Walead Beshty_Neo-Avant Garde and Service Industry

7/25/2019 Walead Beshty_Neo-Avant Garde and Service Industry

1/6

WALEAD BESHTY

NEO-AVANTGARDE AND SERVICE INDUSTRY

Notes on the Brave New World of Relational Aesthetics

Rirkrit Tiravanija, aus der Serie "Stages / Stationen", Bangkok (Wahlen), 1992

The conglomeration of strategies, and artists, that fit under the

heading Relational Aesthetics indicate, if only for recent historys lack

of "movements," a pronounced shift in the topography of

contemporary art, and the need for a realignment of criticalterminology. Despite its amorphous set of conditions and tenets, as

they are expressed by Nicolas Bourriaud in his 1997 book of the

same title, it separates itself distinctly from early interventionist

tactics (i.e. Institutional Critique, Identity Politics, Performance and

Installation).

This shift appears induced by an intellectual paralysis concerning the

patterns and strategies available for contestation. From a theoretical

perspective, classical models of critical opposition provide an

untenable set of compromises, between institution and practitioner,

between the opening up or revealing of dominant structures, and the

counter adoption of didactic prescription, or more precisely, one

conducive to the reification of inherently problematic subjectpositions constructed from positions of dominance (i.e. one must

assume the voice of authority in order to contest it), which re-

subordinates the viewer. In stern condemnation, Michel De Certeau

wrote that the discourse around repression and ideology is a self-

inflicted chastening, which have the cumulative effect of "family

stories," of "devils and boogey men," while "ideological criticism does

not change its function in anyway; the criticism merely creates the

appearance of a distance for scientists who are members of the

institution." This is, for all intents and purposes, the crux of the

argument levied against the traditions of Institutional/Ideological

Critique, rehearsed by Bourriaud. It seems Relational Aesthetics is

born from a distinctly European retreatism, separate from theAmerican return to the hand wrought escapist drawings, emphasis on

craft, and melancholic lamentation of the passing of 68. Relational

Aesthetics is enabled by the continued centrality of the European

institution, robust in its state support, and thus able to

unproblematically continue as an invisible container for the

interaction of ideas, and most of all its presumption of being non-

ideological in its reception of multiple points of view (including those

that claim opposition). The proposal for a Relational Aesthetics that is

about, "learning to inhabit the world in a better way," seems to avoid

both the element of authority inscribed within the figure of the


2/6

revealer, deconstructor, liberator, and thus presumes to create "open

ended" contexts for self determination that are seemingly freed from

the restrictions of the state, and capitalist structures. They do not

treat the institution as a privileged location, but as yet another locale

in the postmodern geography, as any other point where social

relations are activated, and never as an emblem of an ideological

position. In short, they avoid the predicament of being forced to take

a stance on the institutions role, while working almost exclusively

within them.

Despite the relative successes of a number of artists within

Bourriauds groupings (most notably, Pierre Huyghe, MaurizioCattelan, and Rirkrit Tiravanija) in the U.S., the American response to

the movement itself has been minimal, and when it has taken notice,

tepid. In the Summer issue of Artforum, Joe Scanlan opined, "Why is

relational aesthetics so boring?," going on to say, "time and again I

have found myself in a room full of people... yet the group always

ends up exchanging pleasantries, and planning dinner..." The only

extended critical response published in an American journal came

from Claire Bishop (who hails from the UK) in the pages of October.

Bishops article matched Scanlans derisive tone, albeit in markedly

different terms, faulting Bourriauds sometimes mantras of

community, and exchange, as "rest(ing) too comfortably with an ideal

of subjectivity as a whole and community as immanent togetherness."Both writers insinuate larger problems contingent upon questions of

verifiable quality, as Bishop writes, "...how are we to measure or

compare these relationships? The quality of the relationships in

relational aesthetics are never examined or called into question... all

relations that permit dialogue are automatically assumed to be

democratic or good." But if the criterion by which the efficacy of

relational programs is missing (or partial) a more sinister implication

alluded to by Scanlan, who, chidingly, writes, "Indeed, firsthand

experience has convinced me that relational aesthetics has more to

do with peer pressure than collective egalitarianism, which would

suggest that one of the best ways to control human behavior is to

practice relational aesthetics." And continues, "Peer pressure iseffective because it uses one of our most basic fearspublic

