Relational Aesthetics and Other Expanded Fields

Nicholas Bourriaud, "Postproduction," "Altermodernity," "The Radicant," "From Relational Aesthetics"

Let me play a little bit of the devil's advocate here...

To start off I will state the obvious, that this week was all about Relational Aesthetics and the metamorphosis that art has taken over the course of the last century, especially concerning Postmodernism and the "Post" which follows Postmodernism. As defined by Bourriaud Relational Aesthetics encompasses "a set artistic practices which take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space." It seems to me that throughout the entirety of the readings this week the idea of "Relational Aesthetics" is talked about in reference to the "new wave" of art or contemporary conceptual art. That the time for originality in art is at an end and now, as artistic, our responsibility lies in appropriation of an archive of already existing imagery and how, by recycling this imagery, we can begin to talk about cultural, ideologies, and political/social change. Only in this way may we, as artists, and our work remain relevant. After letting this idea sink in for a while I became very depressed. The history of art is so vast, its many works so varied, and its meanings go deeper into the human psyche of the past, to me, with more power than any other form of historical evidence. How is it that I have been born into an age when artistic practice has capped its ability to create and now we are demanded merely to respond and reuse?

This "depression" got me thinking...couldn't all art; past, present, and future, be considered part of Relational Aesthetics? Weren't the small statues of ritualistic worship from prehistory and response to the cultural and religious standards of their time? And the elaborate pots of Greece and hieroglyphics in Egypt a recording of the political and social happenings of those particular civilizations? The High Art of the Renaissance seems to me to be a direct response to the religious dominance and the unabashed bourgeois control over the people during that period of time. I cannot be lead to believe that artistic works of the past are any less relevant than the most avant-garde performance piece of the present and not just for reuse by a contemporary artist. All artwork that is created, whether it is original or appropriated, is a direct response to our current condition. We have never lived in a vacuum, even under the heavy oppression of monarchs of the Dark Ages. We are creatures of our own condition so it is our condition that we consistently represent to ourselves through the means of artistic practice. No experience is personal or universal, that is what makes us unique. This idea that we must only create artwork that can responds to the universal condition of humanity is kind of funny to me because it sounds a lot like how a mass productive Capitalistic ideology would want us to think of our individual creativity and how should be used. It sounds more like rules and stipulations and less like a natural evolution of artistic practices.

To end, I would just like to say that I don't think that Modern/Postmodern/Post-Postmodern art is in any way irrelevant or wrong, but that it is informative of the ideologies that surround us just like the artwork of the past informs us of their condition, no matter how beautiful or "aesthetically pleasing" we may think it to be and write it off as such. Just because something is ugly and loaded with philosophies and academic words does not make it more important than the aesthetic object; both are loaded with the human condition and both are a visual peek into the time-line of human history.