Differing Responses

I found it interesting to read the different critiques on Relational aesthetics. As the first text I read, Hal Foster's review was interesting as it made me think about relational aesthetics in a more critical way and assosciated issues such as his view that perhaps it reflects a 'post-critical culture'. After looking at the other readings (Gillick/Bishop) it shows the other perspectives on what the 'relational' artists were trying to achieve. The works by 'relational artists' and Bourriaud have certainly raised discussion as seems to be the intention. Although the works are interactive and inclusive, each audience member would interpret the works in a different way (just as the critics have revealed through their differing responses). This makes me question whether the audience would neccesarily recognise the artist's inention with the work and if this is important.

Bourriaud refered to these artists in relation to his ideas and critiques. I suppose some readers believed that these artists were identified as 'relational', when their ideas and works were just being assosciated with it. This clarifies why in the video from last week they had issues with being assosciated to relational aesthetics.

From reading Gillick's response, Clare Bishop sounds quite ignorant to the broader issues and intentions of the artists works, however this opinion stems from Gillick who is obviously opposed to many of Bishop's comments.
It is very interesting to see the different perspectives and critiques. It reminds you that the only way to respond critically is to be well informed, and the only way to understand all the issues related to relational aesthetics is to read as many critiques and opinions as there is obvious bias and subjectivity.