Critique of Relational Aesthetics Stewart Martin

Home , Relational art

This article was downloaded by:[Swets Content Distribution] On: 24 April 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 768307933] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Third Text Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713448411 Critique of Relational Aesthetics Stewart Martin

Online Publication Date: 01 July 2007 To cite this Article: Martin, Stewart (2007) 'Critique of Relational Aesthetics', Third Text, 21:4, 369 - 386 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09528820701433323 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09528820701433323

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008

3‘ 2 1

which [ while the interhumansphere), situate themselveswithin models ofsociality,to determined toproduce revolution (whyartistsare interactive aspectofthis with theconvivialand Relational Aesthetics have entered.But the informationagewe Internet, thecentraltoolof opened forthoughtbythe mental spacethathasbeen departure inthechanging Both taketheirpointof art havebeeninscribed. within whichnewformsof the collectivesensibility a continuation,described and Denoël, Paris,1999,2003, l’invention desoi de vie:L’artmoderneet York, 2002. Lukas &Sternberg,New the World How ArtReprogrammes Culture asScreenPlay: in 1998as French bysamepublisher Originally publishedin réel, Dijon,2002. Copeland, Lespressesdu Fronza WoodswithM Simon Pleasanceand Relational Aesthetics subsequent books relationnelle the appearanceof Net knowledge generatedby apprehends theformsof See inparticularhis Nicolas Bourriaud,

Relational Aesthetics Postproduction: Postproduction Postproduction , transJHerman, Esthétique . , Editions Formes , trans dealt

, of ] is quent publications. and Bourriaudhimselfhascontinuedtoapplyitsprinciplesinsubse- art inthe1990s,althoughitisbynomeansconsideredpastnow, how theirimplications onlybecomeexplicit throughnewtechnologies nean anddelayedeffects of oldertechnologies,suchascinema,and digitalisation ofimagesand music.Heisalsoattentivetothesubterra- the novelcombinationsof technologies thathaveemerged,suchasthe tion ofthe1990s.Bourriaud occasionallyshoresthisupbydiscussing cinematography. Thistends tounderminethetechnologicaldetermina- scarcely distinguishedfrom previouscategoriesoftechnology,especially in debatesoverart’sorientationandvaluetoday. ‘ism’, anameforwhatisnewaboutcontemporaryart,andkeyposition dimensions ofart.‘Relationalaesthetics’hasacquiredthestatusan ambitious andcompellingpresentationsofaframeworkforcertainnovel history ofthegenre–thistextiscurrentlyrecognisedasonemore controversies attendingitsdissemination–hardlydisqualificationsinthe tion technologies.TheInternetissaidtobepivotal here. of art.Aboveallistheemergencenewcommunication andinforma- encompassing socialtransformationsoftheconditions andconception aesthetics, accordingtowhichtheseartistsareresponding todeepand to abroaderhistoricaldeterminationandspecification ofrelational frequent references.Butbesidesthisgrouping,Bourriaud alsoappeals Parreno andRirkritTiravanija,tonameonlya few ofhismore aesthetics, suchasFélixGonzález-Torres,Pierre Huyghe, Philippe the panoplyofartistsheinterpolateswithconcerns ofrelational The timeframeofthebookisthereforelargelygenerational, definedby during thisperiod,inanowfeted,ifquestionable,fusion oftheseroles. Bourriaud’s criticalandcuratorialengagementwithartistsemerging Third Text,Vol.21,Issue4,July,2007,369–386 ditions. art practices,andanewconfigurationoftheirpoliticaltermscon- ics. Itoffersanewcharacterisationandcollectivisationofcontemporary has emergedasthetextforanewgenerationofartists,curatorsandcrit- actually writtenorfollowed,NicolasBourriaud’s In aperiodinwhichmanifestostendtoberegardedlonginglyratherthan Critique ofRelationalAesthetics Relational Aesthetics 1

Third Text Despite itstheoreticalandhistoricalprecariousness,the ISSN0952-8822 print/ISSN1475-5297 online© ThirdText(2007) 2

Initially publishedin1998,thebookarosefrom DOI: 10.1080/09528820701433323

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals professes tobe,inthefirstplace,atheoryof Relational Aesthetics Stewart Martin 3

But itis Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 370 9 8 7 6 5 4 Aesthetics Postproduction Bourriaud, of productionfromit).’ how toextractnewmodes in theculturalchaosand (how tofindone’sbearings Ibid, p42 Ibid, p61 Ibid, p18 Ibid, p16 Ibid, p43 Bourriaud,

, opcit,p8

Relational

, p8.

of contemporaryartisafreeassociation.’ as follows: how theyeffectoursocialrelations. tions hediscussesareallconsideredintermsoftheirsocialformand technology asasocialrelation,andthevarioustechnologicalinnova- logically determinedinanimmediateornarrowway.Bourriaudsees However, Bourriaud’sconceptionofrelationalaestheticsisnottechno- or inindirectforms,suchasvideopost-productiontechniques. happy with: modify Bourriaud’swordsandformulateadefinition thathemightbe by wayofaestheticobjects’. produces, firstandforemost,isrelationsbetweenpeople andtheworld, subordinate tothissocialorrelationaldimension: ‘what [theartist] cipal ‘object’or‘work’ofso-calledrelationalart;all art’s‘objects’are produces aspecificsociability.’ constitution. Bourriaudstatesthisrepeatedly.‘Art is theplacethat become, moreimmediatelyandaboveallelse,amatterofitssocial social human relations’. iconography’, but‘thefactofoperatingwithin…thesphereinter- The innovationofninetiesart,forBourriaud,is‘notanystyle,themeor artworks are certainly emphatic.Heclaims thattheyovercome the politics. Bourriaud’s politicalclaimsforthe ‘specificsociality’ofrelational attention andcontroversyas anewconceptionofart’srelationtoradical nonetheless duetotheseclaims that for relationalartaremerely aformofstrategicprofessionalism.Butitis erable scepticismaboutwhether thecriticalandpoliticalclaimshemakes especially atthePalaisdeTokyo. Asaconsequence,therehasbeenconsid- less beenencouragedbyBourriaud’s professionalstatusasacurator, exchange with interactive,user-friendlyandrelationalconcepts. the liveliestfactorthatisplayedoutonchessboardofarthastodo site. Onecouldaddmanyothernamesandworkstosuchalist.Anyhow, graph oflabourersatworkonviewjustafewyardsfromthebuilding session, makesaTVtransmitteravailabletothepublic,andputsphoto- girl totakepartinhisshow.PierreHuyghesummonspeopleacasting new song.NoritoshiHirakawaputsasmalladinnewspapertofind inflatable yacht,andbreedschaffincheswiththeaimofteachingthema formula ofmoleculessecretedbythehumanbrainwheninlove,buildsan gym workshopinagallery.CarstenHöllerre-createsthechemical works asacheck-outassistantinsupermarket,andorganisesweekly install anupturnedbusthatcausesarivalriotinthecity.ChristineHill safes. InaCopenhagensquare,JesBrinchandHenrikPlengeJacobson ‘Bel Paese’cheeseandsellsthemasmultiples,orexhibitsrecentlyrobbed glimpse ofthemthroughthedoorway.MaurizioCattelanfeedsratson the sameway,completewitharedwig,andvisitormerelygets factory assemblyline.VanessaBeecroftdressessometwentywomenin invites afewpeopletopursuetheirfavouritehobbiesonMayDay, him alltheingredientsrequiredtomakeaThaisoup.PhilippeParreno Rirkrit Tiravanijaorganisesadinnerincollector’shome,andleaves Bourriaud’s introductiontowhatcharacterisesartinthe1990sreads The widespreadinterestgeneratedby

constitution ofcontemporaryart;theextenttowhicharthas . the ideaofrelationalaestheticsisthatartaform social 5

