In an unusual attempt to explore their own digestive tracts, student artists Luke Evans and Joshua Lake swallowed single frames of 35mm film, folding each piece in a brightly colored capsule that allowed for the acids and bodily fluids to process the film with minimal risk of colon d
so into it
Relational art = an art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space
B “What is collapsing before our very eyes is nothing other than this falsely aristocratic conception of the arrangement of works of art, associated with the feeling of territorial acquisition.” (15)
artwork as social interstice
"This is the precise nature of the contemporary art exhibition in the arena of representational commerce: it creates free areas, and time spans whose rhythm contrasts with those structuring everyday life, and it encourages an inter-human commerce that differens from the ‘communication zones’ that are imposed upon us. The present-day social context restricts the possibilities of inter-human relations allthe more because it creates spaces planned to this end" (16)
"social infra-thinnes" (l’inframince social) - "that minute space of daily gestures determined by the superstructure made up of ‘big’ echanges, and defined by it" (17)
"Relational aesthetics does not represent a theory of art, this would imply the statement of an origin and a destination, but a theory of form" (19)
does art create the world and instigate it?
is art a delay in which the world is seen?
do both occur simultaneously in a push and pull?
art’s state of being as experienced entity
— origin considerations // historicity (static functionality)
— aura // authority // authenticity (functions of power)
— locomotive qualities // conceptual transmutations (generative functionality)
— assemblage of notions (collective functionality)
This project seeks to find manners of engaging with artwork in a context of relational aesthetics and postanarchist sentimentality in the context of artwork as everyday resistance as well as the agency that art has as part of a societal culture. My inclusion of postanarchist critique into the realm of art theory is to understand the agency of art in this manner. It enacts that:
1. Works of art within a time, genre, theory of form, etc. function in relation to each other in a space, be it physical or imagined.
2. The origins and situations that generated works of art and that works of art generated cannot be ignored in the growing conceptual alterations over time, yet artwork is not tethered to these considerations alone.
3. Individual works of art also generate experience by being viewed and therefore create an interaction with the observer – these dynamics relate to a politic in the manner of viewing art.
4. Communities, like art, define and are defined by their temporal placement within a sociopolitical structure and the agency of the individual is not within the context of the agencies of individuals.
5. Since art is locomotive, there is an also an nature to the agency of artwork that is regenerative of its function and meaning.
6. Art utilizes communities as much as communities utilize art; they are both subject and object to the oscillating placements of desire and utility.
It states that art is both utilized by and utilizes the political structures in which it is not only created but continues to exist. Artwork in any medium is simultaneously situated in its origins — the functions of society that produced it and that it produces – as well as the fact that artwork becomes adaptable to its locomotion. From Althusser’s assertion that “one always catches the world’s train on the move,” likewise, artwork is constantly generative of and in contexts and situations. Because there is this relationship of subject and object as well as desire and utility upon viewer(s) and artwork(s) in relation to the agencies, there is a parallel relationship in establishing the agency of artwork in consideration of the agency of individual. The politicized dynamic of experience and possibilities in the viewing of art grant opportunities for constructing radicalized modalities of collective processes.
The agency of art is akin to the agency an individual has — not without others in which influences it. There is no anarchist practice that ought to not have the consideration and inflections of multiple agencies interacting at once — in which, we can observe a consensus or collectivizing of ideas — and likewise, this process of inflecting agencies and narratives is what culminates in a meaning and experience of art.
How to visualize history, politics, theoretical discourse, cultural climates, thought, etc. has, literally, taken multiple shapes. We see a line as linear time moving forward, yet, there are no ultimate or absolute narratives within time. Time branches, merges, intersects and comes back into itself. We see circles; it is suggested that we exist in cycles of models and emerge back to a position of repetition. We move forward, only within the limits granted to us by our own existence. The manner of viewing the cultural climate cannot be done in a Hegelian dialectical manner. There ought not be a linear manner of viewing situation, problem, resolution (or, thesis, antithesis, synthesis) for the situation has multiple narratives, the problems are contain nuanced variation, and the resolutions are, at best, generative of new problems. We see it as a X, Y, (perhaps, even Z, etc.) chart in which moments and identities are plotted on intervals in, yet this is insufficient as well for the axises have the same internal problem as the linear line, even if the points connote an intersection, they are markedly fixed in perception. We see it in a web of interconnected realities, ones that overlap in Venn diagrams, snake through each other, well as never truly touch at all.
One of the negotiations observers and creators must make with art is what do we call ourselves in the current climate? It is both in abundance of names as well as a loss for names – the aughts, the millenials, the Echo Boomers, Generation Y, suggesting that the current social sphere is extended from Generation X and given a hand-me-down title. In the same vein, theoretical situations are also perplexed about what to apply to ideas that postmodernism has inadequate conceptions for— hypermodernism, altermodernism, digimodernism, psuedomodernism, automodernism, metamodernism, the shamefully coined post-postmodernism. These semantics of Generation Y and post-postmodernism grant insight that, when taken seriously as titles, that what is here is indeed after what came before, but is intrinsically linked to it, out of fear, out of not truly being without its contexts, and out of coming to the end of ends while also out of flowing back into time.
Perhaps a way of seeing, engaging, and experiencing is the manner in which we can conceive time and space, the metaphysical thing that all things exist in, is a manner in which to attribute to the sentimentality of culture. For instance, we cannot sense having an analysis of power without understanding the interconnectedness of powers in a relational and multidimensional manner. In this way, the “web” in which we can construct a visualization of time can offer itself as metaphor for understanding power relations. The web, however, is comprised of many fibers, knots, clusters, and frays that exhibit notions of a system. From this vague visualization of sequence, events, experience and perception, emerges the cacophony in which we attempt to define our current cultural climate and how we negotiate with situation.
Since the current historical period is still being experienced, and is yet to be fully instituted as a period, it is difficult to name and perhaps that is also an inherent facet of its contemporaneity. How do we name one that experiences hybrid racial identity, gender variancy, transnational nomadism, etc. in totality — though not a situation of contemporaneity, it is the pluralisms that generate postmodern discourse. The postmodern seemed to be the end — existing beyond the modern conception of the end of history by Fukuyama, the end of art by Danto, the end of philosophy by Rorty, the end of politics by Foucault — in which we have come to resolutions in our deconstruction.
However, the teleology that has been sought out is that an end sought out does not exist. There is no totality of perception, identification, definition for resolution. We are left at a hopeful loss of tying up loose ends. We are compounded with complicating our world, our narratives, our interactions, and our experiences by relinquishing stubborn author(itarian) ideas into open-ended conclusions, working concepts, and sincere requests for disruption.
The time signatures we are currently working within in the web is the lack of desire for a true solution and, rather, consistently trying for the reinventions, restructuring, reframing, remodeling, reimagining, etc. of given solutions, not in attempts to lose them, but to expand their potentials.
behind or after
with regard to
in relation of