10)

Kester tells of some critics that approve of these projects if it is "seen laudable or sympathetic"
This is how i saw this: Just like in some cases a painting gets a tick if it is aesthetically pleasing, if the project here is sympathetic or worthy attention (such as raising an issue of awareness like AIDS) it gets a tick as successful art.
I would agree with Kester that these projects do definately demand something more and a level of strategic analysis is by far neccessary.


..I really am intrigued to read his whole book and find out an explanation of his strategy.