‘Relational aesthetics’isatheoryoftheemphatically 9

To drawoutwhatisdecisiveherewecould 6

‘Art isastateofencounter.’ Relational Aesthetics Relational Aesthetics 8

Art’s ‘sociability’istheprin- 4

has attracted 7

has doubt-

‘The aura Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 3See,forinstance,Hal 13 Seehttp://www. 12 Ibid,p16 11 Ibid,p13 10 4SeeClaireBishop, 14 Obrist’s Postproduction Aesthetics of Bourriaud’s Foster, ‘ArtyParty’[review thelandfoundation.org in 2006, pp95–107. October Relational Aesthetics”’, “Antagonism and Claire Bishop’s Factors: AResponseto Gillick’s ‘Contingent pp 51–79.SeealsoLiam October Relational Aesthetics’, ‘Antagonism and 2003. Books London Reviewof , 25:23,4December , 115,Winter , 110,Fall2004, Interviews: vol.1 and Relational , and

]

‘open’ and‘relational’qualities. subjective artofconviviality,queryingtheassumedcriticalvalueits date hascertainlyquestioneditssupportforananti-objectiveorinter- ment’, Chiang Mai,Thailand.Describedasa‘labforself-sustainableenviron- to date, most evidentinTiravanija’sworks,andespeciallyhisambitious communes, eveniftheyareactualisedonlymomentarily.Thisisperhaps is asenseinwhichrelationalartworksareconceivedasautonomous subjection to the commodityform.Itisin thisstrugglethatthepolitical critique ofthe commodityform,orrather apoliticalstruggle over these termsthatso-called relationalartfunctionsasanimmanent extreme heteronomouscritique ofart’sautonomy;and(3)thatitisin and exchange;(2)that autonomy andheteronomy or,moreprecisely,adialecticoffetishism has inmanywaysconstituted modernism,whichisalsoadialecticof development inthedialectical relationofcommodificationandartthat the ideaofrelationalaestheticsandartshould beseenasa art anditscommodification.Thecontentionspursued hereare:(1)that relational aestheticsbyrethinkingitwithinadialectical conceptionof of capitalistexchange.Butitisalsoanattempttoreconstruct theideaof thereby explainwhyitissohelplesslyreversibleinto an aestheticisation tions inBourriaud’sconceptionofartasaformsocial exchange,and such acritique.Itisanattempttodrawattention profoundlimita- opposes thecommodityformorvalueform.What followshereis – attheheartofthisissuehow produces asocialexchangethatdisengagesfromcapitalist exchange,and Aesthetics economy ofsocialexchangethatisimplicitlyproposedby fundamental, forBourriaudtoo,namely,acritiqueofthepolitical However, whatisabsentcriticismofinmanywaysmost the socialwithamoreagonisticconceptionofpoliticalcommunity. in relationalart,andtoopposeBourriaud’sharmonisticconceptionof attempts toemphasisetheirreducibilityofjudgementsformethics forms ofcapitalistexploitation.Thecriticism informational capitalism–anartofthemultitude. manifesto foranewpoliticalartconfrontingtheserviceeconomiesof achieved intheartworld. anti-capitalist movementssincethe1990sandaffinitiestheyhave – hasmade of relationalart–asadirectformnon-reifiedlifeandcommunity we couldthinkofasaneco-aestheticcommunity.Therealisedutopianism talist economiccontextbybeingremovedfromthelawofprofit’. interstice’ inMarx’ssenseofa‘tradingcommunit[y]thatelude[s]thecapi- political disengagementfromcapitalistexchange,definedasa‘social This realisedutopianism,aswemightthinkofit,isdescribedamicro- of actionwithintheexistingreal,whateverscalechosenbyartist’. inary andutopianrealities,buttoactuallybewaysoflivingmodels alternative waysofliving:‘theroleartworksisnolongertoformimag- but by realisingitthroughthelocalisedandmomentaryformationof utopianism ofthehistoricalavant-garde,notsimplybyabandoningit,

But itcanalsobereadasanaivemimesisoraestheticisationofnovel

The Land

it hasbeenthesiteforvariousartisticprojectstofacilitatewhat

; inotherwords,aconsiderationofhowrelational art

Relational Aesthetics

, whichheco-foundedin1998somericefieldsoutside Relational Aesthetics Relational Aesthetics

resonate withthesporadicemergenceof 13

There havealsobeensustained form

of relationalartrelatestoor

effectively manifestsan Relational Aesthetics

can bereadasthe Relational 11

There 371

to 10 14 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 372 5‘…sachlicheVerhältnisse 15 7ThisistrueofErnesto 17 Ibid,pp86–87;trans,p165 16 8Seethediscussionof 18 Karl Marx, Verhältnisse derSachen.’ gesellschaftliche der Personenund Capital translated byBFowkesas Dietz, Berlin,1962,p87; Bd. 1,Werke,23,Karl Mouffe, Laclau andChantal 1990, p166. Books, London,1976, Metapolitics 2001; AlainBadiou, and NewYork,1985, Politics a RadicalDemocratic Socialist Strategy:Towards cit. Relational Aesthetics”’, op Bishop’s “Antagonism and Response toClaire ‘Contingent Factors:A Gillick’s response, Relational Aesthetics’,and Bishop’s ‘Antagonismand Laclau andMouffeinboth 2005, pp39–44. Philosophy Inaesthetics Rancière, York, 2005;andJacques trans, Verso,London–New and Badiou’s The PoliticsofAesthetics sac’, areviewofRancière’s Stewart Martin‘Culs-de- 1999. Onthisproblemsee Minneapolis andLondon, Minnesota Press, trans JRose,Universityof Politics andPhilosophy , Verso,London , vol1,Penguin Hegemony and Disagreement: , 131,May/June , in Das Kapital , JBarker, Handbook of Radical , ,

DIALECTIC OFCOMMODIFICATIONANDART things.’ rather asmaterialrelationsbetweenpersonsandsocial do notappearasdirectsocialrelationsbetweenpersonsintheirwork,but relations betweentheirprivatelaboursappearaswhattheyare,ie, persons. InMarx’sfamouswords:‘Totheproducers,therefore,social dialectic ofinversioninwhichpersonsappearasthingsand subject andobject,or,moreprecisely,‘persons’‘things’.Thisisa In Marx’saccountofcommodification,wecandiscernadialectic with regardtoamoreexplicitornarrowlydefinedsenseofpolitics. construed, regardlessofart’sapparentindifferenceorprecariousness significance ofmodernart–itsrelationto‘anti-capitalism’canbe Relational Aesthetics commodity formofthepolitical. been ageneralindifferencetothepoliticalformofcommodity andthe issue. Evenamongstrecentleft-wingtheoristsof‘the political’ therehas frequently suppressedandrecodedasan‘economic’or perhaps ‘religious’ tional disputes,etc–doesnotalwaysmanifestitselfas thisstruggle.Itis from disputesoverrightsorbetweenparliamentaryparties, tointerna- subjection tocapital.Certainly,whatwearecommonly toldis‘politics’– determination. self-valorisation ofcapital–capital’sautonomousorsubject-likeself- to thesubjectivityofcapital;commodityformsubjectslabour and itsstakes.Thesubjectivityofhumanityisde-subjectifiedorsubjected sion, inart.Theambivalenceoftheterm‘subject’condensesthisstruggle This isadialecticalinversionofsubjectandobject:wecandiscern Marx writes: ation ofhumanity.Again,inhiswell-knowncharacterisationfetishism, between subjectandobject.ForMarx,thisinversionproducesanalien- condensed intothinkingaboutitsrelationtothisdialecticofinversion such enables humanity’s subjectiontocapital; orwhetherartis tion hasrevolved aroundtheissueofwhether artisacommodity,and as primal sceneofpoliticsincapitalist culture. formed toitsinnermostcore. Inacertainsense,wecanthinkofartas think ofthepoliticalinterms ofthisstruggle,wecanseeartaspolitically tuted bythestruggleover its subjectiontocommodification.So,ifwe to receivedideasaboutpolitics, itisinmanywaysfundamentallyconsti- revealed. Whateverthemarginalityandprecariousness ofart’srelations ence, atransformedsenseofbothpoliticsandart’srelation topoliticsis struggle ofsubjection A politicsofanti-capitalismmustrevolvearoundthis struggleof So itisintheworldofcommoditieswithproductsmen’shands. which enterintorelationsbothwitheachotherandthehumanrace. brain appearasautonomousfiguresendowedwithalifeoftheirown, flight intothemistyrealmofreligion.Thereproductshuman … tofindananalogy[tothefetishismofcommodities]wemusttake Art’s historicrelationtothe struggleofsubjectiontocommodifica- 15

