Yeahh

I am extremely appreciative of what I have learnt in this course. It was a very different approach from any other theory I have taken and was really engaging.

It was often quite heavy as there is a lot to read up on and things I had never looked in to. I had a real urge to know more and to be as on top of things as I could.

I had a limited awareness of directions or engagements of artists in a political sense or engaging with communities. I was very interested in pretty much every different topic we covered week to week. I had been interested in Situationist Aesthetics and Site-specificity but this course allowed me to extend my understanding of these things and many other issues involved. I was most interested in the different way of looking at site rather than the physical side, specifically the relationship between site and community. There are so many issues surrounding this that I had never looked in to before and I will continue to research.

All of the different focuses each week also link to eachother so I can understand how they all relate in the wider sphere. In my head it feels like all my thoughts about the subject are becoming more coherent.

Using the blog was also really effective. It made me very determined to read more theory and I had good direction in what to read. It also allowed me to se what others were thinking about these topics and to learn more from each individual suggesting or giving different artists and ideas. I think it also made everyone aware of the subjects and able to engage in class as we knew what we were discussing from having to do the blog before hand.

Also referring to what others have said.. I don't feel the need for an answer to 'is it art?' I think I started relating everything back to that at first but then realised that it wasn't what was really important.

Dialogue- Nature and Art

To read more about art relating to environmental concerns, I started reading this book- Art nature Dialogues. It was interesting to be able to understand ideas by the author that 'In reality it is the repect for nature and all things natural that can actually move us toward developing a responsible approach to our society…'. It refered to the variety of responses artists can have to place, developing a dialogue on site and engaging with the community.

This relates to the work 'Tending'… and what emerges through their process of creating this garden, working together and the reception. I think that a garden and nature is a wonderful way to engage the community. I also found it interesting that the book talked about the satisfaction of a tactile approach as opposed to the domination of technology. Although blogs are used, but that is another way of sharing information and responses to the work.

A garden creates a common desire to nurture and watch the growth/development of the plants and the project, through working together. Plants also mean food, which is another excellent way of interacting with others. (Relational Aesthetics…)

It also reminds me of dialogical art in that it was suggested that the social/political involvement were not just maintained on a short term but were sustained. Just like a garden which needs constant attention.

Images-Media-Politics

I just thought I would comment on the relationship between the image as a politicised action mentioned in the first section of Papastergiadis' text. I found this very interesting and I thought about the use of image in the media and documenting war. 'The interplay between the event and the image' regarding what actually happens and what is seen by the public, reminded me about the 2003 events in which the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down in Baghdad. The footage showed Iraqi men attempting to pull down the statue, followed by the US Marines, revealing that Hussein had been ousted from power.

The videos circulated show a massive uprising, however later images show that the event was staged or manipulated. There is only a small crowd visible from footage taken from further away which was not revealed to the public. The US soldiers were also prompting the Iraqis over a loud speaker… This just shows the use of image as propaganda or as one of the marines involved called it an 'opportunity'.

Perhaps it relates to politics acting as a form of spectacle?

I guess you have to be wary of what you see in the media...

This relates to the documentary function of an image and the event that it depicts.. It is also interesting to think about the documentation of events recorded in history and thinking about the information that is correct or manipulated.

Systems, Change...etc

I think I am beginning to grasp the ideas put forward in the introduction by Zizek. It seems that all these different examples are linked through what he explains as the 'hidden transgressions in the system."
After reading an article on Laibach's activity it became clear that they confront the system with 'their own normally supressed codes'. They do this through disturbing or provocative juxtapositions and as mentioned in that clip below, through irony and cynicism. Through approaching issues in a different way, through music, film, posters and art. etc, they reveal the meanings they want to make known and they do this succesfully. This is evident as they had a great impact and caused much contraversy in response to their work which extended public debate. I suppose there was success in that they initiated discourse. It seems that the works were heavily focused on the politics within Slovenia and the countries relationship with Germany.

I think there is a lot more to it than I have understood, but hopefully it will become clearer in class.
- - -
I thought I would just mention a work that I am familiar with, which although very different, shares the same initiative for social and political change. It relates to the idea of community that we have been discussing in the last few weeks. I really like this work because of the use of colour to impact the community and initiate positive changes.

