WALEAD BESHTY

NEO-AVANTGARDE AND SERVICE INDUSTRY

Notes on the Brave New World of Relational Aesthetics

Rirkrit Tiravanija, aus der Serie "Stages / Stationen", Bangkok (Wahlen), 1992

The conglomeration of strategies, and artists, that fit under the

heading Relational Aesthetics indicate, if only for recent historys lack
of "movements," a pronounced shift in the topography of
contemporary art, and the need for a realignment of critical
terminology. Despite its amorphous set of conditions and tenets, as
they are expressed by Nicolas Bourriaud in his 1997 book of the
same title, it separates itself distinctly from early interventionist
tactics (i.e. Institutional Critique, Identity Politics, Performance and
Installation).
This shift appears induced by an intellectual paralysis concerning the
patterns and strategies available for contestation. From a theoretical
perspective, classical models of critical opposition provide an
untenable set of compromises, between institution and practitioner,
between the opening up or revealing of dominant structures, and the
counter adoption of didactic prescription, or more precisely, one
conducive to the reification of inherently problematic subject
positions constructed from positions of dominance (i.e. one must
assume the voice of authority in order to contest it), which resubordinates the viewer. In stern condemnation, Michel De Certeau
wrote that the discourse around repression and ideology is a selfinflicted chastening, which have the cumulative effect of "family
stories," of "devils and boogey men," while "ideological criticism does
not change its function in anyway; the criticism merely creates the
appearance of a distance for scientists who are members of the
institution." This is, for all intents and purposes, the crux of the
argument levied against the traditions of Institutional/Ideological
Critique, rehearsed by Bourriaud. It seems Relational Aesthetics is
born from a distinctly European retreatism, separate from the
American return to the hand wrought escapist drawings, emphasis on
craft, and melancholic lamentation of the passing of 68. Relational
Aesthetics is enabled by the continued centrality of the European
institution, robust in its state support, and thus able to
unproblematically continue as an invisible container for the
interaction of ideas, and most of all its presumption of being nonideological in its reception of multiple points of view (including those
that claim opposition). The proposal for a Relational Aesthetics that is
about, "learning to inhabit the world in a better way," seems to avoid
both the element of authority inscribed within the figure of the
revealer, deconstructor, liberator, and thus presumes to create "open

revealer, deconstructor, liberator, and thus presumes to create "open

ended" contexts for self determination that are seemingly freed from
the restrictions of the state, and capitalist structures. They do not
treat the institution as a privileged location, but as yet another locale
in the postmodern geography, as any other point where social
relations are activated, and never as an emblem of an ideological
position. In short, they avoid the predicament of being forced to take
a stance on the institutions role, while working almost exclusively
within them.
Despite the relative successes of a number of artists within
Bourriauds groupings (most notably, Pierre Huyghe, Maurizio
Cattelan, and Rirkrit Tiravanija) in the U.S., the American response to
the movement itself has been minimal, and when it has taken notice,
tepid. In the Summer issue of Artforum, Joe Scanlan opined, "Why is
relational aesthetics so boring?," going on to say, "time and again I
have found myself in a room full of people... yet the group always
ends up exchanging pleasantries, and planning dinner..." The only
extended critical response published in an American journal came
from Claire Bishop (who hails from the UK) in the pages of October.
Bishops article matched Scanlans derisive tone, albeit in markedly
different terms, faulting Bourriauds sometimes mantras of
community, and exchange, as "rest(ing) too comfortably with an ideal
of subjectivity as a whole and community as immanent togetherness."
Both writers insinuate larger problems contingent upon questions of
verifiable quality, as Bishop writes, "...how are we to measure or
compare these relationships? The quality of the relationships in
relational aesthetics are never examined or called into question... all
relations that permit dialogue are automatically assumed to be
democratic or good." But if the criterion by which the efficacy of
relational programs is missing (or partial) a more sinister implication
alluded to by Scanlan, who, chidingly, writes, "Indeed, firsthand
experience has convinced me that relational aesthetics has more to
do with peer pressure than collective egalitarianism, which would
suggest that one of the best ways to control human behavior is to
practice relational aesthetics." And continues, "Peer pressure is
effective because it uses one of our most basic fearspublic
humiliationas a built in mechanism for controlling behavior." The
metamorphoses of Bourriauds stressing of "conviviality" and "the
horizon of an art based on interactivity and the creation of
relationships with the other," into systems of "control" or an
unreflexive "imbrication" within a dominant model, requires some
explanation. Bourriaud frequently oversimplifies the work of the
artists he discusses, in service of their theory, often excluding
characteristics that do not fit comfortably within the relational
program. In writing on Rirkrit Tiravanija, he describes his work as a
sort of kindergarten experiment, a place ".where people once again
learn what conviviality and sharing mean, " and by Bishop who claims
Tiravanija is simply creating new networking points for "art dealers
and like minded art-lovers...because it evokes the atmosphere of a
late night bar" citing a 1996 account by art critc Jerry Saltz which
details his social escapades with art world insiders and random
flirtations in Tiravanijas first New York solo show Untitled (Free) from
1996 (where he chats with David Zwirner, Paula Cooper, and Lisa
Spellman, and meets some young artists), as evidence. While this
criticism is partially true, Tiravanija exhibitions do reinforce
preexisting social networks, and have a saccharine surface of
togetherness, this dismissal obscures a more comprehensive
understanding of the complex of subject formulations operating in