humiliationas a built in mechanism for controlling behavior." The

metamorphoses of Bourriauds stressing of "conviviality" and "the

horizon of an art based on interactivity and the creation of

relationships with the other," into systems of "control" or an

unreflexive "imbrication" within a dominant model, requires some

explanation. Bourriaud frequently oversimplifies the work of the

artists he discusses, in service of their theory, often excluding

characteristics that do not fit comfortably within the relational

program. In writing on Rirkrit Tiravanija, he describes his work as a

sort of kindergarten experiment, a place ".where people once again

learn what conviviality and sharing mean, " and by Bishop who claimsTiravanija is simply creating new networking points for "art dealers

and like minded art-lovers...because it evokes the atmosphere of a

late night bar" citing a 1996 account by art critc Jerry Saltz which

details his social escapades with art world insiders and random

flirtations in Tiravanijas first New York solo show Untitled (Free) from

1996 (where he chats with David Zwirner, Paula Cooper, and Lisa

Spellman, and meets some young artists), as evidence. While this

criticism is partially true, Tiravanija exhibitions do reinforce

preexisting social networks, and have a saccharine surface of

togetherness, this dismissal obscures a more comprehensive


3/6

understanding of the complex of subject formulations operating in

Tiravanijas work. Continueing to use Saltz as a tezt case, in the

passage immediately following Bishops citation, he goes on to say:

A sense of uneasiness was always close by. Once when I went to the

gallery I ate alone, and I felt that old fear of doing something wrong.

I remember pausing outside the door and thinking, "Maybe I

shouldn't do this--they'll think I'm a moocher." I felt sheepish, guilty,

like I was a freeloader. I don't usually feel this way when I go back to

a show more than once.

Certainly this doesnt satisfy the question of accessibility, or thepassive relationship Tiravanija has to the mode of social interaction

he creates, but it does attest to an important societal contradiction,

and a specifically capitalist anxiety typified in the free market mantra:

"there aint no such thing as a free lunch." But the investigation of

the nascent anxiety presented by Tiravanija, and the potential

implications that follow are, for Bourriaud, patently off limits. After

summarizing critiques deriding relational programs for their artworld

insularity, Bourriaud asserts: But do we deny Pop Art because it

reproduces codes of visual alienation? ... What these critics overlook

is that the content of these artistic proposals has to be judged in a

formal way... bearing in mind the political value of forms... They are

aimed at the formal space-time constructs that do not representalienation, which do not extend the division of labor into forms... the

purpose is not conviviality, but the product of conviviality...

It seems that while Bourriaud rejects these dimensions of Tiravanijas

work, chastising us for daring to ask these questions, and displacing

the emphasis on some later, unexaminable "result," Tiravanija invites

the query. "Alienation," and "the division of labor," seem to be

exactly what Tiravanija is proposing we ask about, both the ubiquity

of low paid service labor in the artworld and its invisibility, but doing

so subtly without resorting to spectacularized circuses of

victimization. First hand accounts often allude to "the product of

conviviality" as constructed by Tiravanija, as one reviewer has said,

"[w]e are now the wallflowers at the party, and our old-fashionedspectatorship is just sad," in the contradiction that Saltz describes as

a "subversive, unsettling hospitality." The specific character of this

form of "unsettling" needs to be examined. The anxiousness

described by Saltz, in his repeated interactions with Tiravanijas work

(both in 1996, and on the occasion of his last show at Gavin Browns

in 1999, Saltz again describes almost adolescent angst, "...being

there can be difficult. I experienced unwanted waves of shyness,

affection, and irritation there." ) and the social restrictions (i.e. peer

pressure) of the environments appear continuous with a society of

surveillance, and their self-policing rigid codes of conduct which

occupy all transactions without being firmly locatable. In fact,

relational programs not only amplify consumerist anxiety within themuseum context, but facilitate the corporatization of the museum

itself.

