Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics

Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics 

Claire Bishop

Bishop, Claire. "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics." October 110 (2004): 51-79. Print.

Date: 10/15/2012

List of primary claims made in this reading:

The construction (or rather, renovation) of Palais de Tokyo instituted a paradigm shift in the world of contemporary institutions, by introducing the “unfinished” industrial interior of the museum as an experimental “laboratory,” opposed to the resolved “white box” model used by most contemporary institutions. Many contemporary institutions and curators embraced this new model, which lead to a conducive environment for works produced in the 90’s that were often “open-ended, interactive, or resistant to closure” – works-in-progress.

“Related to the project-based ‘laboratory’ tendency” is the trend to invite artist to redesign or reimage different spaces of the museum.  As stated by Bishop, the insistent nature of the curator to promote “artitst-as-designer, function over contemplation, and open-endedness over aesthetic resolution is often ultimately to enhance the status of the curator” who is credited for coordinating the “overall laboratory experience.”

In discussing the work of Tirivanija and Gillick, Bishop chooses to examine two artists whose practices are triggered by viewer participation, not by objectivity.  As stated by Tirivanija, “without people, it’s not art – it’s something else – stuff in a room.” In this way, the art is not defined by any given outcome, but by the relationships developed during the course of the project, defined by Bourriaud as “relational aesthetics.”

How do we evaluate works categorized as “relational aesthetics?” Bourriaud suggests we must “judge the ‘relations’ that are produced from this work by asking ourselves a few key questions when encountering the artwork such as “does this work permit me to enter into dialogue?” Bourriaud suggests that the “structure [for engagement] is the subject matter.” Bishop calls into question the “types of relations [that] are being produced, for whom, and why?”

Bishop reveals that “relational art” is barely a democratic participatory art model. She argues that both Tirivanija and Gillick create relational art for a very specific demographic of “art museum goer.” In conclusion, the “relational art” of Tirivanija and Gillick opportunes individuals with an existing commonality to engage with one another in a context they are both comfortable; it is a microutopia without opposition or diversity, therefore it is not democracy or even “open-ended.” The outcome is predetermined, everyone is going to like it and get along because they are all the same and have come for the same reasons.

The works of Sierra and Hirshhorn are equally “relational” artworks but instead of seeking to form microtopias of positive relationships, they aim to highlight the tension existing in social and political antagonism.  They add “life” to art works by establishing the participants in opposition of one another, such as democracy implies (I.e. Museum goer vs. homeless participant).

I find the antagonism argument to be very compelling in terms of “truly democratic” art works.  

Key Quotes:

“The curators promoting this “laboratory” paradigm…have too a large extent been encouraged to adopt this curatorial modus operandi as a direct reaction to the type of art produced in the 1990’s: work that is open-ended, interactive, and resistant to closure, often appearing to be ‘work-in-progress’ rather than a completed project.” (Pg. 52)

“…’laboratory’ becomes a marketable as a space of leisure and entertainment.” (Pg. 52)

“An effect of this insistent promotion of these ideas of artist-as-designer, function over contemplation, and open-endedness over aesthetic resolution is often ultimately to enhance the status of the curator, who gains credit for stage-managing the overall laboratory experience.” (Pg. 53)

“…the institution may overshadow the work that it otherwise highlights: it becomes the spectacle, it collects the cultural capital, and the directo-curator becomes the star.” (Pg 53, Hal Foster)

“Rather than a discrete, portable, autonomous work of art that transcends its context, relational art is entirely beholden to the contingencies of its environment and audience. Moreover, this audience is envisaged as a community: rather than a one-to-one relationship between work of art and viewer, relational art sets up situations in which viewers are not just addressed as a collective, social entity, but are actually give the wherewithal to create a community, however temporary or utopian this may be.” (Pg. 54)

“It seems more pressing to invent possible relation with our neighbors in the present than to bet on happier tomorrows.” (Pg. 54, Bourriand)/reference in text.

“…relational art privileges intersubjective relations over detached opticality.” (Pg. 61)

“[Bourriaund] argues that the criteria we should use to evaluate open-ended, participatory art works are not just aesthetic, but political and even ethical: we must judge the “relations” that are produced b the relational art works.” (Pg. 64)

“Without antagonism there is only the imposed consensus of authoritarian order – a total suppression of debate and discussion, which is inimical to democracy.” (Pg. 66)

“[In the case of the antagonist] we are confronted with a different situation: the presence of the ‘Other’ prevents me from being totally myself. The relation arises not from full totalities, but from the impossibility of their constitution.” (Pg. 66)(Laclau and Mouffe, Hegenomy and Socialist Strategy, p. 125)

“As conditions of possibility for the existence of a pluralist democracy, conflicts and antagonism constitute at the same time the condition of impossibility of its final achievement.” (Pg. 67)(Mouffe, “Introduction,” in Deconstruction and Pragmatism, p. 11)

“What for? If you forte the ‘what for?’ I’m afraid you’re left with simple Nokia art – producing interpersonal relations for their own sake and never addressing their political agendas.” (Pg. 68)(Kolnischer Sadt-Anzeiger quoted in Rirkrit Tiravanija, n.p.)

