These past two weeks have been very difficult with creating a visual, and I had to write this when I got home and was going to sleep so Thanksgiving did not allow much time to do the post and all its viewing, no internet where I was… Sorry for the short blog and lack of visuals.
Bourriaud’s meaning of modern art is that art of prior periods is simply about the singular place and time. It refers to the idea that one-piece represents one single meaning and also refers to the moment in which it was created. Relational art on the other hand refers something more similar to Azoulay where there the artist, subject, and viewer must interact and connect for the object to work as an art piece. It is an internal perspective; museum viewed only.
Relational art is not a photographic art. This is important in the manner that the viewer does not interact with the piece any more than he does with any other genre of photographic art. Bourriaud discrices the art as an internal art that draws upon the commitment of outside forces to interact with the piece so that the piece can be put into motion. In this he is taking away the artists intentions not by distinguishing the artist’s meanings from the piece but through these interactions the meanings are constantly changing.
If there was to be one form of relational art photography it would be, possibly, a project which the camera was distributed to outside people, non-artists a title that can be disputed, where when one person takes an image the image is projected onto the gallery wall. Each time the shutter is clicked a new image will be presented in the gallery. This can be the only way which relational art will be encompassed into the photographic medium. This is because the one’s taking the photographs have no prior inspiration for a sound, consecutive idea and therefore cannot create a project, consecutive photographic lineage, that refers to a singular idea between the artist, subject and viewer.
Relational”ism” art cannot be photographic in another way because of the anti-capitalist nature the artists describe it as. Photographic art is capitalist in almost everyway because if deals with what is in front of the camera and has specific meaning to that of society. Without the capitalist aspect photography would not exist in our world. These images would be cast from existence in a socialist society because the dictator would not be seen as having the supreme rule or concepts, the artist would. Also as Bourriaud states relational art is the reaf of human relations but when we look at images we cannot be afraid of the image because we see it as the image only. It may be a representational of the real but there is not interaction between the subject and viewer where the viewer will feel threatened by the subject at that exact moment.
There are few artists who have hints of relational art being a part of their work but they cannot be a part of this group because of the inability for the viewer to interact. Many topographic artists are good examples of this relying on the human interaction with the environment to combine these connections. This does end up failing simply because the interactions were done by the unknowing aspect that those who created the environment did not know it was for art. Lastly the main reason for why photographic art cannot be relational is because it is images of the exterior. The camera’s exterior is always the subject so there is no reflection to the interior in the mediums output. In this I guess another way for a photographic relational connection could be a camera-lucida room… but this too would bring in the exterior and reflect of the interior interaction of the art, which would in fact become an instillation and not a photograph.
No comments:
Post a Comment