JOHNNYS BLOG

In these articles there were some projects that were discussed that I responded to. One work was called 24 hr. psycho by Douglas Gordon – where he took that hitchcock film and slowed it down to “ a near catatonic running time”. – “ For Gordon , such pieces are ‘time readymades’- that is given narratives to be sampled in large image-projections ( a pervasive medium in art today)” I like this project because I think it forces the museum/gallery visitor to stay longer than he/she may have regularily stayed. Even a person who isn’t an art connosieur will recognize the hitchcock movie title “PSYCHO” and therefore pay more attention to the piece because of (famiarity)- giving more than just the 2 second stroll by that they would give to another (unfamiliar ) video piece.

And the other piece was “ For his part, Ben Kinmont approached randomly- selected people, offered to do their washing up for them and maintained an information network about his work.” I just thought this one sounded funny and I was thinking was he cleaning their houses, or doing their laundry, or giving them baths- really funny stuff either way= I wish I could find someone to bathe me and really get in those hard to reach spots. Ha ha ha .

One person’s utopia is another person’s hell.

I had heard this phrase and wondered where it came from.
I found an essay examining philosopher Agnes Heller and her husband Ferenc Feher and their criticism of Marxist utopian views [A Postmodern Utopia? Heller and Feher's Critique of Messianic Marxism, Journal article by Michael Gardiner; Utopian Studies, Vol. 8, 1997] and I began to think about this idea of utopia, microtopias and the Utopian Station.

"Utopia," they argue, "is the social condition under which all kinds of Utopias can be realized".
...
Each "major" utopia, understood as an imaginary construction of a form of life that foresees a successful fusion of goodness and human happiness, is inherently particularistic, especially in the context of postmodernity. Simply put, given the radical pluralization of contemporary society, one person's utopia is another's idea of hell, to paraphrase Max Beerbohm's famous maxim. As such, the best avenue is to enshrine the two meta-values of freedom and equal life-chances for all, and to give people the latitude and capacity to be able to visualize their own utopias. Utopia is a form of life that must be freely chosen; otherwise, it is a false promise, and a potentially tyrannical one.

Yet despite their questioning of the redemptive model of utopia, Heller and Feher, do not countenance a reconciliation with the impoverished and commodified reality of contemporary capitalism. This disavowal of the blueprint model of utopia does not mean Heller and Feher do not subscribe to a utopian vision of their own; it simply means they do not advocate it as a definitive solution for all humankind's ills.

From the readings, I glean the “utopia” definition has been altered dependent on who said what, when and where. Sir Thomas More’s idea of “utopia” is altered from Karl Marx’s idea “utopian socialism.” It has morphed just as the term “avant-garde” has been altered since 1863.

Nicolas Bourriaud’s microtopias, according to Claire Bishop in her Tate talk, are mini versions of the utopias which will not solve the world’s problems, but are just smaller, scaled down versions to reach harmony. Artists, through relational art, are just try to make it a bit better in the present time . She goes on...”instead of trying to change our world, artists are learning to inhabit our world in a better way.” She says, “Bourriaud states that it seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present, than to bet on happier tomorrows.”

But then, who is to say and define what “utopia” is. Why is this the goal? Is the Utopian Station a relational way to search for dialog to begin a search? Then I go back to that Beerbohm maxim.

I have to agree with Hal Foster and the fine line artists tread when casting a wide net in relational art and, as he put it, the society of extras. I guess when I come down to it, I still appreciate the contemplative quiet I can glean from art made by an artist [singular] rather than the din of relational art.

Something (that we need) is Missing

The result of Adorno’s and Bloch’s debate on utopia described in “What is a Station?” boiled down to: something (that we need) is missing. According to Bloch we’ve lost the ability to imagine the totality as being something completely different. The promise of a perfect society through Marxism has failed in that respect but the desire to fill in that “something that is missing” has not faded with it. It has gone underground so to speak. Does this sound Freudian? It is taking each day one hill at a time.

Relational and social aesthetics suggest different ways of accomplishing this. Instead of viewing art as a utopian answer, autonomous, separated from everyday life and providing the viewer with a private space to experience those values not present to workers in a capitalist society, this week’s writers propose that the artists, like nomads, insert themselves into the social fabric of life and provide disruptions from within. Does this sound Foucauldian? The art they propose is no longer a tangible object but an encounter. The exhibition is no longer a space to walk through but a time frame to be experienced. Artists provide a situation or framework within which social interaction can occur, community can be created and meaning can be elaborated upon collectively. Sociability, conviviality, ethics and the everyday are important aspects of this encounter between art and the viewer/participant.

Foster feels the average viewer is not up to the task. Is he a part of the Frankfurt School who lost faith in the proletariat’s ability to carry out the revolution and felt it had to be left to the intellectuals instead? Or are we beyond these considerations. He worries about the lack of rigor in installations that form an analogy between an open work and an inclusive society, as if the structure of an art encounter alone will bring about an egalitarian democracy. He speaks of the “promiscuity of collaboration” brought on by the use of readily available information as the new readymade that brings up issues of authorship and originality. He wonders if partying is enough, if artists have lost their political and critical edge as well in what he describes as “happy interactivity” among aesthetic objects.