understanding of the complex of subject formulations operating in

Tiravanijas work. Continueing to use Saltz as a tezt case, in the
passage immediately following Bishops citation, he goes on to say:
A sense of uneasiness was always close by. Once when I went to the
gallery I ate alone, and I felt that old fear of doing something wrong.
I remember pausing outside the door and thinking, "Maybe I
shouldn't do this--they'll think I'm a moocher." I felt sheepish, guilty,
like I was a freeloader. I don't usually feel this way when I go back to
a show more than once.
Certainly this doesnt satisfy the question of accessibility, or the
passive relationship Tiravanija has to the mode of social interaction
he creates, but it does attest to an important societal contradiction,
and a specifically capitalist anxiety typified in the free market mantra:
"there aint no such thing as a free lunch." But the investigation of
the nascent anxiety presented by Tiravanija, and the potential
implications that follow are, for Bourriaud, patently off limits. After
summarizing critiques deriding relational programs for their artworld
insularity, Bourriaud asserts: But do we deny Pop Art because it
reproduces codes of visual alienation? ... What these critics overlook
is that the content of these artistic proposals has to be judged in a
formal way... bearing in mind the political value of forms... They are
aimed at the formal space-time constructs that do not represent
alienation, which do not extend the division of labor into forms... the
purpose is not conviviality, but the product of conviviality...
It seems that while Bourriaud rejects these dimensions of Tiravanijas
work, chastising us for daring to ask these questions, and displacing
the emphasis on some later, unexaminable "result," Tiravanija invites
the query. "Alienation," and "the division of labor," seem to be
exactly what Tiravanija is proposing we ask about, both the ubiquity
of low paid service labor in the artworld and its invisibility, but doing
so subtly without resorting to spectacularized circuses of
victimization. First hand accounts often allude to "the product of
conviviality" as constructed by Tiravanija, as one reviewer has said,
"[w]e are now the wallflowers at the party, and our old-fashioned
spectatorship is just sad," in the contradiction that Saltz describes as
a "subversive, unsettling hospitality." The specific character of this
form of "unsettling" needs to be examined. The anxiousness
described by Saltz, in his repeated interactions with Tiravanijas work
(both in 1996, and on the occasion of his last show at Gavin Browns
in 1999, Saltz again describes almost adolescent angst, "...being
there can be difficult. I experienced unwanted waves of shyness,
affection, and irritation there." ) and the social restrictions (i.e. peer
pressure) of the environments appear continuous with a society of
surveillance, and their self-policing rigid codes of conduct which
occupy all transactions without being firmly locatable. In fact,
relational programs not only amplify consumerist anxiety within the
museum context, but facilitate the corporatization of the museum
itself.
For the events following the recent Guggenheim acquisition of
Tiravanijas Untitled 2002 (he promised) in 2004, with help from
American Express, Tiravanija turned over the event programming to
the museum, who then worked in tandem with American Express PR
department, and created a sequence of programming which was
more spectacle than microtopia: To celebrate the new IN:NYC Card,
Amex will present a free interactive art exhibition at the Guggenheim
Museum created by internationally acclaimed artist Rirkrit Tiravanija,

