Before doing the readings, I found my initial reaction to the works of art ascribed to relational aesthetics as bizarre and classist: if a “famous artist” cooks food in a gallery it is genius, yet if I cook a meal in my apartment it is nothing to note. It did not sound very democratic despite its claims as such, and in fact reinforced the social hierarchy by embedding it even more into art culture. I was happy to see my view shared in Claire Bishop’s essay Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics though I found myself finding merits in relational aesthetics that I did not see before.
Bishop begins with a literature review of Nicholas Bourriaud’s collection of essays Esthétique Relationnel which coins the term and describes the works of art of the 1990s. He finds them to be “a shift in attitude toward social change: instead of a ‘utopian’ agenda, today’s artist seeks only to find provisional solutions in the here and now…” In other words, the works of art attempt to work within the framework of our existing society instead of dreaming of new ones from scratch. The works of Tiravanija, for example, tried “not just to erode the distinction between institutional and social space, but between artist and viewer.” He did this by arranging makeshift kitchens in galleries and serving his food for free. The art was in the conversation and in the participants, turning gallery goers into artists. This is a noble goal to me, though Bishop makes valid arguments showing this was not the case. When speaking of one of Tiravanija’s exhibitions, she marks that by having the piece at a gallery it attracts a group of art enthusiasts that allow the piece to work. While this is fine, “it is not in and of itself emblematic of ‘democracy.'” His goal of eroding an institution is not achieved, and she questions what would have happened if the gallery had been bombarded by homeless people or others needing a free meal.
Bishop continues to juxtapose relational art with that of antagonist art, works that point out the antagonisms in society rather than try to fix them. An example she uses is Santiago Sierra, whose work includes A Person Paid for 360 Continuous Working Hours (2000) and Ten People Paid to Masturbate (2000). He recognizes that his art cannot fix society as he says, “I can’t change anything. There is no possibility that we can change anything with our artistic work.” And this is where Bishop loses me.
Perhaps the work of antagonist art is more fixed on reality, and perhaps relational art falls short of its lofty goals. But the defeatist attitude of the antagonism movement is the antithesis of what I enjoy about art. Of course pointing out problems is the first step to solving them, but we should be offering solutions, no matter how flawed. While antagonism’s works only serve to depress, relational aesthetics’ “microtopias” are a positive inspiration that can spark the imagination.