Art’s relationtocapitalistculturecan,inimportantrespects,be

have inheritedthis. or subjugationincommodificationand,byexten-

Elaborations ofthepoliticalform

If weabandonthisindiffer- 16 not a Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 who notonly stands attheautonomous‘pole’ ofthisdialecticmodern taneous ideologue likeClementGreenberg, butTheodorWAdorno, to consideranopponent,a defender ofautonomousart.Notjustaspon- immanence tothisdialectic ofcommodificationandart,itisilluminating determination bythesocial. Relational Aesthetics their effects,helplessagainst theironicreversalsofhisgoodintentions. that replacethisstandoff,andconsequentlybecomes theideologueof without destroyingart.Buthedoesnotrecognisethedialectical relations relational art’snovelty,thatis,itsovercomingofthe reificationofart this isimpliedinhisrejectionofthelegacyartcriticism thatisblindto to gobeyondthetraditionalstandoffbetweenartand anti-art. Nodoubt the heteronomousdimensionofthisdialectic.Bourriaud certainlyseeks relational aestheticsunconsciouslyarticulatestheradical extensionof dialectic ofcommodificationandart.Moreprecisely, thattheideaof idea ofrelationalaestheticsasanovelinflection thistransformed culture. Thisisthe‘Hegeliantrap’. harmonious rapprochementwiththeartynon-artoflatecapitalist effectively abreakwiththecritiqueofcapitalistculture clearly thevitalissue.Butsuchabreakmustdemonstratethatitisnot not toruleoutconsiderationsofabreakwiththisdialectic,sinceis then analternativewillsoundsuspiciouslylikeevadingtheissue.Thisis whether throughthefetishismofvalueorartificationworld– the frameworkofart.Butifcommodificationistiedintrinsicallytoart– to establishnewtermsforthestrugglewithcommodification,outside that thisismisrecognisedbyvariousformalistnarratives. self-critical constitutionofmodernartisduetoitscommodity-form,and form ofanimmanentcritiqueorself-criticism.Thissuggeststhatthe Either way,art’sresistancetocommodificationisobligedtakethe incorporate adimensionofanti-artifitistocriticisethisentwinement. This requiresthatthedefenceofartagainstcommodificationmust entwined withinart’scommodification,indebtedtocapitalistculture. confront theextenttowhichart’spurityisaformofreificationdeeply of commodification.Ontheotherhand,pureartpositionhashadto art positionmustrecogniseifitscritiqueofistofunctionasa to thisend.Thisrevealsacriticaldimensionpureart,whichtheanti- extent towhichcapitalistculturehasitselftakenonthisanti-artfunction dissolution ofartintocapitalistlife.Ithasalsohadtoconfrontthe which thedissolutionofartintolifeisnotsimplyemancipatorybuta the onehand,anti-artpositionhashadtoconfrontextent the samecurrency.Recognisingthistransformstermsofdebate.On increasingly commodifiedculture.Anti-artandpureartaretwofacesof contradiction internaltothecommodityform,especiallywithinan be sointractablebecausetheoppositionofanti-artandpureartisa heteronomous determinationbythesocial.Thispolemichasprovedto it isnot;whetherartcriticalbyvirtueofitsautonomyordueto Left: whetherartshouldberejectedasacommodityoraffirmedbecause polemic between‘pureart’and‘anti-art’thathasrivenaestheticsonthe commodity, andtherebyresiststhissubjection.Thisunderpinsthe In ordertoelaboratethecritique ofrelationalaestheticsandrevealits My contentionhereisthatweshouldinterpretrelational artandthe The alternativetothistransformeddialecticofanti-artandpureartis

is thespontaneoustheory of art’sheteronomous

tout court 373 ; a Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 374 9TheodorWAdorno, 19 (translation altered) Minneapolis, p21 Minnesota Press, Theory Kentor as 39; translatedbyRHullot- Frankfurt, 1970,1995,p Suhrkamp Verlag, Ästhetische Theorie , Universityof Aesthetic , function ofcapital asself-valorisingvalue. it resistssubjection toexchange-value– thesourceofsubject-like the artwork(asautonomous) appearstobeasingularsubject.Assuch, as describedbyMarx–an object thatappearstobeasubject.However, mous andself-determining. Again,thiscorrespondsdirectlytothefetish character, but,ironically,through itsobjectivity,assomethingautono- muteness. However,theartwork doesnonethelessacquireasubject-like is criticalinsofarasitmute, insofaraswhatitcommunicatesisits to allthethingsthatBourriaudrestoresart’svirtue. ForAdorno,art ‘anti-social’ character,itsuncommunicativeness–namely, itsantipathy exchange-value meansthatartiscriticalofcapitalism asaresultofits ist societiesarecharacterisedbythedominationofsocial exchangeby strictly ‘non-subjective’or‘objective’.Adorno’scontention thatcapital- produces it(althoughthisislessemphatic):theautonomous artworkis audience thatreceivesorexperiencesit,aswell to theartistwho Adorno, autonomousartisconstitutedthroughitsirreducibility tothe Marx’s sensethatitrefusesorobscuresitssocialdetermination. For subjective oranti-social.Autonomousartisconceived asafetishin what itcanbeexchangedfor. tions heteronomouslyinsofarasitdetermineseverythingtermsof artwork, contradictsexchange-value;whileexchange-valueitselffunc- nent tothecommodityform–that,throughitsintensificationin its exchange-value.Fetishismisseenasaformofautonomisation–imma- Adorno effectivelymobilisesthefetishcharacterofcommodityagainst able initsownterms,andthereforeindependentlyofexchange-value. immanently: exchange-valuegeneratessomethingthatseekstobevalu- own terms.Itthereforemanifeststhecontradictionofexchange-value aspires tobevaluableindependentlyofitsuse,andtherebyin terms. Theautonomousartworkisthusafetishisedcommoditythat speaking, renderedvalueless.Pureexchange-valueisacontradictionin frivolous or‘unnecessary’–thatareexchanged,andtheuselessis,strictly exchange-value and that thereductionofuse-valuetoexchange-valueisboth which exposesthecontradictioninternaltocommodityform:namely, is conceived,byAdorno,asanintenseformofcommodityfetishism, The absoluteartworkmeetsthecommodity.’ omy insociety’s an immanentcritiqueofcommodification:‘Onlybyimmersingitsauton- ical relationtocommodificationwasaresultofthisinherence,thatis,as inherently entwinedwithitscommodityform,andconsideredthatcrit- Contrary towhatmanyassume,Adornosawtheautonomousartworkas off between and enablesustoelaborateatheorythatwouldgobeyondnewstand- autonomy andheteronomy.Adornothereforerevealshisowncriticism the dialecticofcommodificationandartfunctionsasa the heteronomous‘pole’–butwhoalsogivesuskeyinsightsintohow art –inoppositiontowhichwecansee‘relationalaesthetics’standingat AUTONOMY: ADORNO This autonomy(oranti-heteronomy)ofartis,for Adorno, anti- Relational Aesthetics imagerie impossible

can artsurmounttheheteronomousmarket…

for it,sinceitisultimatelyuses–however and Aesthetic Theory

19 .