Museum created by internationally acclaimed artist Rirkrit Tiravanija,

which will engage visitors with a variety of programming elements
that respond to the culture of the city in which it is displayed. In
addition, award-winning music artist Wyclef Jean will perform live for
invited guests.
Or as it was later described by the fashion wire service:
Fashion Wire Daily October 8,2004- NEW YORK - In the New York
universe, installation art by 2004 Hugo Boss prize-nominated artist
Rirkrit Tiravanija is in the same room as celebrity guest DJ's Nicky
Hilton and Nicole Richie; Wyclef Jean performs and sings about his
political leanings to a well-heeled crowd of girls in Chanel jackets
drinking lychee martinis from Latin fusion restaurant Calle Ocho.
Canadian Press - Fri Oct 8,11:16 AM ET LONDON (AP)
Similarly, at his recent exhibition at the Sepertine Gallery in London,
the communing of artworld insiders, morphed into an event that
sounded more like a Hollywood Oscar party (with a few art stars
mixed in) than a microtopia. Stuart Comers Artforum.com diary entry
describes processions of celebrities, Kid Rock, Rod Stuart, Farrah
Fawcett, Mariah Carey, David Gilmore and Roger Waters (Pink Floyd),
Alex James (from Blur), which crescendoed in "A flurry of pale yellow
chiffon, [as] Paris Hilton made her entrance into the kitchen." Here
the insiders privileged in Saltzs account, are themselves shut out, for
a new level of insider, that of the celebrity. Instead of creating a new
zone of interactivity, the social divisions are renenacted in
heightened spectacle: the subjects sit back and watch the glamorous.
Tiravanija, and others who invoke these "free" zones of conviviality,
not only run the risk of transforming the communal into the
estranged, but more importantly, they naturalize social repressions,
locating them as the ur-text of experience. Bourriaud repeatedly
confuses the liberation of the artist from traditional divisions of labor
with the assumed liberation of the viewer, compacting Michel
DeCertauss depiction of resistance in daily life (mini revolts of use,
and practice that contradict the everywhere present monolith of
ideological power), with the artists adoption of ruses, operating as
curator, interior designer, caterer, public relations manager, and
event organizer (quite different than the parodic adoption of these
roles in institutional critique, with Broodthaers as museum director,
Andrea Frazer as Docent, or Michael Asher as exhibition designer,
the Relational Aesthetics programs simply adopt these roles, they do
not reflexively dismantle them). Bourriaud defends this adoption, and
refers to it as democratic, but democratic for whom? While these
open new territories for artists, it would be deeply problematic to
assume these mean more ethical, or valuable contexts for viewers to
interact. The viewer is not presented any further occasion for play
other than that which is already present in another repressive
structure, in fact it is the institution, with the artist facilitating, that
engages in these ruses, manipulating the categorical divisions, and
masquerading as some other environment (either a bar, kitchen,
dance club, etc.). Tiravanijas progression in practice demonstrates
this in particular, as the instrumentalization of his work (which is
diffused by the inherent complacency, i.e. anti-didacticism of his
relationship to authorship) never violates the model that is given
priority, i.e. that of the artist as a moving target.
In this sequence of deceptions, reappropriations, and play, the viewer
continues to be merely the object in the environment acted upon,
enticed to engage in a series of banal activities; in seeming

