Relational Art

This week, the discussion is based off of a video by Ben Lewis for BBC entitled "Relational Art: Is It An Ism?"


Lewis travels to different artists that are listed in Nicolas Bourriaud's book Relational Aesthetics as "relational artists". He poses this quote from Bourriaud's book to a few of them:

"The possibility of a relational art (an art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space), points to a radical upheaval of the aesthetic, cultural and political goals introduced by modern art."

To break this down a bit, it is saying that there is a possibility that there is a new art movement (relational art) and that we can see this in the disruption of modern art's key points (aesthetic, cultural and political goals). What this relational art is, is an art that deals with human interaction, removing the line between a gallery-goer/viewer, to a participant and incorporation in the art itself. This art does not focus on individual artists creating work that only they can fully relate to but attempt to show it with some meaning to an outside audience. Relational art uses "minimal forms to create political statements, doesn't like global capitalism, relates to its exhibition space, and can sometimes be useful". It is open, it is malleable, and it is new. But is it an "-ism"? Well, Ben Lewis hopes so. Throughout the video, he puts together a list of 8 rules that deal with "-isms".

1. A new ism must develop from an old ism.
2. A new ism is a new way of thinking about art.
3. Artists of an ism must hang out together.
4. A new ism is invented by an art critic.
5. A new ism always has a slightly different British sub-species.
6. At first, people think that a new ism is not art.
7. A new era leads to a new ism.
8. A new ism must have a landmark exhibition.

With these 8 "guidelines" in mind, Lewis attempts to prove to us that relational art can certainly become the next ism.

1. Based on Bourriaud's quote above, it would seem that this relational art grew from modern art, attempting to bypass the standards set for this -ism.
2. With the "audience" becoming the art and interacting with it, this relational art would rid galleries of their "Do Not Touch" signs. The art is no longer a deity, but something to experience first-hand. It doesn't have to mean anything and it can be useful.
3. Liam Gillick, Douglas Gordon, Carsten Höller, Pierre Huyghe, Philippe Parreno, and Rirkrit Tiravanija all came together to collaborate on a film entitled "Vicinato II". These artists would all be considered relational artists.
4. This idea is being presented by Nicolas Bourriaud, a French art critic and curator.
5. The British version of this art movement is "Art For Networks", which is basically the same thing with the interaction of real people in the gallery art, but it remains separate from the relational art movement in Europe.
6. Jorge Pardo and Philippe Parreno created 3 lamps with holes punched into their outer casings, one lamp in each room, with wires attached to all three. Parreno said that this Untitled project meant nothing beyond "three lamps, three spaces". With no meaning beyond this, it is easy to see how many would not see this as any form of art.
7. We have entered into the 21st century, into the digital age. The way we go about our daily lives has dramatically changed since as recent as 1990. We now heavily rely on our cell phones and computers for information, contact, and entertainment. There are new wars being waged and the environment is encountering more problems than ever. We are certainly in a new era.
8. Tiravanija held a relational art exhibition in Venice, pulling in artists from all over the world, and giving out free bags. The location, scale, and extent of this exhibition made it landmark.

As far as photography goes, I do not currently see it as being a form of relational art. I think it may be possible in that people could come to a gallery, take a polaroid camera laying out on a pedestal, snap a photo of their friend, and place it on the gallery wall, but beyond the audience interaction of simply "the audience took the photos and placed them on the wall", I do not see how photography could branch any further into this type of art. I'm sure I'm wrong and that we'll see people attempting this "relational photography", but as of now, I have not seen it and don't have too good of an idea how much further photography can be pushed "relationally." I wouldn't say that it's completely unrelated, but it has not yet been added to this new art movement. (Well, maybe as a documentation of a relational action, such as Bourriaud's photographs of S&M and the holes dug by African Immigrants. But the photograph is not what makes the art relational, it is the actions that were done, being shown in the photograph because they could not be performed live or shown in any other way in a gallery. I could take 30 photographs of relational art, then post them in a gallery, each photograph 2 feet away from each other, and 57" to the center from the ground. The subsequent viewing of these photographs would then basically be no different than the viewing of any photographic exhibition in the 20th century, regardless of subject matter. I know that my thought process in these parenthesis does not flow nicely, but bear with me).

I did find an artist who, although not a photographer, fits into this relational art movement. Marina Abramovic, a Serbian artist who usually uses herself in the art exhibitions. The one piece that most struck me was her project entitled "Rhythm 0", where she stood on a small pedestal in an art gallery for 6 hours, with a table of 72 items before her and a sign that told people to do what they wish with these items upon her. There were things such as a feather, chains, roses, honey, a whip, a saw, a knife, grapes, a gun, and a bullet. As she stood impassively, people came up and cut her clothes off, cut her skin and drank her blood, sucked her breast, and put the gun in her hand, putting pressure on the trigger to see if she would resist. She says that most men were aggressive, with some women egging them on, and some women wiping her tears. After 6 hours, she started walking toward the audience, and everybody scattered for fear of confrontation. This to me seems the epitome of relational art, where not only is the public interacting with the piece, but the piece then attempts to later interact with the public (in which this confrontation didn't go over so well). Though this was performed in 1974, it does seem to fit into the relational art of today.

Here are some links to more information about Rhythm 0:
MoMA (Click the 6th video in the playlist)
New Yorker


After viewing the BBC video, I was left with a few question. When Lewis tries to show how the automatic blinds are relational art, he is shut down. Why would this not be relational art? If it is just "blinds being closed over a window", how are the "just 3 lights in 3 rooms" any different and any more validated as art? And around the 26 minute mark in the video, there was mention of this relational art being an uncut slice of time with real people in real life. Does this art have to take place in a gallery to be art? That seems too formalistic for these artists. Couldn't my cooking in my kitchen with a few people be the same thing as some of these artists cooking in a gallery with a few people? I think that there is something in the new relational art, but it is not fully there yet and some of these artists seem to me to be a bit confused about their own art and how it would fit into a cohesive movement (not that they're specifically trying to fit it into a movement, per se, but because they are all working together and know of each other, they definitely are aware of this new art form).