Autonomous art necessary

for Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 0Adorno, 20 (altered), p237 Theorie , pp352–3;trans Ästhetische HETERONOMY: BOURRIAUD would haveusbelieve.Adornoarticulatesthisaporiaasfollows: where theyappeartoberemovedfromAdorno’sconcerns,asBourriaud resonates profoundlywiththedynamicsofcontemporaryart,even autonomy andheteronomywithintheformationofmodernartthatstill dimension. be achievedthroughmediationwithananti-artisticorheteronomous through tradition.Ifart’sclaimtoautonomyisbeself-criticalitmust of itssocialconstitution,orsecureddogmaticallyconservatively art ifitistoavoidsuggestingthatthisautonomyliterallyindependent must criticiseitspresuppositionofreceivedconceptionsautonomous autonomous art’santi-artisticorheteronomousdimension,wherebyart the essentiallycriticaldimensionofautonomy.Hencenecessity itself ifitisnottofunctionideologically,namely,asastubbornclaim double illusion,autonomousartmustincorporatecriticismofitselfinto or anillusionmobilisedtocriticiseanotherillusion.But,becauseofthis pendently ofitsexchangevalue.Thereforeartisaself-consciousillusion, within auniversallycommodifiedculture–thatnothingisvaluableinde- autonomy Adornoclaimsthatartcriticisestheillusion–intensified would beafetishisationorillusion.Butingeneratingtheillusionof omous fromitssocialconstitution.FollowingMarx,hethinksthis to capital. being subjectedtocapital.Theautonomousartworkisacountersubject that theautonomousartworkisessentiallydefinedbyitsresistanceto on this.Nevertheless,wecandrawouttheconsequenceshereandsay in Adorno’swritings,suchas ing onlyontheheteronomousdimensionofexchange-value.Elsewhere autonomy orsubject-likecharacterofcapitalin dual orientation: (1)thecriticismof Bourriaud’s ideaofrelational The critiqueof relationalaestheticsthat is proposedheretherefore has a relational aestheticsisbest considered. extreme mediationofart’s autonomy withheteronomythattheideaof this mediationmusttakeplaceviaextremes.Itisin thetermsofthis ated byitsheteronomy,and,asAdornoalwaysmaintained ofdialectics, tionship. Thus,art’sautonomyisonlyconstitutedcritically ifitismedi- or heteronomyneedstobereplacedbyadialecticalcritique oftheirrela- of oneortheotheritstendencies.Theaffirmation eitherautonomy every reasontothinkitdoes,cannotbetackledby the simplepursuit whole whateveroccurs. among others.Thesocialtotalityappearsinthisaporia, swallowing for-itself, itnonethelesssubmitstointegrationasoneharmless domain itself overtothemachinationsofstatusquo;ifartremainsstrictly If artgivesupitsautonomy[i.e.,ifitbecomesheteronomous],delivers This self-criticaldimensionofAdorno’saccountrevealsanaporia Now, despiteallthis,Adorno’spointisnotthatartactuallyauton- It remainsabigproblemthatAdornodoesnotreallyconsiderthe If thisaporiastillconstitutesartincapitalistsocieties, andwehave 20 Negative Dialectics Aesthetic Theory

, wefindreflections

, focus- 375 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 376 1‘[Theworkofart]is 21 Relational Aesthetics objects.’ Bourriaud, world, bywayofaesthetic between peopleandthe foremost, isrelations produces, firstand other words,whathe struck upwithhiswork.In relationship thatwillbe as producer,determinesthe practice, andhisbehaviour foreign toit.Theartist’s so definedbydefinitions object itself,beforebeing defined bythatofthe exchange whoseformis the wildstate–an the divisionofmeaningin “common substance”.Itis any currency,or that cannotberegulatedby represents abarteractivity not itsowneconomy.Art the generaleconomy,and work asitisassumedby artistic practice,aboutthe the artobject,notabout we talkingabout?About value. Butwhatexactlyare the actualimageof… merchandise”, becauseitis the “absolute the first,thatitrepresents said ofart,andMarxwas between them.Ithasbeen equivalent” ofallgoods “abstract general money, whichisthe represented byasumof produce thisitem.Itis abstract labour”usedto to Marx,isthe“amountof This substance,according permits theirexchange. common substancethat they haveavalue,thatis, common isthefactthat What allgoodshavein meanings oftheterm. of “commerce”,inboth communication, theworld the worldofexchangeand devoted… rightaway,to cit, p42. , op the extentto which ‘absolute commodity’, itisalsoproneto its ownbadconscience,namely, residual latebourgeoismelancholy ofAdorno’sdefenceartasthe exchange freefromexchange-value. But,ifthisisanantidotetothe Bourriaud’s account;the sense inwhichartisarelationofsocial and transparency. that makeitcritical,forBourriaud itispreciselyitscommunicativeness Adorno itisthenon-communicativenessandenigmatic characterofart opposes Adorno’saestheticsatseveralpoints.)Hence, whereasfor persons, therebyrejectingAdorno’swholestrategy.(Bourriaud pointedly relations betweenthings,andtheaffirmationofsocial relationsbetween oriented characterofrelationalartworksasthesimple negationofsocial the commodityform,Bourriaudinterpretssocial ornon-object- of theaffinityarttocommodityfetishism,asanimmanent critiqueof between commodities.WhereasAdornodiscernsanironic recuperation ism. So,inMarxiantermswecanunderstand to thesocialrelationsoftheirproducersthatareobscuredbythisfetish- tion. Marxopposesthesocialrelationsofcommoditiesthatarefetishised account ofcommodityfetishism,whichisdoubtlessBourriaud’sinten- between people’. tion, oratleastsubordination,ofrelationstoobjects‘relations a reassertionofsocialrelationsbetween‘persons’ arguing thatrelationalartworksinvolvearefusalofcommodity fetishism: social exchange seems tomerelyinflectthegeneralargumentthatdistinctionof itself, beforebeingsodefinedbydefinitionsforeigntoit’.However,this exchange is‘anwhoseformdefinedbythatoftheobject one point,Bourriaudsuggeststhatwhatisatstakeinart’ssocial ‘relations betweenpeople’and‘theartobject’to‘artisticpractice’.At Mainly itseems,throughthesubordinationof‘aestheticobjects’to omy’ fromthe‘generaleconomy’. exchange-value asachievedbyvirtueoftheantipathyits‘ownecon- minate. Bourriauddescribesart’sresistanceto,ordisengagementfrom, the valueform.However,precisenatureofthisstruggleisindeter- exchange-value and,atleastimplicitly,itsstrugglewithsubjectionto tially criticalrelationtocapitalistculture,definedbyitsresistance In aspirationatleast, of exchange-value,whileinsistingthattheyarefundamentallydistinct. acknowledges theaffinityof‘commerce’artwith resist thevalueform?Bourriaudcertainlyrecognisesthesequestions.He capitalist exchange?Inotherwords,howdoesrelationalart’sform does relationalart’sformofsocialexchangerelatetothe must followinordertoconsideritsrelationcommodificationis:how theory ofartasaformsocialexchange,thenthecrucialquestionthat theory ofcontemporaryart. transformed ideaofrelationalaestheticsinordertogenerateacritical criticism ofAdorno’sideamodernart,rethinkingitintermsthis art, heteronomyandautonomy,thatwefindinAdorno;(2)the aesthetics, rethinkingitintermsofthedialecticcommodificationand This non-fetishisedspaceof artunderpinstherealisedutopianismof This makesgoodsenseifwethinkofitasatranspositionMarx’s If, asIhavesuggested, of art Relational Aesthetics

