Final Blog

I have found that this course has really expanded my ideas about art. I think I found these ideas so new and challenging at first is because other classes have never really dealt with some of these ideas, also the fact that we looked at issues and ideas that did not relate directly to art for example, the Situationalist International. I saw them as being removed from art due to the fact they were so much apart of everyday life they were almost indistinguishable as art. This course dealt with this shift in art to become more accessible and relevant to everyday life. I think the fact this course brought up differing ideas and opinions is really exciting and many other thap courses do not have the same effect.

I found looking at the Liabach and the ideas discussed in Interrogation Machines about this group really interesting. Also Grant Kester’s ‘Conversation Pieces” I became really enthralled into the ideas of collaborative and community based artworks, this for me lead to further research into this area. This course challenged my thinking on works outside the gallery working within the community and works interacting with it audience which can have a powerful effect. This course looked at artists that I had never looked at such as, Wochen Klauser and Liabach.

I just wanted to also say how effective I personally thought the blog was each week. I researched the topics and readings before class this made the class more useful and effective. Even reading the blog I found really beneficial as if I didn’t understand some of the ideas or wanted to see what other people thought I could just take a look at the blog.

Aesthetics and politics

In Nikos Papastergiadis's “Aesthetics and Politics in the Age of the Ambient Spectacles' he discusses aesthetics and political structures and contexts, he discusses these ideas comparing the ideas of Gerald Raunig and Jacques Ranciere. Many interesting ideas were raised such as;

• Papastergiadis starts with a discussion of the changing perception of the image, looking at the use and representation of imagery created by 9/11. In modernity a shift occurred where the artist was neither the 'primary nor the dominant generator of imagery” as many people now argue that the artist has become “ a critical navigator in an atmosphere that is already saturated with images, symbols and narratives.” Ultimately, there has been a shift in the role of the artist due to the changing role of the image in contemporary culture.
  

• The ideas discussed about art and activism within the discussion were very thought provoking especially with the some of the ideas discussed within the course. He sees art and activism as a interdisciplinary combination of artistic and activist strategies, this becomes a co-operation between the fields. This is a transfer of skills from both fields also bringing together political and social struggles and artistic intervention. Raunig in his book Art and Revolution addresses art and activism by saying “activist practices are allowed to feature in artistic and political narratives only if they are purged of their radical aspects appropriated and co-opted into the machines of the spectacle.” This is an interesting notion to consider as when art, revolution and politics become intertwined they eventually fail as this boundary between art and revolution becomes a blurred distinction. (http://www.translocal.org/writings/artandrevolution.html)

• 'Transversal activism' becomes an important feature of activism practice. Gerald Raunig has many thoughts on this especially in his book Art and Revolution. Raunig describes 'Transversal Activism' as “organizational principles of numerous resistance groups that at the times operate in isolation from each other to come together for a brief moment or co-operate across vast distances”

Laibach

The political commentary of the Liabach through art and music is a very unique form of political activism; it has been described as ‘intervening in its obscene virtual supplement.’
After watching the video posted before it was very interesting some of the ideas discussed particularly, this notion that ‘the Liabach take the system more seriously than it takes itself’ I just find this a fascinating concept that the fact this group took on the ideologies and beliefs of the Slovenian society and government to make people aware of the issues facing them. This tactic took the beliefs of the Solvian people to the masses through their music. This clip also discussed this idea of transgression that the fact this group is conforming to these ideologies in the truest form of conformism they are ‘bringing to the light of day the true transgression’. From what the clip was saying I felt it was saying that society is full of parody and political cynicism which can not be taken too seriously however, this group is truly doing something powerful and unique by conforming to political systems they become a part of these inclusive groups being able to comment and highlight highly charged issues within soviet society for example, “One of the strategies of dissidence in the last years of socialism was therefore precisely to take the ruling ideology more seriously/literally than it took itself, by ignoring its virtual unwritten shadow.”

Also, the first part of the book ‘Interrogation Machine’ raised some important ideas in relation to Liabach. This foreword discusses this code of knowledge or series of rules and injunctions. It describes that the Liabach and ‘their performances directly staged the underlying inconsistent mixture of ideological fantasies that sustained it and this was what made them so unbearable.” Consequently through using art and music this punk group had an enormous impact on Yugoslavia. I also found some of his ideas about whether Laibach can still have the same impact today really intriguing. There are differing sides to this idea one being that “Today, the lesson of Laibach is more pertinent than ever: only such a direct confrontation with obscene fantasmatic core can actually liberate us from its grip”. However, he poses the question as to whether “our cynical ‘postmodern’ ideological universe, still holds a place for a Laibach-type intervention, or is such an intervention immediately ‘coopted,’ neutralized?” this is highlighted through the discussion of humiliation and brutality in the military and the Donald Rumsfeld idea about knowledge. That being, about the ‘unknown knowns’, the things we don’t know that we know. I find these ideas really fascinating and have leaded me to think and question.

