[-empyre-] "Relational Aesthetics" and/as "Aesthetics of Existence"

[Robert Summers]

I do not mean to take people off their various (and intersecting)
lines of flight, which are highly intriguing, and I need to, want to
respond to several, but I would like to add another (line of flight),
and that is thinking "relational aesthetics" as one modality (among
many) of an "aesthetics of existence" (Foucault).  I think that we can
think "relational aesthetics" _otherwise_, which is to say beyond and
beside (at the same time) Bourriaud's theorization of it -- he does
not own it.

Given Foucault began to think an "aesthetics of existence" in relation
to "homosexuality" (or "gayness," which I read as "proto-queer" -- or
a modality of "queer theory" avant la lettre), then we can (re-)think
"relational aesthetics" in a "queer way" (which there has already been
much debate on this topic on this listserv; e.g., if this is possible
or viable or valuable and/or what this would mean and/or what this
would look like -- even in moments, movements, flashes).

I think looking at artists ranging from Felix Gonzalez-Torres, which
Bourriaud has called his work "homo-sensual," then we can push
this/his thinking and theorizing: the texture of the artwork, the
texture of queer, the sensuality (and there is sensuality in violence
[Deleuze, _Masochism_]) -- if you will.  I also think we can look at
literary and philosophical texts (which some of you have already been
doing) as an enactment of relationality -- if not a "relational
aesthetics" -- and the viewing of artwork and the re-viewing of
artwork as a modality of "relational aesthetics": such as Mercer
looking and re-looking at Mapplethrope.  I wonder if just as an
"aesthetics of existence" is having a "relation with oneself to
oneself," then can "realtional aesthetics" be a certain having a
"relationship with oneself to oneself" (and I know I am kind-of
dumbing down the complexity of "having a relation to oneself to
oneself" -- or simple not explaining it).

I began to think of this today (thinking together "relational
aesthetics" and an "aesthetics of existence") as I wrote a brief
summary of a parody on a "relational aesthetics" event in Los Angeles.
 I have posted the summary below:

_"Fondu Aesthetics" and/as "Relational Aesthetics": Its Un-Doing and Aftermaths_

Nicolas Bourriaud first coined the term "relational aesthetics" in his
1996 exhibition at the CAPC and its attendant catalog "Traffic" -- but
it was fully articulated in a series of essays, which were first
published in "Documents sur l'art," and then published in France
titled "Esthetique relationnelle" in 1998, which was translated into
English in 2002.  Without a doubt, "relational aesthetics" took the
"art world(s)" by storm -- many taking it up as a crucial and new
theoretical insight and practice, while others critiqued it for is
art-historical amnesia, participation in neo-liberal ideas and
capitalist agendas, nepotism, and its lack of taking into account
various feminist and queer interventions that have created other
"relationalities" in the art world(s) and beyond -- for example see
empyre's ongoing discussion for the month of July, 2009 on "queer
relational": http://turbulence.org/blog/2009/07/03/empyre-july-2009-queer-relational);
and see the numerous critiques launched -- as well as a series of
upcoming panels at the College Art Association in Chicago.  Indeed,
"relational aesthetics" is still being reckoned with in the "art
world(s)" and beyond.

Bourriaud defines "relational aesthetics" as "a set of artistic
practices that take place as their theoretical and practical point of
departure the whole of human relations and their social context --
rather than an independent and private space or discrete art objects
as such" (15).  He goes on to explain "relational aesthetics,"
"relational art," and what it (ostensibly) does; he states,
"relational art is not the revival of any movement, nor it is the
comeback of any style.  It arises from an observation of the present
and from a line of thinking about a fate of artistic activity.  Its
basic claim -- the sphere of human relations as art work venue ..."
(44).  More importantly, Bourriaud states, relational artists consider
"inter-subjective and interaction neither as fashionable theoretical
gadgets, not as additives (alibis) of a traditional artistic practice.
 It takes [relationality] as a point of departure and as an outcome,
in brief as the main informers of their activity" (44).  Indeed, as
Bourriaud has articulated, "the artwork is presented as a _social
interstice_ within which these experiments and these new 'life
possibilities' appear to be possible. (45)"  I argue that Michael Ano
of ASAP and Kate Hers took up Bourriaud's theory, rethought it, and
democratized it; thus, they expanded its terms, conditions, and
trajectories -- all the while "camping it up."