Relational Aesthetics from thesocialexchange Relational Aesthetics 21

But howarewetounderstandthis?

collapses art’s autonomy

sees artashavinganessen- Relational Aesthetics of value against

is pre-eminentlya

social relations

is thedissolu-

from

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 4Ibid, p26,emphasisadded. 24 Bourriaud, 23 Ibid,p111 22 op cit,p23 Postproduction , argument: on social relationsagainstanyobjectificationiskeytoBourriaud’s recover thehumanrelationsabstractedwithinit.Again, theinsistence reification ofthisuniversalmarketisation,butacritical useofitto than simplyinvent.Postproductionisseenasnotjust areflectionor talism thattheInternetandotherinformationalsystemsfacilitate,rather ness ofthemarketestablishesanetworkrelationswithinglobalcapi- manipulation ofalreadymarketedelements.Thealwaysgiven- omnipresent: artmaking,viewing,exhibiting,etc,aredefinedbythe cance of‘postproduction’istheconsequencemarketbecoming pointedly, in towards formsthatenablethedevelopmentofsubjectiverelations.More as theoutcomeofthisdrive,againstdisciplinesparticularartsand motivation formodernartists.Theideaofrelationalaestheticsemerges ence fromitscompartmentalisationandreificationbecomesacentral alienating effectsofmodernity,andhowtherecoverylivedexperi- Formes deVie ist exchange.Bourriaudhascertainlyrespondedtothisproblem.In nature ofrelationalart’simmanentdisengagementorcritiquecapital- deny, broadlyencompassrelationalart.Inotherwords,theissueis disengages fromcapitalistexchangerelationsthat,Bourriauddoesnot But thequestionremainsofhowthisautonomyistobeachieved,it this itcontinuesadeepmotivationofromanticandmodernaesthetics. an autonomousartofthesocial,orrather,socialautonomy.In forms itselfintoarealmapart. of artasasocialintersticethatdisengagesfromcapitalistexchangeand order tocreatearelationshiptheworld.’ “lasting”, bringingheterogeneousunitstogetheronacoherentlevel,in imitating world.Artisticpracticeinvolvescreatingaformcapableof and intheglossarytobookhedefinesformas:‘Structuralunity Relational Aesthetics the needforrelationalarttohaveaformofautonomy.Hedescribes the dominantsocialrelationsofcapitalistexchange. exchange-value, leavingthesocialexchangeofrelationalartsubjectedto in fered in It isstrikinghow muchmoremelancholic thisverdictisthanthose prof- as theyarewithincapitalistmarkets. ‘market-form’ inwhichhumanrelationsofexchangearenotabstracted, Relational Aesthetics must beinventedforareality that isbecomingmoreabstracteachday. system graduallydeprivesusof thisexperience,modesofrepresentation restores theworldtousasan experiencetobelived.Sincetheeconomic ums ofexperience:bystriving toshatterthelogicofspectacle,art objects, whichwouldbetofall intothetrapofreification processes, togiveshapewhatisdisappearingbeforeour eyes. highly logicalthatartistsmightseektorematerialisethesefunctions and tions, whicharebecomingafully-fledgedindustrialconcern) itseems slowly transformedintoproductsofconsumption(including humanrela- economic globalisation,whenthebasicfunctionsofourdaily livesare When entiresectionsofourexistencespiralintoabstraction asaresultof Given thisproblem,itisnotablethatBourriauddoesinfactrecognise Relational Aesthetics Postproduction

he proposesahistoryofmodernartasreactiontothe

as primarilyatheoryofformratherthanart,

by appealingtoapre-capitalistnotionofthe

Bourriaud clarifiestheconceptofexchange . Itisalsoclear herethatBourriaudfully Relational Aesthetics 23