Community and public art projects

The ideas of ‘community’ and ‘public art’ are heavily discussed in Miwon Kwon’s chapter ‘Sittings of public Art: integration versus intervention’. Throughout the chapter she makes some very interesting points particularly highlighted by the comparison between Serra and Adhearn’s work. When thinking about the ideas of site-specific art most assume it is a direct reaction to the surroundings or landscape however, it seems it is more complicated with the works relationship to the community it is placed within. This relationship that is created between its site and identity of both the artist and community become critical counterpoints within the meaning and outcome of the work. Public artworks have become more than just a sculpture placed within the surroundings showcasing the achievements of the artist. This concept of site-specificity was created around the 1960s as a part of the artists rejecting modernist ideas of the art object. Kwon states that ‘Public art works were meant to play a supplementary but crucial role in the amelioration of what were perceived to be ill effects of the repetitive, monotonous, and functionalist style of modernist architecture.” However, this failed as it was lacking public engagement merely becoming an extension of modernist architecture.

This notion of accessibility in relation to the progression of public art was very interesting as it states that “despite the physical accessibility, public art remained resolutely inaccessible insofar as the prevalent style of modernist abstraction remained indecipherable, uninteresting and meaningless to a general audience” This turning point in art I think signified when public art became a means of making the works more appealing to the communities they were taking place in. Artists started to prioritise utility over aesthetic making it more relevant to its public audience- creating almost a social consciousness and responsibility through these public artworks.

Serra created the 120 foot steel sculpture entitled 'Titled Arc" placing it within the public space creating much controversy. Serra saw that his work was an interrogation into the public site ‘about the sites socio-political conditions…rather than fulfilling an ameliorative function in relation to the site.” However, Serra was criticized for his work as it was driven by art specific concerns rather than concerns for his audience (community) –the only people able to gage with a work like this would be those from an art background especially due to the fact it was commissioned by the U.S government. Serra did believe that ‘art is not supposed to be democratic. It is not for the people.” Contrary to this was the work of Ahearn who’s work was a direct relation to his neighbourhood casting portraits of his neighbours and people on the street. Ahearn was adamant on his working remaining as a part of the community. Ahearn's work also created controversy many arguing that his works could not adequately depict his African American community.

*Kwon sees that these two works ‘underscore the lack of agreement over what we mean by, and expect from, an ‘interventionary’ site specificity.”

Ultimately, The value of these site-specific works is not in the mere object itself but over time this interaction between artist and the community. This is due to the fact that artists ‘reassure the viewer with an easily shared idea or subject” this is significant as when there is a shared idea with the community in these works the community is a part of the piece and the community consequently, becomes the subject making the work more interesting for a viewer however problematic and confusing it may be.

Converstation Pieces

I found the introduction of ‘Conversation Pieces’ by Grant H.Kester really interesting and raised some really powerful ideas about the future of art. It makes some very important points in relation to collaborative and collective artworks.

*It starts off by establishing the basis of work of this kind that being, the turmoil circulating around difference of culture, religion and nationality. From this, “Traditional art materials of marble, canvas, or pigment were replaced by “sociopolitical relationships.” Ultimately, artists and artist collaborative’s turned their performance based practice into a ‘facilitation of dialogue among diverse communities moving away from the traditional object art.’ This performative work is exploring the exchange between viewers about issues relating to race, gender, stereotypes and culture. Therefore, these artists are more concerned with context rather than content that is, the context these works are taking place in are crucial to the exchange of dialogue. The ‘Roof is on Fire’ work for example looked at the dialogue aesthetic of the conversations of high school students. These conversations were about the problems faced by young people of stereotypes and issues of race.

*However different each work that is exploring this medium they all share an underlying concern of exchange and dialogue with viewers. This engagement with the work is an integral component to the intention of the work.

*An important question is raised that should be considered in relation to these works that‘ What does this mean for the artist to surrender the security of self expression for the risk of inter-subjective engagement?’