For the events following the recent Guggenheim acquisition of

Tiravanijas Untitled 2002 (he promised) in 2004, with help from

American Express, Tiravanija turned over the event programming to

the museum, who then worked in tandem with American Express PR

department, and created a sequence of programming which was

more spectacle than microtopia: To celebrate the new IN:NYC Card,

Amex will present a free interactive art exhibition at the Guggenheim


4/6

Museum created by internationally acclaimed artist Rirkrit Tiravanija,

which will engage visitors with a variety of programming elements

that respond to the culture of the city in which it is displayed. In

addition, award-winning music artist Wyclef Jean will perform live for

invited guests.

Or as it was later described by the fashion wire service:

Fashion Wire Daily October 8,2004- NEW YORK - In the New York

universe, installation art by 2004 Hugo Boss prize-nominated artist

Rirkrit Tiravanija is in the same room as celebrity guest DJ's Nicky

Hilton and Nicole Richie; Wyclef Jean performs and sings about his

political leanings to a well-heeled crowd of girls in Chanel jacketsdrinking lychee martinis from Latin fusion restaurant Calle Ocho.

Canadian Press - Fri Oct 8,11:16 AM ET LONDON (AP)

Similarly, at his recent exhibition at the Sepertine Gallery in London,

the communing of artworld insiders, morphed into an event that

sounded more like a Hollywood Oscar party (with a few art stars

mixed in) than a microtopia. Stuart Comers Artforum.com diary entry

describes processions of celebrities, Kid Rock, Rod Stuart, Farrah

Fawcett, Mariah Carey, David Gilmore and Roger Waters (Pink Floyd),

Alex James (from Blur), which crescendoed in "A flurry of pale yellow

chiffon, [as] Paris Hilton made her entrance into the kitchen." Here

the insiders privileged in Saltzs account, are themselves shut out, fora new level of insider, that of the celebrity. Instead of creating a new

zone of interactivity, the social divisions are renenacted in

heightened spectacle: the subjects sit back and watch the glamorous.

Tiravanija, and others who invoke these "free" zones of conviviality,

not only run the risk of transforming the communal into the

estranged, but more importantly, they naturalize social repressions,

locating them as the ur-text of experience. Bourriaud repeatedly

confuses the liberation of the artist from traditional divisions of labor

with the assumed liberation of the viewer, compacting Michel

DeCertauss depiction of resistance in daily life (mini revolts of use,

and practice that contradict the everywhere present monolith ofideological power), with the artists adoption of ruses, operating as

curator, interior designer, caterer, public relations manager, and

event organizer (quite different than the parodic adoption of these

roles in institutional critique, with Broodthaers as museum director,

Andrea Frazer as Docent, or Michael Asher as exhibition designer,

the Relational Aesthetics programs simply adopt these roles, they do

not reflexively dismantle them). Bourriaud defends this adoption, and

refers to it as democratic, but democratic for whom? While these

open new territories for artists, it would be deeply problematic to

assume these mean more ethical, or valuable contexts for viewers to

interact. The viewer is not presented any further occasion for play

other than that which is already present in another repressivestructure, in fact it is the institution, with the artist facilitating, that

engages in these ruses, manipulating the categorical divisions, and

masquerading as some other environment (either a bar, kitchen,

dance club, etc.). Tiravanijas progression in practice demonstrates

this in particular, as the instrumentalization of his work (which is

diffused by the inherent complacency, i.e. anti-didacticism of his

relationship to authorship) never violates the model that is given

priority, i.e. that of the artist as a moving target.

In this sequence of deceptions, reappropriations, and play, the viewer

continues to be merely the object in the environment acted upon,


5/6

enticed to engage in a series of banal activities; in seeming

acknowledgment Tiravanija lists "lots of people" as one of his

materials. This is why Bourriaud concerns himself more with

describing how the artists act, their intentions, and the distinctions

between their approach and previous practices, and avoids, almost

completely, as Bishop discerns, the "quality" of those interactions. He

simply refers to the impacts, and the type of relationships as being

positive because they have been enacted, not what contexts for

behavior they are activated within, or their relationship to external

mechanisms. Often the occupation of various roles, like Jorge Pardos

foray into store design at the Dia, indicates a seamless almost cynicalconflation of disciplines, but also the metamorphosis of the