The broadereconomicsignifi- 22

It isalsoimplicitinhisidea effectivelyproposes , butasmedi- Not as 24 377

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 378 5Marx, 25 p 86;trans(altered), p165 Das Kapital , opcit, is tobealreadytrapped.Marxemphatic: that thistrapcanbeavoidedbyaffirmingsocialrelations.Buttosay error. Bourriaudcontendsthat‘objects’arethe‘trapofreification’,and Marx’s critiqueofcommodityfetishism,itmakesacommonbutdecisive tance tocapitalistexchange.Althoughthisisinsuperficialaccordwith lectical affirmationofthesocialcontraobjectsaskeytoart’sresis- something outsideit. relations ofart,buthowitrelatestocapitalistexchangeas,supposedly, duces theproblem.Inanycase,issueisnotjustinternalsocial nism assimplyanalternativeformoffreedomordemocracyonlyrepro- emphasis onconvivialityratherthanantagonism.Butproposingantago- art byBourriauddoeslittletoaddressthis.Thisispartlyanissueofthe is freefromcapitalistexchange.Theunreflexiveaffirmationofrelational functions ideologicallyherepreciselybypresentingitselfasaspacethat from itsalienatingeffectsandquenchthedesiretooverthrowit.Art be anexceptionwithincapitalistexchangeinordertoprovidearelief art withincapitalistculture,namely,theextenttowhichisallowed relational aestheticshasanyresponsetothecompensatoryfunctionof potential ofart.AttendingthisproblemiswhetherBourriaud’stheory universalised commodificationdoesnot,ofitself,reducethecritical the criticaldimensionofartislocatedwithincommodityformitself, Adorno’s problem,butitcanbecontrastedwithhisconception,since,if past? Andifnotyet,thenhowlonguntilitis?Thisisusuallyseenas capitalist relations,isnotthisexperienceofadifferenttimethingthe human relations,butifrelationsareindeedencompassedby aud claimsthatrelationalartismotivatedbytheexperienceoflost objects. Nonetheless, hisbasicpositionisthesame:socialrelationscontra recognises theneedforanimmanentcritiqueofcapitalistexchange. capitalist exchange; itsimplydrawsattention tothesocialconstitution the simpleaffirmation ofthesocialwithin capitalistsocietiesiscritical of explicit. Ifweavoidthisfetishism, wearestrippedofanydelusionsthat anything, herethecommodification oflabourismoreimmediateand society hasledtosome basic transformationinthevalue-form.If leads toerroneousclaims that theserviceeconomyorpostindustrial the commodityeradicatescapitalist exchange.Thisironicfetishismalso political fetishismwhichthinks thattheeradicationof‘objectivity’ that Marxcallsfetishism.Bourriaudpartakesofa common formof that thesourceofvalueisinobject-commodity precisely theerror of labourthatconstitutesthevalue‘objective’commodities. Tothink social labour,asameasureofabstractlabour.Itisthe commodification Capitalist exchangevalueisnotconstitutedatthelevel ofobjects,but things. assumes here,forthem,thephantasmagoricalformofarelation between is nothingbutthedefinitesocialrelationbetweenmenthemselves which nature ofthecommodityandmaterialrelationsarising out ofthis.It within whichitappears,haveabsolutelynoconnectionwith thephysical … thecommodity-form,andvalue-relationofproductslabour However, thepivotalproblemwithBourriaud’saccountishisundia- This positioniscompelling,exceptforsomebasicproblems.Bourri- 25 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 Rirkrit Tiravanija, Gavin Brown’sEnterprise, NewYork Untitled (Free) Vanessa Beecroft’suseofpeopleinherworksasemphasisingartaform blind totheircommodifiedandobjectifiedform.Forinstance,heendorses interpretations ofso-calledrelationalworkswanting.Hefrequentlyseems Rirkrit Tiravanija, socialist aestheticseversince. ference tothistransformationhascruellymockedthegoodintentionsof was radicallytransformedbythevalueformdiagnosedMarx.Indif- tion ofanaestheticformlife,whichinducedabstraction prone tobeharmlessorunwittinglymimetic.TheRomantic’sconcep- critique ofthecapitalistformationlife,dreamsanalternativeare typical ideologiesofromanticanti-capitalism.Withoutanimmanent atavistic appealstotheoriginalmarket-formaresymptomaticof the othersideofcapitalism’scoin. ment fromcapitalistlife,itishelplesslyreversible,obliviouslyoccupying life. Butwithoutanaccountofwhatmediatesrelationalart’sdisengage- Romanticism. Artisconceivedasanimmediateformofnon-capitalist the noveltyofidearelationalaesthetics,itisareapplication the commodifiedfriendshipofcustomerservices.Forallhisclaimsto cal claimsforrelationalaesthetics.Hisrealisedutopianismechoeswith capitalist exchangehere,merelytheconfrontationwithit,facetoface. of capitalistexchange,exposingitdirectly.Thereisnofreedomfrom , 1992,Installation view,303Gallery,NewYork. Courtesy oftheartistand The ironiesofart’srelationtocommodificationoftenleaveBourriaud’s Bourriaud’s fetishismofthesocialproducesaninversionhiscriti- Untitled (Free) , 1992,Installationview,303Gallery,NewYork.CourtesyoftheartistandGavinBrown’sEnterprise,York Postproduction ’s melancholicand 379 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 380 7Ibid 27 6Bourriaud, 26 Aesthetics , opcit,p39 Relational who isofparticular interestinthiscontext wouldbeSantiagoSierra, acterisation of relationalaesthetics: title ofoneTiravanija’s shows mightfunctionasamoretellingchar- utopia butasanimmanent critiqueofcapitalistexchangerelations.The the contradictionsofanart ofsocialexchange;notsomuchamicro- González-Torres andTiravanija canbeseenasaprecisepresentationof dialectical theoryofcommodification andart.Theambivalenceof aud’s termscanbereinterpreted farmoreconvincinglyintermsofa account oftheseworks.Theproblematicstatus worksinBourri- Bourriaud’s conceptionofrelationalaestheticsarealso limitationsinhis artworks. Somuchsothatitbecomesapparent thelimitationsof commodified foodanddrink. the absenceofaworkleadsone’seyesinevitablyto thepackagingof social relationsdegreezero?Whenoneisnotdistracted byconversation, and naturalisedofsocialrelations,anoriginarymythneeds, basic drink offeredhere,asatmanyofTiravanija’sshows, amongthemost ter withthesocialrelationsofcommodification.Andis notthefoodand into theopen.Strippingawayfetishismofworkleads toanencoun- of commodities.Thesearenotdisengagedfrombutmerelybroughtout exposes areultimatelythosethatgointothegalleryfunctioningasaseller is apparenthere,perhaps.However,thesocialrelationsthatthiswork ing attentiononthesesocialrelations.Astrongersenseofinterstice work. Whatappearsinsubstantialandcarelessisactuallyawayoffocus- hidden orsubordinateto‘thework’becomeforegrounded,the the artistandwhoeverelseisaround.Socialrelationsthatareusually are putonshow,togetherwiththeconvivialofferoffoodandachatfrom gallery visitors.Thus,thesocialrelationsthatgointogallery’sbusiness central gallery,whileTiravanijacookedThaicurrythatwasofferedto tor ofthegalleryandassistantsthereforehadtoworkondisplayin packing anddistributionmaterialsvariousotherfacilities.Thedirec- gallery intothepublicviewingspaces,includingbusinessoffice, another instance.InthisworkTiravanijamovedtheunseenroomsof (Free) rine newsprovidedbytheUSdaily, sweets andtheircolouring,aswellinthetitle’sreferencetosaccha- sion toAmericanconsumerismisapparentinthekitschcharacterof But thisishardlyasimplerealmapartfromcapitalistexchange.Theallu- social interaction,inlinewiththebasicpremisesof are takenandconsumed.Theworkisthereforeliterallydissolvedinto sculptural formofthepilesweets–butsocialprocessbywhichthey art, letaloneeatingit.Theworkisnotjusttheobject–forinstance, The audienceisfreetotakethesweets.Itcontradictstabooontouching bright shinyred,blueandwhiteorsilverwrappers,heapedinacorner. (USA Today) of thework. discusses therelationofsocialresponsibilityinvisitor’sbreakingup would includeFélixGonzález-Torres’s‘stacks’or‘candyspills’.Bourriaud resources to than amassornamentofreadilycommodifiablebodies.Theyhavefew gaged fromcapitalistexchangeiscomic.Beecroft’sworksarelittlemore of socialencounter. These slippagesorreversalsarepervasiveinmanyso-called relational , firstinstalledinthe303GalleryNewYork1992,wouldbe 27 détourne

We mightelaborateBourriaud’sclaimshere.Thus, consists ofthreehundredpoundssweetswrappedin 26

