Relational Aesthetics - Nicholas Bourriuad/Ben Lewis BBC Documentary

During his meeting with the artist, Lewis asks Bourriaud what is the difference between Modern Art and Relational Aesthetics. Bourriaud explains that past art was defined by the fear of consumption, as seen the work of Warhol. Modern Art was born of “production” based society. Bourriud believes we are now living in a “communication based society.” For example, he mentions one of the artists in his book Santiago Sierra – who paid Africans to dig holes in the earth and hired Eastern European prostitutes to perform S&M. He claims, “the worst aspects of relationships today are shown, people hire people, they make them their slaves." He calls this work “a ground or sensibility for today.” I am a little skeptic. I can see how this work is about communication; perhaps about the troubled channels it weaves in Contemporary society. However, this type of work is not something that shocks me, something that I have never seen. According to Lewis, this type of art is based in Minimalism and Conceptualism but the key factor that makes it difference is simple: the use of ordinary people. Here is where I get a little uncertain. Art has always been dependent on ordinary people, it has taken advantage of them, utilized them, included them, exploited them, helped them, the list goes on. How is this new? I am extremely interested in the idea of Relational Aesthetics, but it seems too broad to be applied as an “ism.”

Jean Claude and Christo, ‘Surrounded Islands’

Perhaps if I read Bourriaud’s text myself, which I plan to, I would have a better understanding. Lets consider Jean Claude and Christo’s ‘Surrounded Islands’ from the 1980s. The pair could in no way have embarked on this project without help from hundreds of paid workers who helped cut, unroll, ship and place the giant pink material over the water surrounding the islands. Could this be Relational Art? (Jean Claude and Christo do claim labels are for wine bottles only and not art.) The pair has said their work is always “prepared and used by people, managed by human beings for human beings.” The point of this work is to change how we view our environment and as a result allow us to think critically about our world, as we had previously been unable to. Or what about the art work of Yoko Ono. ‘Cut Piece’ required the participation of the audience to make the concept come to life. (Ono had members of the audience cut off pieces of her clothes until she was naked as a commentary on the need for love and unification in society) Is this Relational art, too?

Yoko Ono, ‘Cut Piece’

Despite its broad applications, the main separation from Modern Art seems to be the essential dependence on interaction with humans. This is no Lewis Baltz photographing still, lifeless America. Relational Art embraces social interaction and depends on it to function. As Lewis claims, Relational Art "used minimal forms to make political statement. It dislikes capitalism and often relates to the space it is exhibited in. It is sometimes useful." Lewis shows how broad this application is with his light switch gag which is received coldly by Holler. However, this is what I enjoyed about the documentary. By way of Lewis’ personality, the pretentious veil of the art world was lifted and despite his sometimes cringe worthy jokes, he asked questions that everybody thinks, but are often too afraid or embarrassed to ask. Sadly the art world is full of useless art, not to mention crashing bores. Lewis is an amusing catalyst to this. Lewis almost resembles a character from the Office (UK version) and I loved it. There are some problems with the theory and the artists who work within its definition and Lewis unintentionally brings this to light.

The examples Bourriuad gives in his book, Vanessa Beecroft’s "scantily clad women" in VB 35079, Philippe Parreno’s Japanese cartoon character, being liberated from mass cultural narratives, Felix Gonzalez Torres stacks of boiled sweets and Rirkrit Tiravanija’s kitchen cooking all certainly fit into his description. There are two main problems though. Firstly, this art could be lumped into various other categories. The main characteristic of an “ism” is a certain continuous aesthetic or formal quality (most of us can easily point out a Dada artwork, or a Cubism piece). I would not instantly recognize any of these pieces as purely “relational.” Secondly, as many people have mentioned in their blogs, a lot of this art is not very significant, irritating and could easily be performed by anyone. As someone who spends a lot of time defending art that is regularly called “useless” or “non-sense” I am not in anyway claiming that art that can be performed by anyone is worthless. However, what has always been of great importance to me and my taste in art is the significance of a piece in certain socio-political contexts. Take Duchamp’s readymade ‘Fountain,’ for example. Many people pull their hair out at this type of art, as it is “too-easy.” However, it is the idea and timing of this art that makes it so incredibly significant. Rirkrit Tiravanija cooking meals in his apartment, however, not so significant. I don’t think all art has to be significant. Why not make an art piece about cooking a meal for people you like? I have no problem with this, but it’s not particularly important to me. As Lewis mentions when interviewing Phillipe Parenno, Relational Art does not have to have a particular meaning. Parenno’s incredibly boring and depressing piece is simply just a light illuminating an empty room. Personally if I’m ever making art like that and getting paid for it I’ll jump off a bridge, but Parenno doesn't seemed concerned with this, and that’s simply the reality of the art world, not all artists care about making significant work all the time.

Rirkrit Tiravanija

Lewis goes on to claim Relational Art is often Left wing, "like the plot of the Matrix, but with Capitalism instead of killer robots." He includes a clip from ‘Vicinato II’ which discusses "soft capitalism" and comments on the absurdity of the old political systems disguised and relaunched. I can’t help but agree with Gavin Brown who sees this work as made by "incredibly unradical people who play a game of a radical life” and calls it "incredibly pretentious.” It seems the Relational Art “group” Lewis focuses on is one exhausted and depressed by Capitalism, rather than an energized force of social change or upheaval. Talking to Lewis, Carsten Holler claims, "fulfilling needs is saturation, the post utopian ideal would be to give this up. The goal would be not to have a goal anymore." It seems this is what is achieved in Parreno’s work.

Obviously there is a common thread in this work but I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea of Relational Aesthetics. What I see in the works given as examples is huge contempt for Capitalism and an attempt to involve and include the public rather than exclude them (although some do exactly this). However, the most radical and exciting change for me is the breaking away from traditional museum, frame based art, via the mixing of medias, including photography. (The Ice-Cream van convention discussed in the Royal Academy with Simon Pope, for example). I disagree with Lewis. This is most certainly not an “ism” (I really dislike the placing of genres in general, its way too limiting), but rather a common theme, a sensibility, a result of similar living conditions and its saturation of minds. I don’t really think its useful to try considering Relational Aesthetics, as a new genre of photography, as the terms just isn’t solid enough. However, photography plays a central role in all contemporary art, as does video, the Internet, etc. Photography is integral to the documentation of these so called Relational art works and essentially become the end product of the work itself (the documentation of the hole digging, for example). In this vein I can see how photography could be considered as “relational art.” Think for example, of the simple street photographer. His/Her pictures would not be possible without the interaction and participation of everyday strangers.