Is this is why the relational or socially active art seems a little shallow or small? If it is created for a specific time it does not interact monumentally with the history of art in the physical art, only in the mind and the experience of the viewer/audience/participant.
"It is not entirely clear why the "social bond" should be any more reified now than it was twenty, fifty, or even a hundred years ago." pg30
Don't we have much more free time now it is just we are losing our ability to communicate "IRL" and many of our social graces. Are these graces part of the shackles of the the state or "the man". A way to remain polite and tolerance but not actually interact definitely not challenge or grow together in any meaningful way.
Relational Aesthetics as the new religion? "Machiavelli ranks then which rulers are most praiseworthy, the first of which being leaders who lead due to religion, then those who lead because they created a republic or kingdom." Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli 1978
"Bourriaud also describes relational practice as an epiphenomenal expression of the shift from industrial forms of labor to a service economy." pg 30
We must keep busy to stay sane. The distractions we come up with are not healthy as a human race.
Further, he provides few substantive readings of specific projects. As a result, it is difficult to determine what, precisely, constitutes the aesthetic content of a given relational work." pg 30
yes he does provide few examples. I read the book but I have been told that my work that invites interaction, exchange and manipulation by the audience does not count because it starts with concrete art by an individual. It is more than a meeting for dining and interacting around mundane objects. These objects are mundane to me, my husband, my children and all the others artists and creators I know. As more and more people become creators and feel comfortable manipulating objects could my understanding of relational aesthetics not be considered proper?
"This tradition of artists working inc conjunction with social organizations]is not only absent from Bourriaud's account, it is openly disparaged as univP and even reactionary. "Any stance that is 'directly' critical of society," Bourriaud writes, "is futile." Bourriaud offers an ominous description of socially engaged art practice marching in lock-step conformity with "vaguely Stalinist political program" pg 31
" l'm not suggesting that relational art works need to develop a greater social conscious-by making pin-board works about international terrorism, for example, or giving free curries to refugees." Bishop in Kester pg 32
"This is also the basis for Thomas Hirschhorn's
anxious assertion that he is not a "political artist," but rather an artist who
"makes art politically."" 24 pg31
This work reminds me of something I referenced in my artist statement for entry into this program- A touchtone, a location where community is free to form, not forced to form. What are the elements- way for members to feel and be involved and empowered, a feel of creation and belonging, a feeling of reverence or comfort.
from Tyler: To end on a brighter note, here's an inspiring quote from Boal, which came to mind when reading Mari's original post:
"But in its most essential sense, theatre is the capacity possessed by human beings – and not by animals – to observe themselves in action. Humans are capable of seeing themselves in the act of seeing, of thinking their emotions, of being moved by their thoughts. They can see themselves here and imagine themselves there; they can see themselves today and imagine themselves tomorrow" (1993).
from Jason: Further, Kester effectively convicts me here, "...in the artwork's relationship to the viewer via what I've described as a an 'orthopedic" aesthetic (in which the viewer's implicitly flawed modes of cognition or perception will be adjusted or improved via exposure to the work of art)," (35). I wrestle with being didactic, but I am not clear that it is significantly less adjudical to assume what social relations require artistic intervention.
from Mari: “Political change here and now is impossible because existing society is saturated by repressive forms of knowledge at the most basic level of human consciousness. Language itself polices and regulates our desires. As Roland Barthes famously claimed in his Inaugural Lecture ad the College de France, ‘Language is neither reactionary nor progressive; it is quite simply fascist, for fascism does not prevent speech, it compels speech… Once uttered, even in the subject’s deepest privacy, speech enters the service power.” (Kester pg 46)
from Jason: Further, Kester effectively convicts me here, "...in the artwork's relationship to the viewer via what I've described as a an 'orthopedic" aesthetic (in which the viewer's implicitly flawed modes of cognition or perception will be adjusted or improved via exposure to the work of art)," (35). I wrestle with being didactic, but I am not clear that it is significantly less adjudical to assume what social relations require artistic intervention.
from Mari: “Political change here and now is impossible because existing society is saturated by repressive forms of knowledge at the most basic level of human consciousness. Language itself polices and regulates our desires. As Roland Barthes famously claimed in his Inaugural Lecture ad the College de France, ‘Language is neither reactionary nor progressive; it is quite simply fascist, for fascism does not prevent speech, it compels speech… Once uttered, even in the subject’s deepest privacy, speech enters the service power.” (Kester pg 46)
Can we ever be autonomous artists/beings?
No comments:
Post a Comment