The main question that did not leave me when reading the first chapter of Relational Aesthetics by Nicolas Bourriaud is did each of the artists really realize what they are doing? I mean, did the artists, when creating their works, only think about the relationship with the viewer? I don't think so. Each of the artists listed in the book (Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan, Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster, Christine Hill, Carsten Höller, Pierre Huyghe, Philippe Parreno, Rirkrit Tiravanija) developed and explored their own interests, including their relationship with the public. Nicolas Bourriaud, like Clement Greenberg in his time, simply saw the connection between some of the works of these authors and the current situation in society. And being the heir to the French school of philosophy, he made a generalization and suggested the further development of the art industry.
The author makes several, in my opinion, controversial statements, for example: “For anything that cannot be marked will inevitably vanish. Before long, it will not be possible to maintain relationships between people outside these trading areas.” (Bourriaud, 2002, p.9)
All radical statements are, by definition, can not be true. Where there is black, there must be white, because only in comparison can concepts be distinguished from each other. So the assertion that everything that cannot be commercialized will disappear. Relations of people will be only in trade spaces. Let it sound trite, but where is the place for nature and love? Nature is not subject to any commercial relations. For example, look at dogs. They don't care if they are owned by a homeless person on the street or a billionaire with his own park and villa. For a dog, the pack and/or the relationship with the person are important. And love, what do you think that people decide to be together only because of money and the birth of children who will feed them in old age? Yes, perhaps in Africa where it is the only way to survive, but not in more developed countries. And I even assume that the more such non-commercial relationships, the greater the chances for society to "be better."
Or another statement “…it is no longer possible to regard the contemporary work as a space to be walked through… It is henceforth presented as a period of time to be lived through, like an opening to unlimited discussion.” (Bourriaud, 2002, p.15)
Again, here Bourriaud says that if earlier art was the prerogative of the rich, to collect art and therefore experience it, present it in their big houses. Now, with the decrease in the area of our living quarters, we consciously go to the museum and get this share of art in a certain period of time. Here another perspective becomes apparent, the motivation of the viewer. So we consciously make a decision to get in touch with art or stay at home in front of the TV. If earlier, a collector's friend was willy-nilly surrounded by art and thus was influenced by art, its ideas, colours, and trends, now IKEA posters are the maximum depth that can be seen in apartments on the walls. The author is hinting at this, but we know that this cannot be said for everyone. Yes, with urbanization, the average citizen does not buy "real" art, but if his upbringing and hobbies pull him towards the "beautiful", he will build his space accordingly. And then again we cannot say that art cannot be a space to be walked through or a period of time to be lived through. And today it is a person's choice, not always a conscious choice, but a choice.
On the contrary, there are some very inspiring conclusions: “Art … turns out to be particularly suitable when it comes to expressing this hands-on civilization, because it tightens the space of relations, unlike TV and literature which refer each individual person to his or her space of private consumption, and also unlike theatre and cinema which bring small groups together before specific, unmistakable images. Actually, there is no live comment made about what is seen…" (Bourriaud, 2002, p.15)
Since this theory, Relational Aesthetics, is based on selected works by contemporary artists, what about the rest of art? The author chose the works of artists calling for participation.
For example, In Soma's work, the artist combines a multi-level installation named after an ancient drink to expand consciousness. Here, indeed, the interaction with objects and the very perception of what is seen comes to the fore.
Carsten Höller, Soma (2010) Rentiere im Bahnhof, Züge fahren hier nicht mehr. © Attilio Maranzano [online] At: https://www.fr.de/kultur/kunst/rentiere-schauen-dich-11447384.html (Accessed 02.01.2023)
And now let's compare his practice with this work.
Carsten Höller Test Site 2006 Photo: Tate © Carsten Höller [online] At: https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/unilever-series/unilever-series-carsten-holler-test-site (Accessed 02.01.2023)
“Installed in the Turbine Hall of Tate Modern in 2006, Test Site comprised five spiralling tubular slides that ran from the upper floors of the gallery to ground level (fig.1). Sliding down, especially from the higher levels, was an experience that was both physically and psychically intense. Using people’s experience as what he calls his ‘raw material’, Höller has been making art since the late 1980s centred around, and dependent upon, visitor participation.” Art of Interaction: A Theoretical Examination of Carsten Höller’s Test Site MARK WINDSOR for TATE [online] At: https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/15/art-of-interaction-a-theoretical-examination-of-carsten-holler-test-site (Accessed 02.01.2023)
The book Ways of Looking: How to Experience Contemporary Art by Ossian Ward describes his feelings starting from fear and almost hatred for the artist, because he forces him to an unpleasant activity (Ward is afraid of heights), to wild delight. Here on the face, the beginning of an individual struggle with fears, the decision-making process - to slide down or not, the healing process - the transformation of fear into pleasure, and so on. Using Alfred Gell's Art and Agency (1998) artist cause ‘events to happen’. In this way, the artist used thoughtful design to determine the result of the work, and thus the experience of the viewer.
“applying Gell’s theories has been instrumental in showing the different ways that the recipients of the work are involved as agents in its formation: not passively like an audience but actively as co-creators. By doing so, Test Site can be understood as a kind of game taking place between Höller and its visitors; it is a structured interplay between two sides. The aesthetic and political aspects of Test Site are not something separate from its interactive ‘space-time elements’ but precisely located therein. Bourriaud provides the way to understand how the interpersonal relations of Test Site are aesthetic in nature, existing together as a total ‘world’ of form. Moreover, Bourriaud shows how political significance is inscribed in these relational elements, both literally and symbolically.” Art of Interaction: A Theoretical Examination of Carsten Höller’s Test Site MARK WINDSOR for TATE [online] At: https://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate-papers/15/art-of-interaction-a-theoretical-examination-of-carsten-holler-test-site (Accessed 02.01.2023)
Furthermore, doesn't the TV, the theatre or books not tighten the space of relations?
In the understanding of catharsis, which was the fundamental principle of the birth of the theatre, was it not the task of creating such an art piece in which the viewer would take on the role of a hero, experience his story, and after the completion of the performance, rethink his own behaviour? Isn't this a tightening of the space between the viewer, the hero and the author? Isn't this a tightening of the space between the viewer, the hero and the author? Or the situation that happened in 2022 in Russia. The whole society for many years "continuously watched" TV. For the government, it was a ready mass for pumping their ideologies. In other words, it's like in Richard Serra's "Television Delivers People" (1973), the heads of many were brought in to upload new information.
And now the fact of an incredible tightening of relations and unification of the nation is on the face - maintaining a bloody war!
Summing up, I come to the conclusion that, like any opinion, the theory of Relational Aesthetics can exist and inspire people. But in my opinion, any manifestation of art, be it cinema, literature, theatre, dance, sculpture, etc. invites the viewer to participate in artistic practice, or at least in the thought process. The meaning of a work of any art is the result of cooperation between the author of the work and the viewer. At the same time, the artist accumulates all social experience and context and creates a work that directs the viewer to certain reasoning. For its part, the viewer must have, firstly, the desire to perceive, and secondly, understanding the essence of the work will depend on the experience of the viewer himself. If the meaning of a work of art is imposed, then it becomes propaganda and kitsch because the viewer is not pushed to his own conclusions, but already prepared judgments are called out.
Bibliography and references
1. Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (2002) Les press du reel (for the English translation)
2. Art and agency. An anthropological theory Alfred Gell. Clarendon Press · Oxford 1998
3. Looking: How to Experience Contemporary Art by Ossian Ward 2014 Transition 2017 Ad Marginem Press in Russian. Museum Garage
Comments