*Predominately from these works I feel these artists are searching for a deeper aesthetic experience that object based art is lacking. It draws on the fundamental relationship between art and the social and political world and pushing this relationship to its limit. However, works of this kind come with concerns as discussed within the introduction. Dialogue work is criticized for its lack of visual and sensory aesthetic by critics and continuing on to question “the very status of this work as ‘art’ in the first place, arguing that it is both practically and theoretically indistinguishable from political and social activism”. I also question this within the article as to whether these were merely acts of social and cultural consciousness however, the intention of these works outweighs this criticism as these works are merely pushing the boundaries as many other art has before. ‘Art’s role is shock us out of this perceptual complacency, to force us to see the world anew.” Work of this kind is different and exciting and is forcing its viewers to really comprehend the work they are exchanging in about issues facing society.

*An important notion to think about is accessibility of work of this kind (as we have been discussing institutional critique) this work can function outside of the institution within the community, as it is organized around a collaborative community rather than the singular artist. Does this change its audience? Does it make art more accessible to different people and will ultimately have a more significant effect and outcome?

On the other hand Kester states “Any work of art that makes itself too accessible. That attempts to solicit the viewer’s interaction too overtly, runs the risk of being assimilated by the malevolent forces of consumer society.” This means this art could loss its impact and become just another commodity of society losing its shock value.

Situationist International

“Previously the most lucid artists had wanted to break the separation between art and life: the S.I raised this demand to a higher level in their desire to abolish the distance between life and revolution.” Gilles Dauve

After reading both “Society of the Spectacle” and Gerald Raunig's “Constructing the Situation” it seems that the Situationists had a pivotal role in revolutionary theory in both art and life taking place around the 1950s and 60s. The ideas relating to both the Situationists and Debord’s ideas are somewhat complex and confusing. But, ultimately from what I have read the Situationists were more concerned with revolutionary revolt against capitalism than art. ‘ Society of the spectacle’ argued that society moved from focus on production to consumption transforming society into a mass consumer of goods. These ideas were the basis of the movement of Situationist international which were trying to create 'revolutionary 'situations' designed to shake the viewer's passive acceptance of the role of the non-thinking spectator.' The SI lead to a redefinition of the relationship between art and its audience and the situational space inhabited by individuals which was inspirational at the time this was all taking place.

The SI took to the open urban landscape for their work to take place, setting up environments that would have an effect on the emotions of the participant similar to the work of Viennese actionists as they we no longer reflecting life they were creating it. That is, they were breaking free from the constraints of art ‘trading the closed art space for the tendenitally open surroundings of urban space.’ Ultimately, they were creating ‘anti-art inventions in concrete social space.”

SI's "central idea is the construction of situations, that is to say, the concrete construction of momentary ambiances of life and their transformation into superior passional quality.”

Raunig suggests there is little evidence of the activities taken place by the SI however, it seems they were a driving force in revolution at the time. The SI and the Debord’s theory is a combination of ‘cultural criticism and revolutionary theory.’ The SI turned their activities into a social movement and turned their efforts from anti-art propaganda too more politically driven ideas. Personally, the most interesting thing about the SI is the how they took construction out into the urban environment to spend this idea of life and revolution to get people to think as an individual at a time when the masses were being consumed by capitalism

Institutional Critique

I found Alexander Alberro's chapter “Institutions, Critique and Institutional Critique” from the book Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists Writings, an interesting overview of the ideas discussed within the book and a summary of the some of the main ideas circulated around institutional critique. These are just a few points that I thought were of interest.

-The 60s and 70s seemed to be a crucial time in the development of institutional critique. In particular, for artists who were taking up the ideas of how problematic the institution had become making clear that “political, economic, and ideological interests directly intervened and interfered in the production of public culture.”

-Class, nationality and race have been a dominant factor in the continued critique of the institution. For instance, the upper class’s power to purchase artworks and consequently have a large role in the realm of art by influencing museums, exhibitions and collections”. The high class culture attached to the institution greatly influence the audience and reception of art within public culture. It is discussed that an artist’s gender, race and class place them at a disadvantage within the world of art. It was also noted that 'the art institution, as much as the works that are made for it, will always be the site of these types of injustice that characterize existing conditions in society'. Art is now almost a voice for lower class and issues facing society however, this not to say that the realm of art is still not plagued with many injustices.

