More Thoughts on Relational Aesthetics

[For the first part of this debate, see Lee Henderson's "Some Thoughts on Relational Aesthetics" Post]

My apologies for not getting in on the debate sooner. However, I am glad to have had the chance to read the debate so far before throwing my two cents into the ring, not to mention the opportunity to pick the brains of those more informed on the matter than myself. The main points, as I see them, revolve around the relationships between art and life, art and audience, and, Relational Aesthetics and beauty/aesthetics.

With regards to the relationship between art and life, someone once said (someone famous, so please let me know who it was if you happen to know), “life is, and art means.” I agree. Art always involves decisions, selection and omission, each decision resulting in the production and implication of meaning. This is particularly relevant to our debate because it addresses a fundamental issue: to put it bluntly, are works that fall under the heading of Relational Aesthetics art?

Let me start by deciding that yes, they are. The audience participation, no matter how uncontrolled, is directed in some way. Decisions are made. This much is evident. There is form, and it is this form that Borriaud holds up as radically different from traditional art forms. Therefore, it is not fair to say that the social interactions are the sole place for finding artistic merit, satisfaction, beauty, criticality...whatever. Form must be considered, because, if the social interactions are held up as the site of beauty (or lack of beauty...again, whatever), then there is really no need for relational aesthetic art because social interactions exist without artistic intervention. We must acknowledge that these social interactions have been presented, collected and framed in some way. The critics and artists who question the form of relational aesthetics are not necessarily missing the beauty of the social interactions, but are directing their attention to the artistic decisions that brought that interaction into existence.

The relationship between art and audience is particularly contentious, and often comes down to questions of accessibility. Why is the issue so touchy? Because without accessibility, art risks losing relevance, agency, even a reason for existence in our society. Relational Aesthetics seeks to work against this gap between art and audience by directly involving the audience in the art. This is where I think we need to look more closely at what Relational Aesthetics reveals about the state of contemporary art. It seems to point to a belief that art has retreated into the institution, cut off from the public, and that we need to revolutionize art forms in order to right the situation. What better way to ensure interaction and participation than to make interaction the work of art itself? Relational Aesthetics, then, is in part a manifestation of a deep-seated anxiety regarding accessibility in contemporary art.

However, Relational Aesthetics goes beyond simply being a representation of anxiety by taking swipes at those things which it considers obstacles in the audience/art relationship: the structure and nature of the institution, the way that it defines the role of the artist and viewer. Even more importantly, Relational Aesthetics takes aim at the work itself. What we have is not the death of the author, but the death of the work. In the destruction of the traditional conceptions of form, the work has been destroyed as well, an object whose language has been deemed another obstacle impeding the interaction between art and audience.

However, there is no reason to believe that viewers/participants can read the language of Relational Aesthetics anymore readily than the language of painting or installation art, for example. In other words, simply having people “interact” does not ensure engagement with art. Furthermore, I fear that there is the potential within Relational Aesthetics to make art that, at first, involves the public, but is then swallowed up by the insular regions of the art world: I worry about the art being presented almost as a case-study at lectures or in galleries. I believe that would alienate the public, having now been turned into a subject for the art world’s gaze.

***

I am going to stop here, because I have tried to conclude this argument six or seven times, alternatively for and against Relational Aesthetics. Much to my own irritation, I have ended up in the middle (as I so often do), perched sheepishly on the fence. I hope that it is the result of a lack of first-hand experience with Relational Aesthetics, and that I will come back to this debate with something more definitive soon.

Angela Beck