Some thoughts on Relational Aesthetics: an open letter

Dear Relational Aesthetes,

The following is by no means intended as an assault on the individual practices of artists whose work falls under these themes/methodologies. Rather, it is intended as an opposition to the broad acceptance of the theory surrounding the work--and the reasons given for such work--described initially by Bourriaud and his theory of Relational Aesthetics. It is both a cautionary tale and a call to arms, in a sense; it has a deliberate manifesto-like tone and is intended to provoke strong criticism.

By opposing each other, may we find compromise.

The trouble I have with the term Relational Aesthetics is that the work the theory tries to classify is decidedly anti-aesthetic. Despite the term itself--coined not by the artists involved but rather by theorist Nicolas Bourriaud--it makes no claims to aestheticization or beauty; it is rather, in fact, the ultimate rejection or nullification of beauty. It is obsessed with societal interaction (the most quotidian of all possible concerns) and one-liners masquerading as concepts, building only superficial and stunningly brief "communities."

Relational Aesthetics is therefore image-nullifying (has anyone ever wondered why the photographs which document most of these works are interchangeable? How many photos of a person serving dinner to an audience must we see?). It is not a desire for ugliness fueling this work, because any antithesis secretly justifies its opposite; rather, the work is an assertion and manifestation of the idea that beauty and ugliness are irrelevant, pointless pursuits of a pretentious Bourgeois culture that predates the service-based economy. This is art imitating life, or more specifically art imitating the market and this, of course, is the true bourgeois pretension--that the marketplace is central.

Relational Aesthetics seeks therefore to destroy the line between art and life: a line which, as one might suspect, exists for a reason. In its use of social interaction as material, it becomes a sort of re-Duchamping of the world. “Readymade objects have been done,” says Relational Aesthetics, “and the object is an artifact of the old economy. If Duchamp removed the building of an artwork and left only the declaration of it, we will remove even the attempt to declare art.” But Duchamp’s point was that the viewer is already complicit in the agreement that what they are seeing is indeed art; any further involvement is superfluous and, in the long run, on the part of the viewer-cum-participant it is potentially unwelcome.

If one were paranoid, one might not be blamed for thinking that this self-decentralization is an attempt by the artists to absolve themselves of guilt if the work ends up being as boring as most of this work does. “Well,” one can always say, “I did relinquish sole authorship...” Like a Texan Governor who is able to claim that he neither wrote the law nor flipped the switch, these artists are nevertheless central and primary to the process, for better or for worse; the blood, as it were, is on their hands. If the removal of one’s authorship or primacy is the objective--conscious or otherwise--then these artists are the victims of an irony, or perhaps a paradox.

The proof of this irony is found in Warhol, who was a perfect example of the decentralization or the anonymity--perhaps the pretense of anonymity--claimed to be part of Relational Aesthetics, which is at best a pipe-dream and at worst a poorly thought-out swindle. In those moments where he was willing to say anything at all, Warhol claimed that he wanted to be non-human, anonymous, mechanical (he once said that he would like nothing better than for someone else to begin making work just like his own, such that no one would be able to tell the difference). This rejection of individuality, in turn, made him the center of the art world’s largest cult of personality...ever. Warhol’s rejection of his own worth as an individual personality was, of course, as much of a pretense as his personality itself, leading the astute observer to realize that perhaps today’s Relational Aesthetics artists are not totally oblivious to the lessons of history; the more you deny that you are an authorial personality, the more you are recognized as one.

As Jean Baudrillard has said, "Insignificance--real insignificance, the victorious challenge to meaning, the shedding of sense, the art of disappearance of meaning--is the rare quality of a few exceptional works that never strive for it." It does not take a great logical leap to realize that if this is true, one can also substitute the word "artists" for the word "works" in the passage above.

Is this because of some stubbornness on the part of the public (whomever they are)? Or is it because all secrecy breeds further inquisition, the secrecy itself implying that there is something underneath it? These are possibilities, but I would suggest that it is a logical paradox that foils the supposed assassination of the Author. As Alan Watts has said, “no one believes in God quite like an atheist;” it is not much of a stretch to say also that any denial at authorship is a secret claim to authorship. Put plainly, no one is positioned to deny authorship except the author. Or, to state it poetically, “there is no author, and I know this for I am he.” Even the idea of giving credit to a project’s participants is a claim to authority--otherwise, what right does one have to be "giving away" credit?

The tragedy is that this deceit passes by us, thinly-veiled as benevolence and communism, when in fact it is the ultimate expression of neo-liberal capitalism, for when the traditional contexts, discourses and practices of art have all been discredited or destroyed, there will remain only the Free Market for determining what is art and what is not. Therefore this strata of works which claim to embrace community and "the public," claim to be populist and anti-elitist, and claim that anyone can and everyone should be a part of the artistic process, would have success or failure designated only by those rich enough to pay for it.

So I request that artists, writers, critics and commentators concerning themselves with Relational Aesthetics--especially those applauding it as decentralizing to the artist and inherently communistic or benevolent--take a long, hard look at what it is the work is doing. Because this elusive "community" that is so sought after does not form after five seconds of coerced interaction.

Thank you,
Lee Henderson