tending.

In terms of how 'Tending' as a work related to Relational Aesthetic/Art I was really confused. I won't lie my initial thought was "ohhh, i get it.. a garden!" but realistically I was just lying to myself. So I went back to dear sweet Wiki in order to re-familiarise myself with the concept before reading Lucas' and Diego's blogs. And it wasn't until I looked through the links that I realised the interactions that were taking place in and around this little garden. For one thing, I absolutely adore Betty's involvement in the whole process. Betty is like the provider of all things tasty like rice pudding to SCA, and for her to be so involved in the project I think shows a certain community feel to our little world that is SCA. 'Tending' reminds me of all the community vegetable gardens that are popping up everywhere. Here you have a group of people within an immediate area developing a relationship from nurturing and growing. 'Tending' is seriously not much different, working in the same way - operating within a social context opening up a dialogue between people and depending on one's level of involvement a whole lot of fun. The fact that the garden is in SCA and is a commissioned work creates discussion regarding ooo what is this all about? where exactly are the artists coming from? - it's been removed from an individualistic approach and been given a greater context to work with. It's almost too good to be true in relation to this class, people within a community are participating in a shared activity of an artwork. A process that gives us a collective consumption of the work as opposed to us as individuals having inner-monologues.

Laibach!

this reading was fairly short for which i was eternally grateful for, however it didn't help that i was thoroughly confused by the concept of this band. i thought i understood but something tells me i'm really, REALLY wrong. the quote that stuck out to me the most from the reading was this; "direct confirmation with the obscene fantasmatic core can actually liberate us from it's grip". it's such a simple concept and yet so easy to get wrong. but in reading about Laibach and the NSK i'd say they were fairly successful in mirroring and almost making a parody these politics. The NSK, and Laibach in particular, absorbed all the gestures of the 'enemy' - adopting everything seductive of state power (it's kind of scary). they've almost detached themselves in order to replace themselves, or audiences.. (I'm not too certain of my theory here) in preparation to receive their concepts by adopting an appropriate attitude.. And the fact that NSK were solid on the idea that their work be a collective rather than individual, i read that on Laibach's albums no individual artist was named on albums, it almost reminds me of something out of the rave scene. an underworld scene based on a utopian ideal, with music consisting of variations and an audience constructed third melodic line which if truly existed would make your ears bleed. and this whole idea of PLUR (peace love unity respect). I don't know I guess I'm still lost on the concept of Laibach and don't yet understand it fully.

Back to the quote that stuck out to me - " direct confirmation with the obscene fantasmatic core..." reminds me of this series of ads against meth that i feel come from the same place..

GUY DEBORD!

we construct situations to fulfill our primitive desires as humans, situationists set up temporary environments that are favorable for the fulfillment of such desires.

Debord often spoke about the degradation of human life, and this model of mass media and image that capitalism seemed to advocate. Debord argues that social life is about living not having, but the spectacle.. say for example were to be Facebook, uses the image to convey what people supposedly need or want. our state of having has become a state of appearing. in today's society we have been specifically requested to interact as individuals within a mass, as opposed to being addressed as an anonymous mass - becoming the ultimate commodity of shameless self promoters. Our human perceptions are effected and altered due to this lack of authenticity of interaction and relation, which Debord and the situationist's were responding to by offering alternative life experiences.

so i read the readings rah rah rah, and it seems the issues/questions/concepts etc. that surround relational aesthetics are apparent and it's a fairly simple concept maybe.. i think.

but i just didn't know what RA artworks looked like, or who even made them.. so i went on a giant google images search for some of the artists that were listed in our last class. and i'd have to say i really enjoy the works that belong to this.. movement (?) but in my attempt to clarify the whole RA thing i really just confused myself some more.

I went google crazy on Philippe Parreno, and i'd have to say his works are amazing. but now i'm so confused about this whole social arena aspect of works like these. hmmm... thinking thinking thinking.

relational aesthetics.

After reading this snippet of Bourriaud's writing, the one thing that really stuck out was the mention of the "society of the spectacle" - a concept written about by Guy Debord. Debord discusses that social life is about living and not having (in terms of commodification) which essentially I guess could be the experience of the tangible. Which Bourriaud calls transitivity where the idea that it's the 'duty of the beholder's eye' to develop the emotions of a work forms an aesthetic arena. Denying the extistence of any specific space of art. I secretly find that interesting in terms of the society of the spectacle, because Debord talks about how our quality of life has become impoverished due to a lack of interaction and relation. And with relational aesthetics' emphasis on interactivity it's like a subversion of the whole 'society of the spectacle'. Maybe.. This probably doesn't even make sense.. just my train of thought. yay!