Sprint4: The commons
Problem Scenario
‘…consider how the arts and contemporary theory structure “the commons” anew: how the commons becomes both a goal and a trope in post-millennial art and cultural theory.’ (Amy J. Elias)
If we want to discuss the relationship between art and the commons, or furthermore how to construct the art commons, my understanding is how contemporary art can enter the public space and become a medium of social communication through the construction of situations and encounters. What I can think of in terms of contemporary art theory and contemporary artists’ practice in this regard – relational art/relational aesthetics.
In the fall of 2002, an exhibition titled Touch: Relational Art from the 1990s to the Present was presented at the San Francisco Art Institute in San Francisco, USA. The exhibition focused on major works of art under the umbrella of relational aesthetics, and received significant attention in the art world. Focusing on the fundamental issues of contemporary art in relation to public and private space, the exhibition demonstrated the interrelationship between art and society, allowing for a deeper exploration of the “aesthetics of relationships” within the art exhibition system.
According to Bourriaud, the contemporary highly commercialized and market-oriented atmosphere has made human relationships outside of transactions non-existent, and the task of relational art is to propose artistic propositions that restore human relationships in the face of an alienated and indifferent commercial society. Bourriaud also mentions that relational aesthetics is not an independent private space, but a mode of artistic practice that develops in theory or practice from the overall human relations and social context. The artist should then be seen as the “catalyst” for the presentation of relational aesthetics, rather than the center of the entire concept of art. The subjectivity of the artist is subverted, while the social role they play changes. They are simply the creators of a creative network of social relations.
The commons: a new form of social links
In relational art, the viewer may be invited by the artist to eat while communicating or to sit together on a carpet depicting a fairy tale world and read a book. Every action of the participant in the process of participation is included in the scope of the work, and at the same time, the work invites the viewer to participate in the creation of new forms of social relationships.
Relational art is distinctly different from previous art forms. It does so by repeatedly advocating “negotiation” and “coexistence”. To summarize, although relational art adopts the means of artistic intervention in society, it does not radically criticize society in general, as the avant-garde art of the past did, but through localized social interventions, it constantly constructs new spatio-temporal relationships or interpersonal networks to achieve negotiation, communication, consensus, and reflection between people and society. In short, relational art is a gentle mode of intervention.
Relational art has largely bridged the social divide, reaching for a “commons”, in a way, relational art has become a way to build a commons, working to eliminate a series of discordant social relations in the cultural and economic spheres. Relational artists attempt to use art to intervene in society, as Jens Haaning did with some Turkish jokes in Copenhagen Square, Denmark, with the intention, among other things, of countering the growing racism in Nordic society and creating harmonious community relations. The relational artworks thus no longer constitute concrete art objects, but construct scenes and encounters that inspire connections between people through art, responding to the current lack of social connection.
Relational art is about creating a new type of communication platform in the “gap” of existing social and interpersonal relationships. Therefore, relational art is concrete, ongoing, and fluid. It allows art to leave the aesthetic kingdom of the high and mighty. In short, “relational art” sees the role of art as one of stitching, of creating community scenarios that create and develop new forms of social connection. In general, “relational art” is a ” common sense art” that builds social harmony and common understanding.
Turning exhibitions into commons
In Bourriaud’s book Relational Aesthetics, published in 1998, he clearly defines relational aesthetics as the point of departure of artistic practice in the context of the whole of human relations and society, and no longer in a separate private space. Bourriaud believes that the most typical form of relational aesthetics is to prioritize interpersonal interaction in works rather than bringing objects from everyday life to display. These artists like to encourage dialogue in a variety of ways, creating shared experiences that bring people closer together and create connections, building spaces and situations that bring people closer together and allow participants to establish a harmonious relationship.
Many artists who create relational aesthetic works can avoid galleries or some kind of institution to show their work. The huge population size of public space makes this idea a reality, the expression of the work relies on a shared human experience, the continuity of the work depends on the connection with the audience, and art is no longer just shown to a specific group of people.From this perspective, the display of relational art becomes a commons, a communal space with multiple participants.
Rikrit Tiravania, an artist of Thai descent living in Berlin, New York, Thailand, created Pad Thai in 1992 when he set up a kitchen at 303 Gallery in New York City and cooked Thai food for an audience.The artist claims that the art that emerges from this performance is not the food itself, but the encounters that occur between the people who participate in the communal experience, and his list of materials for the work includes “many people”.
Bourriaud considers Pad Thai revolutionary in the art world because Tiravanija does not show any artwork, but rather creates a situation that would not be considered art in any other context.
Reflection
Relational aesthetics is difficult to grasp due to the ambiguity of its specific definition, which has given rise to many criticisms. For example, in the 2008 exhibition The Any Space Whatever at the Guggenheim Museum, although it featured the work of several artists associated with relational aesthetics, the term “relational aesthetics” was not mentioned in the exhibition because curator Nancy Spector considered the definition inappropriate. Many artists and critics also find the concept problematic, and some artists who are considered to be doing relational aesthetics even refuse to use the term to define their own work.
Some scholars and art educators, who use the term interchangeably with “participation,” question whether the concept has a sufficient theoretical basis, as cultural studies scholar Anika Dačić has said: Although it is a fashionable term, many scholars and art historians consider it unnecessary and consider whether to abandon the term, or to reassess it.
Admittedly, the aesthetic view of relational art still has some imperfections. It still does not have a clear goal or agenda, and it has not become an artistic movement. But I think it still has a place, especially when we talk about the artistic commons, the cultural commons, and the various interpersonal concepts of equality and mutual benefit that we hope to achieve, and Relational Art is working to achieve these goals, both in the way it is created and in the way it is presented. Relational art can also be seen as a contemporary avant-garde attempt to constantly push the boundaries of art, and these certainly deserve recognition.
reference：
Bourriaud, N. (2009) Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Réel.
Artists and cultural workers need to take this call to action seriously — not just in Europe, but everywhere. We have nothing to lose but our archaic perceptions and prejudices, which in the name of “common sense” imprison us in a claustrophobic cell of cynicism and despair. let’s see what the artists-as-commoners can generate! We have everything to gain through shifts of perception, new fields of possibility, and the heightened solidarity that great artistic works can engender.