I'm not going to lie, being a painter who looks to both a melting pot of 1950s post war abstraction and late 80s spraycan related art for inspiration, relational aesthetics wasn't exactly top of my list of things to refer to. But since doing regular blog posts (unlike others, I wish I'd had this opportunity earlier) it led me to retrace my creative steps and revaluate my own practice, something that I was reluctant to do! The classes were slow at times and the readings difficult to take apart, but all in all relational aesthetics have opened my mind to a different art world where art isn't taken so seriously (to a degree), is a refreshing change.

That said, I'll probably continue to paint as I have been but hopefully one day relational aesthetics and this class will have sparked something in my subconcious changing my perspective for the positive. Thanks for throwing a spanner in the works that is Theoretical Enquiry Caleb!

Art as consumption (literal)

Whilst reading over the blogs by both Lucas and Diego, www.tending.net.au in particular, what stood out for me was the concept of art as consumption. I was trying to delve deeper into my reading to find some sort of hidden message as to how the Tending project related to Relational aesthetics aside from the obvious (being a garden). When reading about as to how Betty's involvement was so important in the process through her the use of compost and unwanted waste from the cafe that would usually be discarded. This started asking questions for me like where consumption plays on the subject of 'sustainable' art making practice like the Tending project. In a literal sense, the food produced by the garden has already been consumed through compost and will continue to be consumed in the future. I found this cycle of consumption very interesting as as long as the Tending work continues, the cycle also continues. But the topic of consumption also extends the question as to where art comes to play, and the second question as to whether or not this continuous consumption is how the 'artwork' relates to Relational aesthetics. Anyway, I'm rambling far more than expected. Goodnight.

Whilst reading Niko Papastergiadis' article on Art versus politics, it was difficult for me to look beyond the point Okwui Enwezor makes relating to the 'blurring of the function of an image as a signifer of an event'. The image in contemporary society plays a powerful role, and in particular the images of 9/11 continue to play a powerful role but the way an image is interplayed can determine how it is portrayed. The point brought up concerning the grey area between the artist and the warrior made me slightly worried as to what the future for artist's toying with these ideas and actions might hold. The blurring of the boundary between artistic representation and political intervention is totally necessary as this interplay allows each machine to flourish. Ranciere sums up the relationship between both the politics machine and the art machine by addressing that both modes are formed within their 'independent regimes of identification' but are both seperate entities simutaneously.

I'd be lying if I was to mention that I fully understood the Reader and corresponding creation of the visual art activism group 'NSK State'. But like many other's I will more often than not turn to Wikipedia for a simple summary on a topic that's proving difficult. Upon searching Laibach I came to understand that they are a Dada related auditory group who strive to oppose the political structure of their town in Slovenia. The group's hope was to break down the 'thresholds between art, performance and real life'. With this in mind, my original confusion over the NSK's aims got a little clearer.



I dug a little deeper and came across the NSK's visual art wing, 'IRWIN' which shares the same aims of the NSK but in a visual sense being consisted of mostly painters. I found that the approach they took to painting was pretty interesting as the artist's individual practice was somewhat forgotten and pushed towards more of a collective standpoint. All artist's works are considered to be completed as a collective, the individual sounding almost irrelevant which is reiterated by the works signed as Irwin and not by the individual artist themselves.

Richard 'site art' Serra

When I think of public art or site specific work, immediately the term accessibility pops into my head. It is the easy access of this particular mode of art project that I think both makes and breaks the impact that the sculptures potentially hold. The term 'community' is often thrown around when referring to this style of work as if to infer that the community has something to do with the decision or planning of the pieces whereas this is quite unusual to be the situation. A sculpture that comes to mind when I think of public art is a large spiral metal 'shell' that sprays steam every 5 minutes outside of Manly ferry wharves. The work, much like Ken Unsworth's 'poo on sticks' resembles just that, faeces and it even steams for good measure. When walking by the work, it makes sense as to why the councils erect sculpture such as the shell as it allows the public to believe that art can be understood and embraced by all.

Without continuing my tangent, when going through the reader I came across Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc'. Having compared both the sculpture from Manly and Serra's 'Tilted Arc' it was obvious as to what the difference between accessible art and sculpture that goes against all design principles. His quote 'any use is a misuse' when referring to his approach to site art was very comforting. It made me realise that site art should be exactly that, site specific and Serra has achieved that label 110%. When reading that Richard Serra went out of his way to interupt the GSA building guidelines' zen-like cooperation with the architectural design of the surrounding buildings, I can't help but congratulate him. The rebellious nature of the work surely reinforces the guidelines that all site specific work should follow, accessibility is not a necessity.

Grant 'the K-Bomb' Kester

When reading over the Introduction to Grant Kester's book, I found that there was a fine line between political/social activism and art making. In particular, the 'performance' piece 'The Roof Is on Fire' where 220 Latino and African American teenagers would sit in cars on a Californian rooftop discussing relevant issues to 'transcend the one-dimensional cliches promulgated by mainstream news and entertainment media' was an example of this grey area. The dialogues performed on the day led to other collaborations which proved that the performance was successful in its hopes and aspirations. Perhaps it's my ignorance when performance work is concerned but I found it difficult to see the difference between art practice and activism when reading over the WochenKlausur's aspirations.

That said, the way in which the WochenKlausur talks offer the individual a situation to be themselves and respond in the same way, moving away from all traditional modernist approaches can only be positive. As I read through the introduction, Dada's spontaneity came to mind immediately and coincidentally Kester then relates the WochenKlausur's talks to Dada based practice. As a young person though, and more importantly as a young artist, when Kester talks about challenging the 'deadening representational conventions of academic art' it's hard to understand as to whether that is either a positive, or negative thing.

Situation Affiliated

When reading Raunig's essay on 'Constructing the Situation' the total objection of art as a commodity was brought to the surface for me, particularly as I'm a painter it struck me pretty hard. Debord stating how 'Situations are conceived as the opposite of works of art, which are attempts at absolute valorisation and preservation of the present moment' made me try relate back to my own painting practice and attempt to draw parallels. The way in which the SI would reject artworks and the art commodity made me wonder as to how rejecting the hand that feeds you (rejecting the avant garde) works. Without the historical context of Modernism along with Fluxus and Dada and all other related isms the SI would not hold the same powerful standpoint they put out into discussion. That said, I'm hoping to research into the topic further and attempt to find a contemporary approach..

When reading over the document Alexander Alberro wrote about the institution and its critique, it's difficult to overlook as to how powerful the institution has become when modern day art practice is concerned. Whenever I go to a gallery and view a certain artists work in particular the AGNSW, I find it difficult not to wonder as to whose subjective opinion was the reason as to why one work was chosen over another. It's an argument that will never be fully resolved as art is entirely subjective as mentioned but this isn't to say that the institution as a whole cannot change by a different means. What I'm trying to say is that the 'roles of museum directors and cultural order' as stated by Alberro should be continually scrutinised in order to keep the structure of the institution less rigid and continually questionable.

The relationship between art and society as discussed in the 'Conversation with Freddy de Vree' makes for interesting reading as Duchamp's readymade concept is brought up when relating to the origin of the gallery. The museum being born by a way of circumstance over concept raises many questions for myself being a painter, particularly in regards as to why there is so much hype behind reaching the level of the gallery when really it's just a circumstantial room..