Art vs Reality

In looking at this unit as a whole i came to a similar conclusion to Luke, the stuff (whether you want to catagorise it as art or not) that we have dealt with in this class is linked very closely to, and in some cases cant be separated from, every day life, or as Rosalyn Deutsche puts it "reality".

With this move away from categorising and separating art and life, the idea that art is non-functional disappears. By this i mean that the notion that art is able to speak about or represents real things, or even use real things (Marcel Duchamp) but cannot be worn, eaten, or used to sit on is not relevant in the forms of art we have been looking at.

What interests me is the fact that by becoming a part of "reality" art becomes more interactive, accessible, and less dependent on institutions, however, it also becomes less distinguishable as art or noticeable. This may not be a bad thing as art doesn't always need a title or named artist/s to make it valid. However, there is the growing possibility that only the art world know about these works as they are so integrated into everyday life, and an exclusive dialogue between the work and the people of the art world begins to appear in some cases.

So how do we blend art and life without excluding the public?

A matter of conscience

So you're an artist and you want to make an 'environmental work'.
All you have to do is throw in some statements about how we are ruining the world and some pictures of trees, preferably ones about to be logged. Then your viewers are at your mercy. They must agree with the concept of environmental protection because it is right. People become guilt tripped into thinking the work is good because they believe in the ideals behind it.

This is problematic, as there are many 'environmental' works that are not great artworks.
Yes i believe we are fucking up the planet and we need to stop many of the ways we are living, or at least become conscious of the way we are effecting the earth, but i hate the way we aslmost have to appreciate an artwork simply because it claims to be environmental (the same goes with works about slavery, racism, etc.)

This sounds awfully cynical, but what i want to point out is how many of the works claim to be "green" but beyond the environmentalist message earning them immediate credit, the materials used or way its presented are in themselves damaging the environment.

This leads me to question my own practice. Can i condone using new materials, or non-recyclable materials in an artwork. The work doesn't have a function and it doesn't help anyone survive, so why can i off-ride my use of these materials? does the title ART make my conscious feel better?

concatenation

So Raunig (following earlier ideas) believes that art and politics are closely intertwined.

So art cannot be completely separate from politics, and politics cannot exist without triggering some sort of artistic response.

In regards to the PublixTheatreCaravan, Raunig is concerned with ideas on ethics and equality. The idea of creating amateur theater without any hierarchy or leader seems like a good idea in terms of equality, however, i wonder how it worked? Living in a society built upon a foundation of systems of leaders and sub-leaders, workers etc, i am a bit skeptical of how this system could work?

God is God

Stumbling upon Liabach in 2010, as an Australian, it is difficult to be affected by it as strongly as the Slovian public was (and is).
I understand why it is controversial, but i fail to be shocked by it...

What i did gain from listening to, looking at, reading about Liabach was an insight into an unusual method of political comment (this method could also be applied to areas outside of politics).
The music/art of Liabach sits somewhere between irony, negation, and compliance. At first i couldn't work out if i was meant to laugh, dance or take the message seriously. I then discovered that Liabach's aim wasn't any of these things, it was simply to present what was already going on. The songs are a combination of popular culture, military reference, and socialist ideology. They caused controversy by bringing the fears and beliefs of the Slovenian public into mass culture. This was achieved by adopting the beliefs of a particular system (such as totalitarian regime) to the extreame. So they follow the rules so strictly than it becomes almost ridiculous, they "take the system more seriously than it takes itself"

Seagulls and Dead trees

So this week I looked at the work of Mark Dion and how it fits into the area of community based art.

Firstly i want to look at Neukom Vivarium, where Dion brings a fallen Hemlock tree (home to a large variety of flora and fauna) into the heart of Seattle as part of the Olympic Sculpture Park.

Basically the work involves Dion retrieving the fallen tree from its natural habitat and placing it in a greenhouse so that it will evolve into a living sculpture as plants begin to grow from it and insects and animals inhabit the tree.
In an interview about Neukom Vivarium, Dion states that he isn't interested in whether this work is art or not, as that was all sorted out years ago by Duchamp. My problem with this is that it is in a SCULPTURE park, so it is automatically given the title of art, even though it involves elements of a science museum or botanical garden. As a work for the community it educates viewers about the plants and animals that would have naturally inhabited the area if it was not so built up. It is perhaps more accessible to the non-art educated public, however, it is still very much a work for the world due to the fact it is situated in a sculpture park.

Another example of Dion's work, Mobile Gull Appreciation Unit, which is a mobile kiosk in the shape of a seagull that dispenses field guides about the Mediterranean Gull. It was part of the 2008 Folkestone Triennial in the UK. Like Neukom Vivarium, this work is also interested in public education about the natural wildlife of the local area, focusing changing social attitudes about seagulls being pests. Although the unit is mobile, it is site specific in the fact that it is only relevant in Folkstone, and removing it from this context would change the work.

Context Over Content

Dialogical art (I'll use Kester's term as I'm talking about his opinions) is said to be challenging, new and different. This is not because it challenges the Duchampian question of 'what is art?' as i believe we're beyond this point in the art world (though the general public may still be confronted by it). What is 'new' is the fact that dialogue and exchange is created between people rather that between the viewer and object. Dialogical art is also apparently more about context than content, which must be read as ideologies as substance rather than a physical object, since there is obviously content to these works (the motivations behind the work, social and political outcomes). This is where the work is similar to conceptual work, so, i would argue, not entirely new.