But toconsiderherworksasasocialintersticedisen- the spectacletheyluxuriatein.Lessglaringinstances Das SozialeKapital USA Today . Tiravanija’s Relational Aesthetics . Anotherartist Untitled Untitled . Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 City, Guatemala, August1999.Photocourtesyofthe artistandPeterKilchmannGallery, Zurich,®SantiagoSierra Guatemala, Agostode1999, Santiago Sierra, 8EckhardSchneider,ed, 28 2004, p122 Walter König,Cologne, and PreviousWorks Santiago Sierra:300Tons 8 PersonasRemuneradas ParaPermanecerEnElInterior DeCajasCartón , 2000. Here: This piecewasre-createdattheACEGalleryinNewYorkin,March August 1999,wearegiventhefollowinglistofmaterials: paid toremaininsidecardboardboxes for eachworkisanintegralcomponent.Forinstance, and instrumentalisedforms.Theitemisationofthemoneypaidtopeople works, peopleareoftenemployedinthemostexplicitlycommodified to thetimingofhistransitionusingpeopleinworks.Inthese who isnotdiscussedin majority ofthemwereblackwomenorMexicanorigin.They The workersremainedfourhoursadayoverperiodoffiftydays. when theywereplacedintheboxes. schedule duetotheexcruciatingheat.Thepublicdidnotseeworkers noon andtheycameoutatthreeo’clock,anhourlessthantheplanned considerable responsefromtheworkers,theywereplacedinboxesat for fourhours,receiving100quetzales,about9dollars.Afterobtaininga carried out,askingforpeoplewillingtoremainseatedinsidetheboxes chairs wereplacednexttotheseboxes.Apublicofferforworkwas made andinstalledseparatedfromeachotheratequaldistances.Eight trial zoneofGuatemalaCity,eightboxesresidualcardboardwere On thetopfloorofasemioccupiedofficebuilding,situatedinindus- 8 PeoplePaidTo RemainInsideCardboardBoxes Relational Aesthetics 28 , C&GBuilding,GuatemalaCity, , althoughthismaybedue , G&TBuilding. Guatemala , EdificioG&T Ciudad de Eight people 381 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 382 1Ibid,p161.Thisisa 31 MichaelFried,‘Artand 30 Ibid,p114 29 Sculpture’. Greenberg’s ‘TheNew quotation takenfrom London, 1998,p153 Chicago Press,Chicago– and Reviews and Objecthood:Essays Objecthood’ (1967),in , Universityof Art one that,virtuallybydefinition, claim that:‘theexperienceofliteralistartisanobject ina prefers tocallit–inhisseminalessay,‘ArtandObjecthood’, liesthe ism. AttheheartofFried’scritiqueMinimalism–or ‘literalism’ashe crisis wasalreadyprecipitatedbycontroversiessurrounding Minimal- that developedaroundConceptualArt–although,in keyrespects,this to thebroadattemptovercomecrisisofamodernartsocial timeliness of concrete andconsiderthecovertgenealogythathascontributedto In ordertorenderthiscriticaltheoryofrelationalartmorehistorically A POST-CONCEPTUALARTOFTHESOCIAL THE PROBLEMOF tion ofits Santiago Sierra, society ofextrascorrespondtotheseworksbySierra. darkest reflectionsonthetransitionfromasocietyofspectacleto They areanartofsocialexchangemediatedbymoney.OnlyBourriaud’s artwork, butonlyintothecommodificationoflabourthatproducesit. stice apartfromcommodification.Theydissolvethefetishismof of relationalaesthetics.Theyareaartthatis These andotherworksbySierraareananomalyforBourriaud’stheory transposition of thedialecticsubjection inducedbyart’srelation to this disputeover Minimalism;asenseinwhich itpresentsanunconscious rather thantheartworkitself, inanymoreindependentsense. of thevieweroraudience to theartworkprincipalmatterofart, objections wereturnedinto virtuesintheattempttorenderrelation the viewerandenteraspace andtimeofitsown.Famously,Fried’s its actualityinordertowithdraw fromtheeverydayspaceandtimeof a mirage’. ‘matter isrenderedincorporeal,weightless,andexists only opticallylike modalities, suchasopticality,whichFriedderives from Greenberg: through thedissolutionofartwork’sobjecthood intonon-literal terises thedecayofartintoobjecthood,salvation ofartisachieved discern amoreadequatecriticaltheoryofcontemporaryart. than Aesthetics stand outsidethisdialecticasapurelyheteronomousposition. ing tobeautonomousfromsociety–capitalistsocietiesitdoesnot omy andheteronomy.Insofarasrelationalartisstillconsideredneed- discern adialecticofart’srelationtocommodification,auton- calisation ofitssocial 8 PersonasRemuneradasParaPermanecerEnElInteriorDeCajasCartón Whereas Adornoseeksthecriticalforceofartthroughradicalisa- up toworkleavingtheirchairsandboxesempty. fifty days,manyquitwhileotherstooktheirplacesorsomedidnotshow the legislationispermissiveinthatcase.Theworkerschangedduring consecutive hours,thecontractdeclaredthemasextrasforashowsince claims fortheworkingconditions,asaresultofbeinglockedupfour mum wageperhourspecifiedbystatelaw,whichis10dollars.Toavoid hired throughagovernmentemploymentagencyandreceivedthemini- We candiscernadialectic of autonomyandheteronomyatstakein Aesthetic Theory fetishism againstexchange

31 is nomoreasimplebreakfromthisproblemofmodernistart

Art isunderstoodasaself-consciousillusion,transfiguring Relational Aesthetics , EdificioG&TCiudaddeGuatemala,Agosto1999, exchange againstfetishism

is simplyoutmoded.Intheirmediationwecan 8 PeoplePaidToRemainInsideCardboardBoxes includes thebeholder , itisnecessarytoconsideritsrelation , Bourriaudseeksitthroughtheradi- , G&TBuilding.GuatemalaCity,Guatemala,August1999.PhotocourtesyoftheartistandPeterKilchmannGallery,Zurich,®S 29 . Betweenthemwecan …’ not 30

If thischarac- a socialinter- situation Relational antiago Sierra – Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 2BourriaudreferstoFried’s 32 Relational Aesthetics González-Torres. See discussion ofFélix relational aestheticsinhis explicitly asamodelfor theory oftheatricality , p59. Minimalism’s persistentinterestintheobject. but alsoreducestheartobjecttothisincorporationinwaysthatexceed ating aninter-subjectivespacethatnotonlyincorporatesthebeholder, and radicalisingitsconsequences.Bourriaudseesrelationalartasgener- terms ofitsown commodification.Thesolution orstrategyofinstitutional focusing onthe socialspaceandexperience oftheaudienceexposed the to refuseitsfetishism–and thecommodificationthatthisimplied–then recognise that,ifthesubtraction ofattentionfromtheartobjectsought its fosteringofanartinstitutional critique.Thesepracticescameto of thelate1960sand1970s, especiallyConceptualArtand,inparticular, social thatthesecontradictions producedinthepost-Minimalistpractices Aesthetics relational art.Buttograntthisisalsodrawattention to the polemicalexigenciesofpursuingemancipatory potentialof stake here.Formisrenderedamodalityofsubjection to capital. and missthepoint.Analtogetherdistinctpoliticisation offormisat tional artreheatthetraditionalnotionofart’sautonomy frommorality minimum wage.Neo-formalistobjectionstoethicaljudgements ofrela- person, isrealisedindystopianform,sweatingacardboard boxona utopian conceptionofart,thatweshouldrelatetoitas ifitwereanother is strippedofitsaurafreeassociationandactsout atragedy:the labour thatsocialexchangecanbereducedtoincapitalist societies.Art inter-subjective conviviality,buttheinstrumentalcommodificationof of ourattentionfromobjectstosubjectsdoesnotproduceaspace cism, itislaidbareinSierra’sbrutalism.Intheseworksthere-direction explicit invariousrelationalworks.IfthisisveiledBeecroft’saestheti- remains entwinedinadouble-bindandpronetoironicinversion.Thisis of aradicalisedpost-Minimalismascritiquecommodityfetishism,it been instrumentalised? respect forthisautonomywithit,resultinginsocialrelationsthathave dissolve theartworkintoitssocialrelations,dowenotour relations weshouldhavewithrealpeopleandthen,conversely,if as afetishisationofit,ifitweresubject,treatingwiththeethical consequence ofMinimalism.IfweseeFried’sdefenceart’sautonomy duced here.Itsreiterationmightbestatedasadouble-bindorunintended as acriticismofcommodityfetishism.Adorno’saporiaisblindlyrepro- subjection tothecommodityform.Tothisextent,Minimalismfunctions subjected/absorbed. Theexperienceofartisrevealedasan mous subjectivityispreservedforartandtowhichpeople/viewersare fetishism ofart,akintoacommodities,inwhichautono- the agentofexchangevalue.Butitbearsnolessacorrespondenceto determination bycapitalistsocialexchange,withMinimalismrendered hereby correspondtothecritiqueofart’ssubjectionitsheteronomous absorption, thatis,throughtheirsubjectiontoart.Fried’spositionwould subject, autonomous,whichviewersarerequiredtoexperiencethrough subjected toviewersas of socialheteronomyinFried’scritiquetheatricality:artisnot of thesocialthereforebecomespivotaltoart.Wecaninterpretacritique destroys ortransformsitsautonomy,andtheautonomyheteronomy exchange value.Artbecomesanissueofwhetheritssocialsituation Bourriaud’s indifferencetothesecontradictionsmaywell derivefrom Relational Aesthetics