Utopia Station is described as a place to begin again, a field of starting points, a catalyst. After decades of deconstruction, dialectic clashes and conflict, we’ve come to a place where rebuilding, fusion, consensus, looking for relationships instead of divisions now takes the fore. When George Bush dismisses utopia, Nesbitt, Obrist and Tiravanija ask if that isn't reason enough to take it up again and revive the notion of a social vision that looks to the future. UCSC looks like a good a place as any to jump in…

Relational Art

As other have pointed out, Bourriauds concept of Relational Art argues for “human interaction and social context”, and that this has been brought about partly by urbanization of culture. Interestingly, on a side note from the main theme, he comments that our urban habitats have caused for a scaling down of objects, due to cramped spaces. Yet, from what I see in the contemporary photography market, prints are now expected to be huge and painting sized, especially in the commercial gallery market where a larger print (larger wall covering) demands a grossly disproportionately higher price than the production costs of a smaller print. Of course that turn about in print size has happened due to the technological changes in printing that have happened mostly since Bourriauds writing of 1998.

While the type Relational Art we are looking at is more performance based, I’m also looking to read this as how it also relates to contemporary photography. Bourriaud comments on the “collapsing” of the concepts of the traditional display of work and the now importance exhibitions that allow for a degree of immediacy and participation with the viewer. We now see artists who might describe themselves as a “Photographer”, yet are branching out into sculpture and video, and creating integrated “exhibitions” that ask for, and demand, a more complex experience than the more traditional display.

With the advent of “mega-exhibitions”, Hal Foster points out the current phenomenon of the artitst-curator and curator-artists, the “head of the team... the coach... the captain of the boat’’, etc., who uses the project as a venue for gathering and dispersal of people, and information. Thus, the culmination of human interaction and participatory art bound by social context.

Hal Foster does have some concerns about Relational Art, arguing that there is the risk of “illegibility” of the viewer, and that “surely one thing that art can do is take a stand... that brings out together the aesthetic, the cognitive and the critical.”

Pitting one form of art against another may not be productive. Allowing a multiplicity of working methods to exist simultaneously without a need to negate one or the other may be a more productive area for exploration. It could be a separate field of exploration. “The problem was no longer the expansion of the limits of art, but testing art’s capacity for resistance within the social field as a whole.” Also the idea that this kind of work is an “insertion” into the social fabric but does not take inspiration from it is appealing.

I think with work of this type (relational, participatory etc.) the indeterminate aspect is what is most appealing to me. I think working with groups of people, the unknown public, could introduce at the very least confusion, if not chaos and/or outright mayhem. This is good thing. I think that setting up a only partially planed event can lead to the most interesting results. I don’t think these event should be planned down to the last detail. I think giving up control or at least letting go of attachments to a particular outcome can be freeing.

Critical and Curatorial Positions

Globalization and advancements in technology are factors to relational art. At a time when social relations appear to be existing more on the computer and Internet communities such as myspace, facebook, email, etc. than real life social interaction, relational artists force participants to reengage with social relations through works which are based on present social conditions. When we say works, I am not sure I am using the correct term for relational art. This is because relational art is built around an interstice and not about the creation of an object of aura. Instead, subjectivity is used not create an art piece of aesthetic splendor but with the hopes of enriching social relationships with the world. But the aesthetic splendor is not used within the for of the object to promote a better functioning of society. Aesthetics are played out socially to remove the isolation and hierarchy between the artist and the viewer. For too long, the artist has been working in isolation and the viewer has viewed art without the presence of the artist. Can the aura of art objects be a result of the invisibility of the artist? Relational Art also appears to be the desire of Utopia, or the Other. But as we learn from the text "What is a station?", Utopia is a meeting place in which people are socially engaged through meetings and exchanges. Although Nesbit states technology is a small factor in utopia, I think technology plays a major part as a "way-station." Where else in the world can people meet and gather in a no-place to determine what is missing from present society/culture? In the end of the book, we are left to question whether collaboration and participation actually helps to promote discursivity and sociability as a practice? Although social art is supposedly about the everyday, the artist still takes the stand on social issues which forces the viewer to subjected to the artists' intentions. It appears that the artist might be directing the participation by the viewer which does not work in a lateral hierarchy. It seems to me the hardest part of social art might be the creation of an equal status between artist(s) and the viewer(s)/participant(s). In the end, art still takes a stand on the artist must defend the legendary ATC question: What/Where/Who/How/Why is the Art........?:)

and more!

Utopia Station
Le Monde Diplomatique
August 2007


Kill Yourself Anywhere in the World for Under $399


No Ghost Just a Shell


Thomas Hirschhorn, Bataille Monument, 2002