The capital city of Tirana in Albania was transformed through the use of colour. Elected in 2000, Mayor Edi Rama initiated a project whereby the facades of decaying buildings within the city were painted various colours.
The intention was to change the atmosphere of the decrepit city through the use of colours as a visualisation of signs of change. The project was successful in that the inhabitants of the city began to feel safer about their surroundings and it encouraged reunification, giving a sense of community. “There was need to give to the people something which could show that there would be change after a decade of freedom without any space/system. “ (Breaking away from the past communist system)
On the street level, the spaces were not used as businesses until after the painting where citizens felt the roads became safer and they began to open up small businesses. People also started to pay tax. “It was a way to get everyone to feel belonging. The colours were a catalyst for the feeling that. Colours gave a purpose. Opened a debate. Helped to built a consciousness of common space, and a feeling of community.”

The general feeling of hate of public space was reversed because of the colours. I think this work is just beautiful in it's simplicity and its profound positive impact on the whole community.

Public art to Urban Identity

After reading the text by Miwon Kwon, there were many interesting ideas and issues raised in regards to site-specificity. The question of 'who is art for?' is often important as you can see through the examples of Serra and Ahearn. Although I have always thought succesful site-specific works responded to their surroundings, this also makes me think more about the importance of responding to the community. The community is so diverse that obviously there are a lot of people who will have a lesser understanding of art or are not comfortable with the implications of a work and this has to be taken in to account when making works in the public space.


One thing I wanted to talk about was the model of site-specific works as art-in-public spaces.
Because of the mention of Calder's work, La Grande Vitesse 1969, (in the city of Grand Rapids), I remembered an essay I read many months ago, which was by the same author, Miwon Kwon, I just discovered. Calder's work is an example of what is mentioned of early site-specific works being large abstract sculptures which were public for not much more reason than their being positioned outdoors.
I found this particularly interesting though as although works can cause public discontent or offense or do not hold much significance to the community, they can often become succesful. The previous article I read was Public Art and Urban Identities by Miwon Kwon.
Although there were initial concerns over Calder (allegiance to America. etc), in the end the sculpture was succesful, perhaps not for the most obvious reasons. Calder did not even visit the site where the work was to be placed. Apparently he did study the architectural plans, scale, and materials of the buildings surrounding the plaza and responded to this. The work was to visually and spatially organise the space. It was also to be a marker of identity for the plaza and add a more human element. I believe it was most succesful from what resulted from the works installation. In terms of the community, the sculpture was embraced and the response was positive. Its image was also used more widely as an identity for the city which also creates a sense of community. A graphic of the sculpture is used on street signs, a letterhead and vehicles in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan.The community benefited from this as it became widely known and is still seen as one of the most succesful public art projects in the US. I think this use of creating a graphic from this public art to be used as an identity for the city is great!

"In a strange sense, even though the sculpture was not conceived as site specific, it nevertheless became site specific--site specificity was produced here as an effect and not engaged as a method of artistic production. " (Miwon Kwon, from the article linked below)

You can read the other text at-
http://eipcp.net/transversal/0102/kwon/en

Context/Progress

Dialogical art, particularly the examples mentioned, seem to have what I think is a great purpose in that they relate to society and deal with issues not just within the art world.
I found it interesting how there needs to be a different framework for dealing with these works which are based around dialogue and communication and how this differs from the art-object.
It still remains as a creative act and as discussed in the article- "Intervention in which the traditional art materials were replaced by 'sociopolitical relationships.'"
I like that the dialogue does not need to result in or stem from the art object.

Once again the notion of context emerges. I found this most ineresting in the works discussed in the article. This was because works such as 'Roof on Fire' facilitate dialogue within communities and it seems that within the context of art the issues and conflicts can be put aside and allow dialogue and conversation to take place, which hopefully results in solutions.

"Encouraged to speak and listen outside the tensions that surround their typical interactions on the street and to look beyond their respective assumptions about eachother."

The point made below is also interesting as- a critique of these works may be problematic if there are issues of race being dealt with, for example, would a bad review suggest you are a racist.. Perhaps the dialogue resulting in solutions could mean the works are succesful. I am not sure what determines this.. I suppose that is what the author discusses.

S.I.

