Week 28: 25th – 31st March
Given the social nature of the objects I am defining, I think it would be useful to consider the concept and impact of Relational Aesthetics in contemporary art. This term, identified by the French art critic Nicholas Bourriard, was first coined in response to emerging practices from the 1990s. These relational artworks often consisted of encounters or environments where audiences were able to participate in the production or dissemination of the work. In this way, the audience not only became part of the work, but the work was unable to function without the audience.
Histories of participatory art
Although the term was created to describe the inaugural exhibition at the Palais de Tokyo, Laurie Rojas has argued that it is a development from the participatory art and happenings of the Fluxus group of the 1960s. A specific example of this is the ‘social sculpture’ of Joseph Beuys.
In this respect, Beuys believed that everybody was an artist and that the project of art was to transpose political and utopian desires into aesthetics and action in order to heal historical trauma. Although there are many problems with Beuys’ ‘Prima materia’, (as discussed in week 26) the concept of social sculpture as a prelude to participatory practice is an interesting one.
Bourriard’s Relational Aesthetics
The problems with relational art as defined by Bourriard however, are self-created. As Claire Bishop states in her 2004 essay ‘Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics’, Bourriard’s hypothesis of inclusivity only extends to the networks that have access to information and galleries, without addressing the structures that create these networks. Equally, the artwork as an object which is defined by the audience contributes to the lack of a stable object, thereby rendering it difficult to assess critically, or, in the case of Tiravanija’s work, even distinguish from reality.
Cabinet of curiosities
My own experiments with relational and participatory work came about through the development of my curatorial practice in artist books, in particular the exhibition, Cabinet of Curiosities. The exhibition was a response to the need to address how to allow participants to engage with book works, particularly when there was no invigilation available. The site for this exhibition was a large cabinet with 14 drawers, so through taking this consideration as a starting point, each artist created a site-specific work for each of the drawers.
Instructions were provided as part of, or alongside artworks, producing an interactive element to encourage the audience to contribute to the creation and dissemination of the work. By bringing together text, performance and collaborative practice, the work also referenced previous art movements including Surrealism and Fluxus and was complemented by additional bookworks exploring interaction and collaboration.
New ways to participate
These experiments have led me to reconsider how my own practice might address the nature of interaction and activation of the art object by its audience. Beuys’ political interventions, although inclusive, risked emulating fascistic ideologies. On the other hand, Bourriard’s lack of structural analysis contradicts his claims about inclusivity. Although both addressed the nature of agency of objects and participants, neither considered the networks which defined these interactions.
As a maker, it seems relevant and important therefore, to address how the structure, material and semiotics within the work, communicates shared or learned experience. In this way, art can operate on a number of levels depending on the audience.
Further reading
Nicholas Bourriard, Relational Aesthetics, 1998/2002
Claire Bishop, Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics, October 110, Fall 2004 pp51-79, October Magazine, Ltd and MIT
Laurie Rojas, Beuys’ Concept of Social Sculpture and Relational Art Practices Today, Chicago Art Magazine, 2010