On July 12, 2009, Michael Ano and Kate Hers organized "Fondue
Aesthetics," which was an instantiation of "relational aesthetics"
(otherwise) -- as well as a "participatory aesthetics," or
emancipatory re-thinking of "relational aesthetics."  For this event,
the "Hess brothers" (Nic and Joshua, who are both Swiss, and thus
parodying Bourriaud's deployment of Rirkrit Tiravanija's art practice)
taught and made "authentic swiss fondu."  All participants grated
cheese, cut bread, as well as mixing other ingredients, poured wine,
and drank and ate.

Without a doubt, it was a relational (and participatory) event and/as
aesthetics.  To draw from -- but also alter -- Bourriaud's theory,
there was an activation and engagement with art (as a "techne") that
instantiated and made evident "the sphere of human relations _as_ art
work ..." (44; emphasis mine), and what took place at "Fondu
Aesthetics" fostered and nurtured art as a practice of
inter-subjective relationality and interaction between friends and
others who would become friends, and, as Bourriaud has stated,
relationality is "a point of departure" (44).  This "departure" is
worth thinking about because it did not leave, but rather it gathered
together friends, acquaintances, strangers, and passer-bys.

That day I was to give a brief talk on Bourriaud's theorization of
"relational aesthetics" and the critiques that have emerged, but as I
saw, as well as participated in, the fondu making and eating, the
conversations, the meandering and intricate conversations between
close and superficial relationships (and I am implying no hierarchy)
that ranged from gossip, to politics, to art, to the likes and
dislikes of new books and movies, I realized that a form of
"relational aesthetics" was _taking_ place in this space.  I did not
want to interrupt  this event, these conversations that were taking
place with a talk on what we kind-of already know, and what we were
all already doing.  I thought that it would be best to have this
relationality continue by skipping my talk (and no one seemed to mind.
 Indeed, the precarious role of the art historian: others do it
better, and life makes better artistic statements).

That day I learned that "relational aesthetics" -- if we still want to
call it that -- can, and does, take place on a daily basis: at lunch,
over the phone, at the dinner table, walking down the street, in a
gallery, in a supermarket.  In sum, "relational aesthetics" takes
place in and as life itself.  I realized that this _was_ "relational
aesthetics" -- but one without all the trappings of the gallery,
art-historical histories, and institutional affirmations.  It was
_one_ (among many, to be sure) modality of an "aesthetics of
existence," to draw from Michel Foucault.  Yes, life and interaction
is an art (a techne), and friendship is probably the highest form of
"relational art" and "relational aesthetics."  So, "relational
aesthetics" was (and does) take place without the need of the art
historian, critic, and/or curator -- let alone the gallery and/or
museum.  "Relational aesthetics" is something anyone can do, at any
time, anywhere, anyway, and everyone, in fact, has enacted it.  And, I
argue, "Fondue Aesthetics" proved my position, my insight -- which is
to say that the relationality and relationships we have are always
various, multiple, and in and of the world, which is always to say
with and for others -- relationally.  Finally, "relational aesthetics"
thought otherwise is an "aesthetics of existence."  I think we need
more of this in the world we inhabit, and more than this we need to
nurture and cherish such aesthetics.

As ever, Robert

Robert Summers, PhD/ABD
Lecturer
Art History and Visual Culture
Otis College of Art and Design
e: rsummers at otis.edu
w: http://ospace.otis.edu/robtsum/Welcome