enticed to engage in a series of banal activities; in seeming

acknowledgment Tiravanija lists "lots of people" as one of his
materials. This is why Bourriaud concerns himself more with
describing how the artists act, their intentions, and the distinctions
between their approach and previous practices, and avoids, almost
completely, as Bishop discerns, the "quality" of those interactions. He
simply refers to the impacts, and the type of relationships as being
positive because they have been enacted, not what contexts for
behavior they are activated within, or their relationship to external
mechanisms. Often the occupation of various roles, like Jorge Pardos
foray into store design at the Dia, indicates a seamless almost cynical
conflation of disciplines, but also the metamorphosis of the
institution into commercial space (Pardos Dia merges the design of
the expanded book store into the first floor gallery). The promise of
relational programs, and their issuing of a "better way of life," is
interchangeable with the contemporary shopping mall when enacted
in grand scale (perhaps this is the most devious Warholian trick
enacted since Warhol himself painted celebrity portraits, that later
found their way to the museum, or starred on "Love Boat"). The
current trend in malls is self-described as a location of "communal
meeting points," "settings for festive interaction," "space to roam, to
sit down, and to talk," and have with increasing regularity created
public events, employed large open "park-like" spaces, and free
attractions to entice consumers, fully displacing its less seductive
relative, public space. Moreover, facilitating the evolution of the
museum into another aspect of the entertainment industry. If at one
time museums were autonomous and naturalized power centers, in
the U.S. the climate of curtailed governmental support radically
changes the situation, as "...both the museum and the entertainment
complex are, today, sustained by the transactions of shopping."
Between 1992 and 2002, the amount of shopping space in the
typical U.S. museum has increased by almost ten times the amount
of gallery space.
Far from utopic, relational aesthetics often leaves us in a
decontextualized social world, where only the repressions, not their
material conditions are apparent. In the rejection of strategies of
Institutional Critique, which always reasserted the material conditions
of space, the Relational Aesthetics conception of social interaction
mirrors the recent shift in urban plannings understanding of the city.
As Sze Tsung Leong argues, the spatial term "map" is jettisoned
opting instead for "scenario analysis systems," a "science of spatial
modeling", a "decision support system" or a tool for "forecasting
space time dynamics,." They are echoed in relational aesthetics
appropriation of terminology like "laboratory," "station," "matrices,"
"sets of information strata," and "mixed use," (among others),
intermittently signaling data structures, industrial forms, and
economic categorizations. Similarly, the relationships that occur in
relational aesthetics are invisible to the material understanding of the
institution, or physical locus of power, by their very imbeddedness.
This revision of the city map foregrounds the relations between
pockets of the city, privileging usage over topography, networks over
space, all in service of "the primary engine of urbanization: the
market." Bourriauds "interstices" in "the social corpus" are just such
invisible points of communion where the market transcriptions of
personal relations are the boundaries between people, no longer the
physical walls, and the complete irrelevance of private vs. public
space is realized. The proposed libratory conflation of domestic
space and gallery space, and the real world progression of the art

space and gallery space, and the real world progression of the art
institution into entertainment complex, creates both a disturbing
endpoint where domestic space become indistinguishable from
commercial space, (for Bourriaud only considers the transition going
one way, not the other) and masks the understanding that this is
already happening. The new digital behaviorist topography of the city
completely dissolves the symbolic divisions between personal and
public. The city itself becomes an expression of interrelations,
consciousness of material conditions evaporate, creating systems of
control invisible to those who are placed inside it. With the onset of
the satellite, the panopticon has become as ubiquitous as the sky
itself.
Nan Ellis argues that this dematerialization is the foundation of a
distinctly postmodern anxiety of the city, "[w]here modernist fear and
the positivistic climate in which it occurred led to efforts to detect
causes and effects...postmodern fear amid the refining antitechnocratic climate has incited a series of closely related and
overlapping responses including retribalization, nostalgia, escapism,
and spiritual return." Or in Bourriauds words, "...we are hoping for a
return to traditional aura..." The understanding, or reflection, of these
evolutions of subjectivity and space are important to consider in
reexamining the subjectivity of the viewer, and how control can be
disrupted, but relational aesthetics seems to go only so far as
recreate these systems, literalize their movements, without providing
any moments of resistance. Instead it is staged t as an inevitable
outcome, by reinscribing these existing structures of control as "a
realm of possibilities," of a "possible future," as "microtopias." This is
exactly the system of domination that Gilles Deleuze and Flix
Guattari describe in "Mille Plateaux", writing, "Attention has recently
been focused on the fact that modern power is not reducible to the
classical alternative "repression or ideology" but implies a process of
normalization, modulation, modeling, and information that bear on
language, perception, desire, movement etc,, and which proceed by
way of micro assemblages."