Through reading the chapter in Art and Revolution, ‘Distruptive Monsters: From Representing to Constructing Situations’, I have been able to gain a better understanding of the Situationist International and found it extremely interesting. It was particularly interesting to me for my own research as last semester while I was on exchange I took a course about ‘Art and the City’ and I started to research the Situationist International as it related to ideas of site-specificity and works I was creating. This text however gave me more in depth knowledge about the ‘constructed situation’ and the shift into the everyday space of the city.

Through looking at the term ‘psychogeography’ I was pleased to see that this notion related so exactly to the concepts and works I was creating last semester about the ever day environment of the urban landscape and the effects these have on the passersby and the behaviour of individuals. I like the idea of subtle interventions in public space which effect the passersby subconsciously or cause the passersby to become aware of the surrounding space. I can see how this relates to the derive and the influences on the individual caused by movement through space.

It is also interesting how the author Raunig refers to the fact that although there are extensive writings and texts such as in the Situationist International Bulletin, there are few examples of how these constructed situations or the ideas were actually carried out. The text does however go in to the political and revolutionary aspects which developed from these ideas . I think I will read up a lot more as I feel I still have much more to understand and I found this subject very engaging.

Relational Aesthetics- Institutional Critique

There is a lot to consider when talking about the art institution and the history or issues associated.
I guess I would like to see the link that Relational Aesthetics has with the Art institution after reading the text by Alexander Alberro.

In the article it refers to Institutional critique which aims to unite art with the everyday rather than the idea of high art.
Relational aesthetics references the every day and involves public interaction. As Ramsden and Rosler mention in the texts reffered to in the article, there is the desire to reintegrate art in to the every day and to work for people outside the audiences of High art. But is art for everyone, which we talked about last week. Do the audiences grasp the ideas behind the art. Does that matter to the artists anyway?

The idea that is brought up that "Art should no longer be venerated in specially designated spaces.. Art should deal with reality, grapple with political circumstances, and work out proposals for improving human coexistence."
Relational aesthetics certainly does deal with the public interacting and coexisting but in terms of the art being venerated in specially designated spaces, perhaps the works of relational aesthetics would not be succesful out of their context. By this I mean to question that without the works being placed in the gallery setting, the works are often just social interaction which can take place without the institution. Can the works function outside the gallery?
Also if the main interest is in the social interactions, then what is the significance of some of the material aspects of the work, for example Gillick and that he doesn't mind if peoples backs are turned to the works.
It would also be intersting to know more about the exchange value of such works which often can not be bought as there is still the need to fund the artists practice.

In the works of Asher the critique of the institution seems to be quite obvious. I suppose I am trying to better understand the link between the Relational Aesthetics and Institutional critique.

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.

Response to Bourriaud

From reading the article and watching the video I guess the point which interests me most is the questioning of whether all art is relational.
There always seems to be something which links a work to the world or society, or as mentioned in the article, a link between the artist and the curator. Connections can be found anywhere.
This is a focus in relational aesthetics, however without the intention of relating to such things is the work still relational?
I guess the same question is applied to art and maybe there doesn't need to be an answer.

I have understood the article to also be about the experience of art and as mentioned by others, the interactivity which often comments on a work not being an object or commodity. There is a common focus on exchanges that take place between people.
Relational works I enjoyed in this article which focus on these social interactions are the works by Angus Fairhurst and Alix Lambert. Fairhurst's piece in which the phones of two galleries were connected and each person at the other gallery would think the other had called is interesting as it is a way to observe social interactions, especially of people in a confusing situation. It would be really entertaining to see the result as these people are so unaware of what is going on, and they are participating and creating a work without this awareness also.
I also find it interesting when an artist really immerses themselves in to social situations for their work or research, such as Alix Lambert who was mentioned below and her six marriages and divorces in six months as the artist is involving and altering her life as a kind of experiment or investigation.

-Final points about the film, I suppose the host was interested in whether relation aesthetics was an 'ism' although I thought there were much more interesting points to investigate. Also in his interview with Gavin saying 'why make works if they are going to be about human interaction and social context, just have a good life', I thought that was a bit narrow minded. Why not make those works. It is an interesting point but a lot can be discovered through relating work to real life also, not just constructed works, objects or situations etc..