![]() For Bouriaud because the artwork disengages from the normalised social economy it acts as a panacea for our social climate a social interstice. Bourriaud suggests that this creates a ‘micro-topia’ – an ‘arena of exchange’ – a concept largely reactionary to the commodification of social interaction and the nature by which ‘the social bond has turned into a standardised artefact’. The viewers’ interactions are deemed not only creative but wholly constitute the artwork. As with much of Tiravanija’s work, the gallery is transformed from institutional to social space, creating a ‘lived-in’ experience. ![]() Here the audience is not only privy to – albeit a representation of – the artists’ residence, but their existence within usually privileged space acts as the artwork. Tiravanija’s Untitled (Tomorrow Is Another Day), held at the Kolnischer Kunstverein, consisted of a fully-functioning model of his New York apartment inside the gallery space in which viewers were encouraged to utilise the space as they would their own home. Firstly, relational art’s ability to open new dialogues – as seen in the work of Harrell Fletcher – and secondly its proponency to recapitulate and embolden a democratic interface with reference to Santiago Sierra’s oeuvre.īourriaud theorises that relational art, like that of Rirkrit Tiravanija’s, aims to enliven the ‘possibilities of inter-human relations’ by creating a ‘space in human relations which … suggests other trading possibilities than those in effect within this system’. I will then assess two of the main characteristics of Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics in relation to specific artists. In doing so, redefinitions of keys models within Bourriaud’s theories – particularly concerning his proponency for ‘micro-topias’ – will be made. By unravelling the work of Rirkrit Tiravanija we will exemplify the disparity between the intended and actual functionality of Bourriaud’s theories as well as their ultimate authenticity. Yet there are several flaws in the fidelity of Bourriaud’s theories. In aid of assessing this connection, Bourriaud proposes several different strategies by which these artworks function to achieve ‘free’, democratic communication zones within his dubbed ‘micro-topic’ environment. ![]() Rather than the object itself, our relationship to it constitutes the artwork. With this change comes a modified set of artistic parameters set to critique the ‘artist sets his sights … on the relations that his work will create among his public, and on the invention of models of sociability.’ As pronounced in his book of the same name, Nicolas Bourriaud’s theory of ‘relational aesthetics’, proposes a framework by which to assess the influx of artists from the 1990s who ‘considers inter-subjectivity and interaction … as the main informers of their activity’. Like the artistic adage that has come before it, relational art proves to announce a new game, one that is being ‘being forever re-enacted, in relation to its function.’ With a change in the 1990s from goods to service-based trade bound to the rise of the Internet, art has paralleled the transfer through consideration of an object, to consideration of its use. “Art is a game between all people of all periods” The pictures are missing but you can look them up cause you are probably on the internet RIGHT NOW!īourriaud’s Theory of Relational Aesthetics: the fidelity of the ‘micro-topia’ For those who are interested in understanding more about relational artwork, what it means, how it is validated as an artform and how we should as assess it as one these articles are a good place to start.īelow I’ve also attached an essay which I wrote on the subject that you might be interested in. In response to Nicholas Bourriaud’s “Relational Aesthetics” we have Claire Bishop’s article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics”Ĭlick to access Claire-Bishop_Antagonism-and-Relational-Aesthetics.pdfĬheck it out, she makes some very good points in reaction to Bourriaud’s theories on relational artwork and I think points out some very valid flaws in his argument. ![]() I know that I promised to put this up ages ago but here it is. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |