Hi All,

I am currently very interested in the relational aspects of much contemporary art. Nicolas Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics seems like a fine work on how art has become relational and based on participation. He says: relational art is "an art taking as its theoretical horizon the real of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space". This is very anthropological and very sociological at the same time as it becomes creations of social connections and values.

What are your thoughts on relational art, and what do you recommend as further reading on this matter?

Hi Chris,

My first thought is how you define relational art in the first place? The definition you rest upon seems a bit vague to me. I mean, wouldn't most art take as its (theoretical) horizon the realm of human interaction and its social context? Or is it just me putting a sociological perspective on the art that I meet?

Best, Lars

As a painter and someone interested in sociology, I'm all ears on this one ;)

Hi,

Obviously art has always been relational in some aspects, whether as a dialogue or as its level of sociability. Just take Gell's theory of art as social agency, and we have another relational aspect.

However, with relational aesthetics, we're dealing with an art form taking as its theoretical horizon the real of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space. A good example is Miroslaw Balka's installation at Tate Modern right now. It is a huge black box where "Visitors can walk underneath it, listening to the echoing sound of footsteps on steel, or enter via a ramp into a pitch black interior, creating a sense of unease" - But it only becomes an art piece when the public r audience are participating. No foot steps, no feeling of claustrophobia, no other people, no feeling of in/out.

Cheerio,

Chris

@Chris,

Really interesting points you make, but rather than tracing this tendency back to its theoretical roots, I think I would start by putting it in a sociological, contextual perspective. I would ask the question of why and under which circumstances does a relational art become meaningful ?

In doing so, I guess a perspective of "experience economy" could be very fruitful. To put it very (very) briefly, it states that people long for experiences and that societies can thrive economically from creating experiences for people to experience.

If this holds any truth, then people don't want to passively contemplate art the way they used to want. They want to take part in the art too, like the piece you describe on Tate Modern.

Of course this rests on an assumption that artists create art with a calculative awareness of their audience; an assumption which seems rather opposed to the European tradition of the artist as an auteur).

On the other hand, it seems to fit pretty well with the relational perspective, since the relational is always already there, even when, or before, the artist conceives his or her idea.

If you find any value in this perspective, Orvar Löfgren has written very well (and vividly) about this from an ethnographic perspective in numerous books and articles. The original book "The Experience Economy" is not too bad either.

Best,
Lars

I don't perceive that only contemporary art has relational aspects. When I paint an image, obviously that image means something specific to me. However, the second someone else sees my painting, they interpret it based on their socialisation and life experiences. They perhaps see something entirely different in the artwork and so it makes them feel different emotions.

Contemporary artworks - ones which invite more obvious forms of participation - are different in the way that they perhaps don't immediately come across as an artform, yet they provide an emotional or sensory impact in a similar fashion to more traditional artworks.

Both forms of artwork still maintain some form of relationship with the viewer / participant.

I think contemporary art is more popular at the moment because people are bored: everyone wants something new to experience. In a society where you can obtain any experience at a cost, they wish to be entertained, like a King or Queen in their court. More traditional art is suffering at the moment because the art that sells seems to be mostly along the same lines: pictures of pretty naked girls, painted in some way that presents them in an almost anime / cartoonish fashion. Anything dark seems unappealing.

To me, this indicates a general desire by society to participate in enjoyable, reality-removing, artistic experiences versus 'heavy' emotional involvement in a piece of art. Why? Why do people at the moment generally want to listen to pop music over nihilistic, political music? Distractions. Diversions. Anything but reality.

Anyhow, I'm ranting ;) I think the current relationship people have with contemporary art - particularly with installation art or 'happenings' - has more to do with the political and social climate we're living in at present, and I think that's something worth delving into...

Personally, I very much think that the relational art is dependent on an atmospheric aesthetic. It creates the possibility of participation, as reality tv or talent shows makes a new format for directly influencing the result. Obviosuly it is with two different aims that these formats are made, but I believe that the idea of participation, relation and more involvement is a way for the artist to create stronger conceptual messages and make art a platform for sharing and association.

@Chris

I think I agree, but I am curious as to what you think about the suggestions I posted above?

I have reading this discussion since the beginning. At first it seems we do not have concepts in common beyond art, aesthetics.

I propose considering art as objective culture and of course this will lead us to subjective culture. This conceptual pair allows interdisciplinary approaches if wanted, besides connections from sociology of classical art to contemporary art studies where we still experience the eternal promise of novelty that modernity contains.

It is dangerously for the annalist to embrace the lexicon of his/her field of interest, and that is what happens here with "relational art", @thecatsmeow shows it by mere perceptiveness identifying a misuse of the adjective: I think the social configuration we call art has been always relational and contextual, today it reclaims desperately being so. I do must add another two terms commonly used ad nauseam by artists and even art critics: conceptual and theoretical.

Well, @Chris you have a starting point, without knowing your theoretical pathway let me suggest you Walter Benjamin´s insights about artwork in industrial era. If you have some writings about particular artist/works I am sure @Lars could find a way of sharing them via sociologically.net and continue this exchange.

John Urry conceived the principle relation of people to art (or scenery, or anything) as voyeristict in his The Tourist Gaze and this would seem to fit in with your approach.

I agree with @H Botia that Benjamin is an essential read when considering the social meaning of art.

I just watched a documentary on an Australian artist named Lynette Wallworth, and I HAD to tell you about her work. It is a fantastic example of what you're discussing here, if you need one. You can find some more info about one of her installations here: Your text to link here...

good point of discussion, but we´ll have to wait till everyone sees it...