Its isn’t difficult to sympathise with many of the criticisms made of relational art, but it does offer a model of artistic practice which is consistent with the zeitgeist of our age, a model which is not alienating or didactic, nor wildly ambitious as per the avant-garde of the 20th century. Bourriaud proposes that “art was intended to prepare and announce a future world: today it is modelling possible universes.” This is not a closed project. Bourriaud has attempted to introduce a new, and undeniably necessary syntax for contemporary art. We are perched on the cusp of cultural-historical watershed; a generation who do not know of a world before the internet is coming of age and simultaneously the vectors of our social engagement are being transfigured at an exponential rate. Mass culture, a conventional apparatus of ideological repression is shifting from production for the masses to production by the masses. Once passive receptors of merchandise, witnessing the spectacle, we are now extras in a society where every public space has been colonized by corporate capitalism.
I believe in the model of art which Bourriaud is proposing, but feel thats it's failure is in its actualisation. Too often the kind of encounters which relational aesthetics envisions occur amidst an art-world public who are already versed in critical reflection on context and relationships between entities- essentially preaching to the converted. When these projects occur in the broader public domain they fall short of the mark, fetishising the participatory process; at their best they are congenial, at their worst a franchise.
So where to now?
hi anika, and others reading this..
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree that the works are occur predominantly amongst an art world. And I think it's a problematic view that the art world are the only people who can understand it.
Take this recent work by artists Zanny Begg and Keg De Souza
http://youareherenews.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/remake-estate/
The basis of this work was to buy a derelict abandoned house (funded by aust. arts council) in Gary and 're-make' it into a community space, predominantly a community garden. The work was based on the unrecognised work of Gordon Matta Clark in buying up unused buildings in New York to make archictectural interventions.
I've been following the project and it looks like it was immensly successul,.. they had so much participation from all walks of life in the Gary community!
It doesn't matter that the community might not understand the theoretical underpinnings of the work, and maybe a lot of them do .. the point is that the space creates opportunities for people to come together, to share stories and food, and obtain free food. These are the buildings of social relationships outside of capitalism.. the whole point to the project.
i'm interested in what you mean by "at best they are congenial, at their worst a franchise"
Hey!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. In reply (apologies if this is fragmented):
I would consider that anywhere that something is considered 'art' is part of an 'art world'. Also, I by no means (and i emphasise this strongly) suggesting that only art world people can understand this sort of work.
However, i think that the nature of the works reception and comprehension ought to be considered, bringing back the age old question of 'what makes something art?'. When creative interventions occur in public spaces outside of established artistic institutes, they can be difficult to recognise as art, entering a shady grey area between artistic practice and social activism. The project you mentioned is a very interesting example of this, as is the one Luke McMaster mentioned http://socialrelations2010.blogspot.com/2010/08/community.html#comments. Whilst not denying the success, worth and importance of such projects, you have to question how many of those involved recognised it as art, what this means for its qualification as 'art', and then of course whether that even matters, to whom and why.
On the subject of creating alternative social spaces though I would absolutely disagree. For a project like the one you mentioned to succeed, it must have been created within and through the cooperation of a capitalist agenda, simply by virtue of the fact that it was funded the by Australia Arts Council. Additionally, funding by the AAC is only awarded to a fraction of applications, selected on the basis of what they consider to be a worthwhile undertaking. There is a chain of accountability involved in the selection process, as ultimately all projects that are funded are 'endorsed' by the government. Similarly, the site itself could not have been utilized in such a way if not approved by the local council's development board. By permitting these projects to transpire, state powers approve of them as 'appropriate spaces of encounter and relational economy'. It’s a kind of co-operative social work/therapy and entrepreneurialism which capitalism thrives upon. Whilst the 'remake-estate' project does allot of fantastic things for the community, to claim it creates relationships outside capitalism is wrong- it’s firmly in the realm of capitalism. Not to say that this is counter-productive. Thomas Hirschhorn has some interesting theories on not working for or against capitalism, but within it, and suggests that this is the only effective way of resisting the 'dictatorship of facts and the dictatorship of opinion'. You might find it interesting.
Phew that’s longer that either of the original posts! lol. Thats how I feel about all this at this point anyway. Ask me again at the end of the course and I may have a completely different answer for you! In terms of your query about congeniality and franchise, have a look at Luke MacMaster's entry which I linked to above, as I respond to it and go into a little more detail on the idea of a franchise.
See you in class! x