“This may be a microtopia, but – like utopia – it is still predicated on the exclusion of those who hinder or prevent its realization.” (Pg. 68)

“The content of this dialogue is not in itself democratic, since all questions return to the hackneyed nonissue of “is it art?’” (Pg. 68)

“Laclau and Mouffe argue that for a context to be constituted and identified as such, it must demarcate certain limits; it is from the exclusions engendered by the demarcation that antagonism occurs.” (Pg. 72)

“The work [Sierra] was “relational” in Bourriaud’s sense, but it problematized any idea of these relations being fluid and unconstrained by exposing how all our interaction are, like public space, riven with social and legal exclusions.” (Pg. 73-74)

“It is no longer enough to say that activating the viewer tout court is a democratic act, for every art work – even the most “open-ended – determines in advance the depth of participation that the viewer may have with it.” (Pg. 78)

“The tasks facing us today are to analyze how contemporary art addresses the viewer and to assess the quality of the audience relations it produces: the subject position that any work presupposes and the democratic notions it upholds, and how these are manifested in our experience of the work.” (Pg. 78)

“The work [Sierra & Hirshhorn] does not offer an experience of transcendent human empathy that smooths over the awkward situation before us, but a pointed racial economic nonidentification: ‘this is not me.’” (Pg. 79)

“The model of subjectivity that underpins their [Sierra & Hirshhorn] practice is no the fictitious whole subject of harmonious community, but a divided subject of partial identifications open to constant flux.” (Pg. 79)

List of facts/stats discussed in this reading:

The Palais de Tokyo was once a Japanese pavilion that was built for the 1937 World’s Fair.

The Palais de Tokyo was opened in 2002.

Rirkrit Tiravanija born in Buenos Aires in 1961. Both of his parents were Thai and raised in Thailand, Ethiopia, and Canada.

Rirkrit Tiravanija, Untitled (Free), 303 Gallery, New York, 1992.  – Cooked Thai food for visitors.

Rirkrit Tiravanija, Untitled (Tomorrow Is Another Day), Kolnisher Kunstverein, Cologne, Germany, 1996. – recreated his apartment, allowing visitors to utilize the space however they pleased (i.e. using the bathroom, cooking, hanging out in the living room, etc.)

Rirkrit Tiravanija, Pad Thai, De Appel, Amsterdam, 1996. – provided musical instuments for people to make music.

Rirkrit Tiravanija, Cinema Liberte, Glasgow, 1999. – films were nominated by local audience and were screened outdoors in an intersection in Glasgow.

British artist, Liam Gillick, was born in 1964.

Liam Gillick, Pinboard Project, 1992. – “a bulletin board containing instructions for use, potential items for inclusion on the board, and a recommendation to subscribe to a limited number of specialist journals.”

Liam Gillick, Pototype Erasmus Table #2, 1994. –multi-use table open to the public.

Liam Gillick, Discussion Island: Projected Think Tank, 1997. - 120x120 cm open-topped Plexiglas cube described as “an object that might signify an enclosed zone for the consideration of exchange, information transfer and strategy.”

Liam Gillick, Big Conference Center Legislation Screen, 1998. – a 3x2 meter colored Plexiglas screen, “helps to define a location where individual action are limited by rules imposed by the community as a whole.”

Santiago Sierra born in 1966.

Santiago Sierra, 160cm Line Tattooed on Four People, 2000.

Santiago Sierra, A Person Paid for 360 Continuous Working Hours, 2000.

Santiago Sierra, Ten People Paid to Maturbate, 2000.

Santiago Sierra, The Wall of a Gallery Pulled Out, Inclined Sixty Degrees from the Ground and Sustained by Five People, Mexico City, 2000.

Santiago Sierra, Persons Paid to Have Their Hair Dyed Blonde, Venice, 2001.

-All works deal with the exchange value of labor and exclusivity, highlighting that all of our relations have a social and political obligation.

Thomas Hirschhorn born in 1957.

Thomas Hirschhorn, Bataille Monument, Berlin, 2002.

What do you want to discuss with the group regarding the reading?

 Do you feel that the “democratic tension/antagonism” that was a focus of both art works of Sierra and Hirshhorn a better or more real “relational art” practice?

Are creating “microtopias” always negative? Would T’s practice be completely different if he was serving Thai food in a low-economic thai community in an urban center? Why don’t you think that was ever suggested as a project for him by said director-curator?

By S & H highlighting social injustice, is their work better or more democratic?