What i find more important is that the dialogue created by the work is focused on society, and real life, rather than becoming stuck in typical art dialgogue. And this is what critics have found problematic, it doesn't work to talk about this work purely from an aesthetic or spatial point of view, nor does it work to read this form of artworks differences as a direct retaliation to what is considered as art.

But to say that a different form of art needs to be read in a different way is nothing new... for example, aboriginal art cannot be examined the same way as abstract art.

What could be problematic about the works mentioned is that the messages behind the works play on our social consciences, so that we are forced to think the works are good because the message is right (eg. if we don't like a work about racism, we could be seen as being racist).

My question is does the approach of exchange and dialogue of dialogical art (rather than a fixed, dialectic artwork) prevent this bullying into appreciation.

Separation Perfected

This week I looked at the first chapter of Guy Debord's Society of The Spectacle

Basically, it's about the representation of real life becoming more important than the real, Debord calls this an inversion of life.

Debord argues that the spectacle is is a justification of the existing system's conditions and goals."that which appears is good, that which is good appears."

This is problematic when applied to art as it means a generic sort of visual imagery will be produced.

The reason this resemblance of censorship exists and survives is because of the cyclic effect of the spectacle. Social norms are most commonly depicted as they are widely accessible, however, the representations of these norms only produce more of the same.

So the spectacle starts off as a representation of what exists, but becomes real due to its existence.
Debord explains this quite well, "The spectacle is capital to such a degree of accumulation that it becomes an image."

Institutions, critique, and institutional critique.

Negation and Change
in the 1960's and 70's, institutional critique was based upon the confrontation of art institutions and the negation of conventions. The aim of these critiques was to produce real change in the art institutions built upon the utopian, 'change the world' attitudes that dominated this era.

Daniel Buren's work where he closed the gallery for the duration of the exhibition, "negated that which was the vehicle of their voice, and yet held on to it at the same time." this is an example of how to critique the institution by utitlising the institution (critiquing from within.)
Works such as this are able to critique the art world while still gaining publicity, support, and finances from the institution.

Why would museums, curators, and collectors support art that critiques them?
The institutions can cultivate the image of being innovative, cutting edge, and of supporting artists by endorsing critical works.

Mel Ramsden refers to this genre of institutional critique as "ameliorative, calling for specific changes in the institutions of art but affirming its basic structure."

Elitism and Art
Art is historically seen as cultured, high class, educated, exclusive, and sublime, which is in opposition to the view of art as domocratic, public, and free.

Social Status of the Artist
The artist either relates to: - the public, art students (lower income)
- OR buyers and collectors (higher income)
Artists from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (which is the result of art education costing $) produce a similar kind of work, reproducing the status quo.

1980's and 90's
Artists believe that it doesn't matter that instiutional power, economic value, and status control art IF this is made visible, e.g. in the works of Andrea Fraser, and Fred Wilson.

These artists must be aware that they themselves constitute the institution by working in this manner.

2000's and Artist Collectives
Proof that there are ways to work around the institution, e.g. the Internet.

Relational Aesthetics a misinterpretation???

in looking at Claire Bishop's criticism of relational aesthetics,
Claire Bishop, "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics," October, no. 110, 2004.

• Bishop argues that theories behind relational aesthetics revolve around "a misinterpretation of post structuralist theory."The "open" art of post structuralist theory is a result of the fact that the interpretations of a work of art are open to continual reassessment.
• Alternatively Bourriaud and other relational aesthetic theorists argue that the work itself is in perpetual flux.

• Bishop also argues that the idea of an artwork as a "laboratory" is "marketable as a space of leisure and entertainment."
• i don't believe this is a bad thing, it simply replaces the art market's focus on goods and services.

• the idea of art as a potential trigger for participation is not new, it was very big in happenings.

• The openness of art is created by audience reception- Umberto Eco "every work is potentially open" due to the individual readings each person has.
• Bourriaud argues that art is open when the artist intentionally makes it involve the audience.
  

relational object and isms

Looking briefly at the video Alex posted, "Art Safari- Relational Art: is it an ism?"
The investigation of relational aesthetics as a possible "ism" art movement seems unnecessary as, from what i gather, relational aesthetics exists at some level in all art.
All art relates to the world, other artworks, or the audience, and as Bourriaud suggests "any artwork might thus be defined as a relational object."
* i think this is what you were getting at Georgia?

Although all art can be seen to be relational, the works described in the reader are differentiated by their focus on conviviality. Scenarios involving feasts and other everyday sociable activities are effective at attracting the participation of the public, so i suppose this common theme amoung the works isn't surprising.

One question though, do people see the audience or public who participate in these works to be collaborators?

they certaintly are necessary for the completion or even existence of the work, but i for one don't feel they have collaborated with the artist. I bring this up in regards to Sophie Calle's encounters with strangers, which Bourriaud describes as, "a biographical experience, which leads her to "collaborate" with the people she meets." I feel this term is misplaced (even with it's tentative quotation marks) as the starngers weren't involved from the artworks conception to it's completion.