-The article (From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique, 2005) by Andrea Fraser discusses some really interesting ideas in relation to institutional critique, she discussed this notion that artists such as Michael Asher, who critique the relationship of the art institution, have not escaped the institution’s power struggle. Even artists that are creating work around this notion of institutional critique should understand they are also 'trapped' in the institution of art.This artist has some really intriguing ideas in relation to the institution as she states,“Its not a question of being against the institution. It’s a question of what kind of institution we are, what kind of values we institutionalise what forms of practice we reward, and what kinds of rewards we aspire to. Because the institution of art is internalised, embodied and performed by individuals, these are the questions that institutional critique demands we ask, above all, of ourselves.” In many of Andrea Fraser’s work she critiques and satires representatives and institutions of the contemporary art world - often impersonating a museum volunteer taking visitors on a tour discussing the facets of the gallery such as, a discussion of the design of the drinking fountain. In the work “Welcome to Wadsworth (1991)” the artist takes groups of visitors through the museum quoting politicians and museum literature choosing to say statements that highlight the tension between community and institution.

Critique of Relational Aesthetics

Claire Bishop's article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” made some interesting arguments about relational aesthetics that should be considered.
-Bishop discus’s this utopian idea of participatory art that is said to create an actual community and social entity and critiques Relational art on the basis of context, audience and the environmental space.
-Bishop argues that ‘the interactivity of relational aesthetic is therefore superior to optical contemplation of an object, which is assumed to be passive and disengaged, because the work of art is a social form capable of producing positive human relationships. As a consequence, the work is automatically political and emancipatory in effect.”
-Bishop raises the question as to whether the relations created within the work of artists such as Tiravanija identify with each other because they all share something in common, that being art. If viewers that participated within these works did not share a common idea or interest would the work be different? Would it work at all?
-She continues on to discuss the artist Thomas Hirschhorn, using this artist to draw and critically analyze the ideals of relational aesthetics. Bishop focuses on an interesting work of his called ‘Bataille Monument’, which was comprised of three installations; a shack, a bar run by locals and two housing projects. To reach the destination of this artist’s installation the viewers had to get a lift with a Turkish cab company, which was commissioned to take viewers to and from the work. This work goes deeper as the artwork was situated in the middle of a community, which included people from different ethical and economic statuses than the artworks intended audience. Viewers were left in this place purposely by the artist as people were taken into an environment which challenged their boundaries making all viewers, as Bishop describes, “ hapless intruders”. This works plays on many of the ideas of relational aesthetics that being location, audience, context and construction. The importance of this work to Bishop is that she sees that viewers are required to participate but, thoughtfully and critically not physical involving themselves within the work like Tiravanija. The viewer goes beyond mere involvement provoked by the artist but here the viewer is put into a situation where they are forced to think about the work and the surroundings they have been placed in. After reading about this work I do find that it does provoke me to ask more questions and think more thoughtfully about the artists intent then that of Tiravanija's 'Untitled (Tomorrow is another day)'.
Bishop makes some interesting claims about the effectiveness of relational aesthetics within art. It is interesting to see some challenging ideas in relation to Bourriaud’s and makes one question the artworks of relational aesthetics.

Relational Aesthetics

I found the article by Bourriaud discussing Relational Aesthetics really appealing. The ideas discussed of contract and collaboration were ideas of interest- in particular, this notion of creating a contract with a viewer within a performance or installation. This unspoken contract between viewer and artist is changing the relationship and assumptions placed on participatory art. I agree with many arguments made within this article especially the importance placed on the gallery space for artists within the contemporary art world, it becomes a place where the audience, public and artist create a bond that becomes a part of the work. Writer Eleanor Heartney (Art and Today) has some interesting ideas about Relational Aesthetics, she sees it is ‘a tendency by artists that stresses interaction, interpersonal connection, and the notion of art as a gift.’- she also discusses that contemporary artists are going beyond this idea that a viewer is required to complete a work, instead individuals are becoming apart of the work through their social and relational connections which, may add another dimension to the work. These ideas in relation to participatory artworks are very interesting in questioning the future of art. Art of this kind is challenging what is art? and the way it functions within our society. Are Relation Aesthetics merging life and art and changing the possibilities of an artist within the institutional and public space?

A good example of this is Vanessa Beecroft who was discussed in the article she keeps her viewer at a physical distance but involves her audience in an interesting way. Her works involve large groups of naked or near naked models that stand within the gallery space for hours with strict instructions from the artist. The models have been described as “ her tools, her materials and powerful catalysts for the activation of social relations between her art and its viewers.” (Jan Avigos-, “Let the picture do the talking”. Parkett,(1999). That is, the audience watch this work from the sidelines unable to avoid being involved in the piece. As the models “occupy the same territory that we do, but not the same space.” She is interested in this relationship created between the viewer and model and the feelings and emotions that can occur from the tension of their physical and behavioural perfection.

Vanessa Beecroft, Vb55, Berlin, 2005.

http://www.vanessabeecroft.com