as anattempttoovercome thecrisisofamodernart their

is anewtheoryofart’stheatricality,affirmingit

object, butconsideredasifitwereitselfa 32

But, whateverthevirtues Relational 383 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 384 4ForJeffWall’scritiqueof 34 Ibid,pp30–1 33 pp 247–67. Cambridge, MA,1995, MIT Press,London– Goldstein andRorimer, of Art:1965–1975 Reconsidering theObject Conceptual Art’,in Photography in,oras, Indifference”: Aspectsof see ‘“Marksof photography asasolution, For hisoutlineofart- Metropole, Toronto,1991. Kammerspiel see content inConceptualArt, the suppressionofsocial Dan Graham’s (1985),Art , eds autonomous artofthesocial. Conceptual Artprovidedthepreludeforanalternative elaborationofan Fried’s defenceofabsorption.Wall’scritiquethetaboo onthesocialin practice ofart-photography,whichisrevealingitself as anewcasefor tional artshouldbeseeninoppositiontoJeffWall’s conceptionand form andthedissemblingstrategiesoftoday’sartworldtestifytothis. possibility ofart. symptomatic ofaradicalisationsocialheteronomyasthecondition Bourriaud’s declaredindifferencetothedistinctionofartandnon-artis of thesocialnon-artintoheteronomousconditionart’sautonomy. autonomy withincapitalistculture.Relationalarthasmadethemimesis this task,butindifferenttothecontradictionsofart’sheteronomyand a centraltaskofcontemporaryart. omy beyondit,overcomingthetabooonpresentingsocialhasbecome ornament ofcapitalistculture,orstrengthenitsrelationtoasocialauton- regulative riddleforcriticalartsince.Whetheritistoreturnan This reversibilityofinstitutionalcritiquehasinmanyrespectsprovideda and merelymimicstheartinstitution’salienationofsocialautonomy. decays intoinstitutionalnarcissism.Thetabooceasestofunctioncritically of asocialautonomybeyondart.Ifthisdimensionislost,itimmediately into art. would besustainedbyimposingatabooonthedissolutionofthisdream dissolution ofartintosocialautonomy.Thedreamrealisinginlife autonomous artofthesocialwasonlypreparationorsurrogatefora social astherevolutionaryrealisationofartinanon-capitalistlife.An more orlessconsciouslysoughttosustainanavant-gardeutopiaofthe tively, throughart’sself-criticism.Thisstrategyofinstitutionalcritique of anartthesocialthatwoulddissolveintolifewaspreservednega- reduced tothecritiqueofart’sautonomy.Hence,avant-gardeproject ideological formsoftheartinstitution.Art’sautonomywasthereby only presentednegatively,throughexposinghowitisdisciplinedbythe for, ormaskof,theinstrumentalisationofsocialrelations,was negative form.Inordertopreventartfunctioningasacompensation also of art.Thisproducedanautonomousartthesocialinacriticalbut was tomakethecritiqueofart’ssocialconditionsprincipalobjective critique, practisedbythelikesofHansHaackeandMarcelBroodthaers, ated criticisms ofthepantomime-effect ofWall’spictures,inwhich ways thatsome relationalartseemsnaive about.Inturn,thishasgener- Aesthetics distinction hastendedtosave Wallfromcriticismsaimedat recovery ofpictorialismagainst literalism;Bourriaud,thereverse.This post-Conceptual affirmation ofthesocialwithinart:Wall,througha art, mayseemcounter-intuitive, buttheirdifferencesareinternaltoa This alignmentofWalland Bourriaud,art-photographyandrelational outside it.Autonomousart-photographypicturessocial heteronomy. sentation ofthesocialthroughitsindexicalexposure totheworld sculpture tendedto.‘Photographyaboutphotography’ retainsitsrepre- excluding referencetothesocialinwaythatmodernist paintingand ivity necessaryforittoemergeasanautonomousform, butwithout tion ofphotographyinitsusebyConceptualartistsgenerated thereflex- As anewtheoryofart’stheatricality, Negative utopianismisessentialtoinstitutionalcritique’santicipation . Wall’spicturesoftenengage inthereificationofsociallife 33

The entrenchmentofrelationalartintheexhibition 34

He hasarguedthattheself-criticalreflec- Relational Aesthetics Relational Aesthetics

pursues precisely Relational

and rela- Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 Pierre Huyghe, Courtesy oftheartistandMarianGoodmanGallery,ParisNew York 5Ibid,p19 35 Chantier Barbès-Rochechouart ation ofsocial relationswithincapitalist culture. Attemptstoeradicate it has saidofthe politicsofConceptualArt. social inart.Butthistaboois notonlya‘reinventionofdefeatism’,asWall they shareafar-reachingdesire toovercomethetabooonaffirming debate overwhatformacritical artofthesocialcantaketoday.Assuch Pierre Huyghe, a pointofindifferencebetween relationalartandart-photography. exhibited, reincorporatingthis dramaintoapicture.Theseworkspresent so keentooccupy.Thisconfrontationisthenre-photographed and and thespaceofitssituation,outsidemuseumthat Wallhasbeen billboard. Aconfrontationisgeneratedbetweenthespace ofthepicture location ofabillboard,whichisthenphotographedand pastedontothe photography ofeverydaylife.Actorsperformascene inresponsetothe Billboards social contentofarthascontinuedtohauntWall. PierreHuyghe’s people arepresentedbytheperformanceofpeople. The tabooonthe Chantier Barbès-Rochechouart Relational artandart-photography maywellbesettingthetermsof , 1994/1996,Billboardandoffsetprintedposter80

dramatise thepicturingofsocialrelationsinWall’s art- , 1994/1996,Billboardandoffsetprintedposter80 × 120cm.CourtesyoftheartistandMarianGoodmanGallery,ParisNewYork 35

It alsorecognises thealien- × 120cm. 385 Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 10:30 24 April 2008 386 Norway, Oslo,2007. series no8,edsMartaKuzmaandPeterOsborne,OfficeforContemporaryArt Political RadicalityinContemporaryArt:1.Constructingthe has also beenpublishedintheproceedingsofthatconference: European PhilosophyatMiddlesexUniversity)heldinOslo,20–21April2006.It the OfficeforContemporaryArt,NorwayandCentreResearchinModern Political RadicalityinContemporaryArt:ConstructingthePolitical’(organizedby This articlederivesfromapaperpresentedtotheconference,‘ISMS:Recuperating the name. at theheartofanycriticaltheoryorpracticecontemporaryartworth critique ofthedialecticssocialexchangeincapitalistcultureshouldbe to apoliticalprojectofanti-capitalism.Suchrequiresthat defeat. Overcomingthealienationofsocialrelationsinartremainsbound and functionideologically.WallBourriaudsharetherepressionof without eradicatingwhatcauseditareliablejusttosuppresstheproblem ISMS: Recuperating , Verksted