Art/Activism

Although I regrettably have very little knowledge about the socio-political backdrop to Laibach's and NSK's work, I still find their artistic methods very interesting, not least because of the fact that they were so successful.

NSK analysed their social surroundings with real critical insight, and delivered a response to those surroundings that I would describe as cruelly efficient. Their method - to uncover the hidden transgressions of their community by holding up a mirror to that community - hit hardest I think for two reasons: their prolific use of multiple avenues of media, and their status as a faceless collective with no individual members.

As discussed by Alexei Monroe in Interrogation Machine, a social system has certain hidden qualities or rituals that directly disobey that system's fundamental ethos. But on closer inspection, we see that these very transgressions are at least as pertinent to the functioning of that system than the qualities they cleave to "officially". So, in order for this system to work, it's rules must not be taken completely seriously. Logically it follows that subverting the rules is exactly the same as following the rules! The only way to break this cycle and generate awareness is to take the social system more seriously than it takes it itself, thereby revealing its hidden transgressions.

What I am interested in is locating the point of departure between art and political activism. Some interesting points about this were raised in the Laibach doco Predictions of Fire - one of the men interviewed stated that when you look at Laibach on stage you are looking at a big question mark - Laibach is the question and we are the answer. One could say the same about all good art. Perhaps as our social systems become increasingly complex, art can achieve the goals of activism better than activism can.

Public Art and Site Specifity

I really like this growing trend of INCLUSIVE art. In my opinion "art about art" has a circular and insular quality that can only result in it running itself into the ground and ultimately becoming irrelevant. On the other hand I really appreciate an approach to art that takes a wider frame of reference, ie existing modes of social relations. I don't neccessarily mean "art for everybody" in the sense of a 'closed' or 'obvious' artwork with a meaning that can be easily figured out by the layperson. Rather, I am talking about art that can engage with hypothetically anyone who encounters it, for the very reason that there is nothing to 'figure out' neccessarily.

The story of changing public art practices and issues of site-specifity I think really illustrates this shift. As said by Serra "unlike Modernist artworks that ... function critically only in relation to the language of their own medium, site-specific works emphasise the comparison between the two separate languages". I think this idea of facilitating both the language of the artworld and that of the public sphere is a really important step in changing the relationship between the art world and the world at large.

Conversation Pieces

The main difference I see between the performance art of the 60's and ideas of collaboration today has a lot to do with the way our media works - today we view the world with a far wider lens and from many different positions, and we take this communication age for the opportunity it presents - to enjoy diverse dialogue as an end in itself, rather than focusing our attention on a non-existent future.

Last year I worked with an artist collective called Reefknot, to produce a public sculpture in Kings Cross for the City of Sydney Council's "Art and About" event. The artwork took place over 6 weeks. We held public knitting circles in various locations around the Cross which were open to anyone. The artists became a revolving cast of diverse characters, locals and visitors to the Cross - anyone who happened upon us and were willing to add a line or two of knitting and sit down for a chat.

By the 6th week we had amassed 200 square metres of colourful, mismatched knitting - some of it kind of dodgy but who gives a crap. We covered every tree, lamp post and public object in reach from the Coke sign to the park at the end of Darlinghurst Rd and through several side streets. After the installation was complete we fully expected much of it to be vandalised, however the opposite occurred - "ninja's" showed up in the night, adding their own pieces so that the artwork continued to grow.

It is one of my most memorable experiences as an artist but mostly as a person who is interested in other people.

Situationism: no arty party

Really all the artists we have been looking at have constructed "situations" where viewer/world, viewer/viewer relationships are drawn attention to and called into question.

None of these artists are interested in the material aesthetics of their artworks albeit for the efficiency with which they produce invisible relationships- invisible aesthetics.

The Situationist International were especially focused on transending the material as a strategy for disrupting society's complacency in a world, not just built upon, but built with, reflections and falsity by activating the "dissolution of art into life" and thereby reprogramming the very fabric of our world. This is no Arty Party, a bunch of art folk coming over for noodles. This is art invading life on a search for authenticity - (maybe they all got together and ate noodles afterwards, I wasn't there). The Situationists had one goal, to abolish all goals. To locate something outside of the spectacle and to open wide all critical thought. Ultimately, to give art infinite possibility.

Institutional Critique

This week's readings on Institutional Critique and the work of Michael Asher have brought up a few questions for me: What do these ideas mean in relation to the work of the relational artists we have been discussing? Also, in a much broader vein, who is art meant/made for? I doubt very much I will crack the case on my second question any time soon, however all signs at present point to a dissapointing answer...

When looking at Asher's work and the work of many relational artists, it is easy to draw similarities between the processes employed. Both Asher and relational artists like Taravanija physically re-negotiate the gallery space, in effect occupying the entire exhibition process. However, where many relational artists authorise the viewer to make a decision, allowing their interaction with the work to define its structure, Asher's re-built spaces are imposed on the viewer, eliciting a more individuated response that is both tangible (whereby the gallery visitor is forced to take a certain route and/or negotiate physical obstacles) and affectual.

All the works we have sofar discussed embody a shift from "work to frame", where the attention is drawn towards the human subjects encountering the artwork. But I believe there is something more accessible about Asher's work. Unlike Taravanija and other relational artists, he doesn't treat the gallery space as merely a shell, but plays upon our expectations of the function of a gallery and in a broader sense, the art institution itself.

The dark side of Relational Aesthetics?

In Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics, Claire Bishop discusses the differences between relational artists championed by Bourriard - Rirkrirt Taravanija and Liam Gillick - to artists conspicuously omitted in Relational Aesthetics - Sanitago Sierra and Hirschhorn.

I found Bishop's article interesting because it introduces new artists that use relations between the viewer/artwork/context as a core subject of the work, but approach these ideas with a more complex view of relations and democracy, that is, these artists accept the role that dissent and antagonism play in democracy.

Tiravanija's Untitled (Tomorrow is Another Day) seeks to create a microtopia, where there is a feeling of "togetherness", but its parameters are set in a fixed context - the art gallery, where the participants will largely be artists and art enthusiasts; predictably like-minded people. The work fails to address the possibility of any outsider who could jeopardise the "harmony" of the experience, and in doing so negates its claim to be "open-ended".

Santiago Sierra deliberately and obviously sets up limitations on the relationships experienced by the audience, immediately divorcing the work from an idea of "open endedness". He exaggerates the limitations of relationships imposed by the context of the artwork. In Persons Paid to Have Their Hair Dyed Blonde, Sierra paid illiegal street vendors $60 to have their hair dyed blonde, literally highlighting their presence in the crowds at the Venice Biennale. He even invited them to come into the Biennale itself and hock fake designer handbags in his exhibition space.

In Relational Aesthetics, Bourriaud says that the aim of his relational artists is to facilitate a "culture of interactivity which posits the transitivity of the cultural object as a fait accompli".

It seems to me that if the artwork is supposed to be found purely within an intangible relationship amongst the audience (that, according to Rirkrit Tiravanija in the video linked by Alex, needs not be documented), then I ask: why is there a need for the artist to intervene at all? Take the artist out of the equation and you still have a framework (the world) within which people "relate" to each other. I would sooner call this phenomenon life rather than art.