institution into commercial space (Pardos Dia merges the design of

the expanded book store into the first floor gallery). The promise of

relational programs, and their issuing of a "better way of life," is

interchangeable with the contemporary shopping mall when enacted

in grand scale (perhaps this is the most devious Warholian trick

enacted since Warhol himself painted celebrity portraits, that later

found their way to the museum, or starred on "Love Boat"). The

current trend in malls is self-described as a location of "communal

meeting points," "settings for festive interaction," "space to roam, to

sit down, and to talk," and have with increasing regularity created

public events, employed large open "park-like" spaces, and freeattractions to entice consumers, fully displacing its less seductive

relative, public space. Moreover, facilitating the evolution of the

museum into another aspect of the entertainment industry. If at one

time museums were autonomous and naturalized power centers, in

the U.S. the climate of curtailed governmental support radically

changes the situation, as "...both the museum and the entertainment

complex are, today, sustained by the transactions of shopping."

Between 1992 and 2002, the amount of shopping space in the

typical U.S. museum has increased by almost ten times the amount

of gallery space.

Far from utopic, relational aesthetics often leaves us in a

decontextualized social world, where only the repressions, not theirmaterial conditions are apparent. In the rejection of strategies of

Institutional Critique, which always reasserted the material conditions

of space, the Relational Aesthetics conception of social interaction

mirrors the recent shift in urban plannings understanding of the city.

As Sze Tsung Leong argues, the spatial term "map" is jettisoned

opting instead for "scenario analysis systems," a "science of spatial

modeling", a "decision support system" or a tool for "forecasting

space time dynamics,." They are echoed in relational aesthetics

appropriation of terminology like "laboratory," "station," "matrices,"

"sets of information strata," and "mixed use," (among others),

intermittently signaling data structures, industrial forms, and

economic categorizations. Similarly, the relationships that occur inrelational aesthetics are invisible to the material understanding of the

institution, or physical locus of power, by their very imbeddedness.

This revision of the city map foregrounds the relations between

pockets of the city, privileging usage over topography, networks over

space, all in service of "the primary engine of urbanization: the

market." Bourriauds "interstices" in "the social corpus" are just such

invisible points of communion where the market transcriptions of

personal relations are the boundaries between people, no longer the

physical walls, and the complete irrelevance of private vs. public

space is realized. The proposed libratory conflation of domestic


6/6

space and gallery space, and the real world progression of the art

institution into entertainment complex, creates both a disturbing

endpoint where domestic space become indistinguishable from

commercial space, (for Bourriaud only considers the transition going

one way, not the other) and masks the understanding that this is

already happening. The new digital behaviorist topography of the city

completely dissolves the symbolic divisions between personal and

public. The city itself becomes an expression of interrelations,

consciousness of material conditions evaporate, creating systems of

control invisible to those who are placed inside it. With the onset of

the satellite, the panopticon has become as ubiquitous as the skyitself.

Nan Ellis argues that this dematerialization is the foundation of a

distinctly postmodern anxiety of the city, "[w]here modernist fear and

the positivistic climate in which it occurred led to efforts to detect

causes and effects...postmodern fear amid the refining anti-

technocratic climate has incited a series of closely related and

overlapping responses including retribalization, nostalgia, escapism,

and spiritual return." Or in Bourriauds words, "...we are hoping for a

return to traditional aura..." The understanding, or reflection, of these

evolutions of subjectivity and space are important to consider in

reexamining the subjectivity of the viewer, and how control can be

disrupted, but relational aesthetics seems to go only so far asrecreate these systems, literalize their movements, without providing

any moments of resistance. Instead it is staged t as an inevitable

outcome, by reinscribing these existing structures of control as "a

realm of possibilities," of a "possible future," as "microtopias." This is

exactly the system of domination that Gilles Deleuze and Flix

Guattari describe in "Mille Plateaux", writing, "Attention has recently

been focused on the fact that modern power is not reducible to the

classical alternative "repression or ideology" but implies a process of

normalization, modulation, modeling, and information that bear on

language, perception, desire, movement etc,, and which proceed by

way of micro assemblages."

Walead Beshty_Neo-Avant Garde and Service Industry

Documents

Transcript of Walead Beshty_Neo-Avant Garde and Service Industry