Critique of Relational Aesthetics

Claire Bishop's article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” made some interesting arguments about relational aesthetics that should be considered.
-Bishop discus’s this utopian idea of participatory art that is said to create an actual community and social entity and critiques Relational art on the basis of context, audience and the environmental space.
-Bishop argues that ‘the interactivity of relational aesthetic is therefore superior to optical contemplation of an object, which is assumed to be passive and disengaged, because the work of art is a social form capable of producing positive human relationships. As a consequence, the work is automatically political and emancipatory in effect.”
-Bishop raises the question as to whether the relations created within the work of artists such as Tiravanija identify with each other because they all share something in common, that being art. If viewers that participated within these works did not share a common idea or interest would the work be different? Would it work at all?
-She continues on to discuss the artist Thomas Hirschhorn, using this artist to draw and critically analyze the ideals of relational aesthetics. Bishop focuses on an interesting work of his called ‘Bataille Monument’, which was comprised of three installations; a shack, a bar run by locals and two housing projects. To reach the destination of this artist’s installation the viewers had to get a lift with a Turkish cab company, which was commissioned to take viewers to and from the work. This work goes deeper as the artwork was situated in the middle of a community, which included people from different ethical and economic statuses than the artworks intended audience. Viewers were left in this place purposely by the artist as people were taken into an environment which challenged their boundaries making all viewers, as Bishop describes, “ hapless intruders”. This works plays on many of the ideas of relational aesthetics that being location, audience, context and construction. The importance of this work to Bishop is that she sees that viewers are required to participate but, thoughtfully and critically not physical involving themselves within the work like Tiravanija. The viewer goes beyond mere involvement provoked by the artist but here the viewer is put into a situation where they are forced to think about the work and the surroundings they have been placed in. After reading about this work I do find that it does provoke me to ask more questions and think more thoughtfully about the artists intent then that of Tiravanija's 'Untitled (Tomorrow is another day)'.
Bishop makes some interesting claims about the effectiveness of relational aesthetics within art. It is interesting to see some challenging ideas in relation to Bourriaud’s and makes one question the artworks of relational aesthetics.