What do you think?
Rate this book
Attiecību estētika
Grāmatā autors apraksta laikmetīgās mākslas formas, kas attīstījušās kopš 20. gs. 90. gadiem – minētās tendences arī izskaidro grāmatas nosaukumu – proti, laikmetīgajā mākslā parādās tādas formas kā satikšanās, spēle un citas, kas vērstas uz cilvēku kopības saišu izveidošanu un dažādošanu. Attiecību mākslas ietvaros mākslas darbs veido vidi, kurā cilvēki var satikties un sadarboties radoši, distancējoties no ikdienas dzīves un patērētāju attieksmes pret vidi. Burjo grāmata ir viens no pirmajiem darbiem, kurā analizēta deviņdesmito gadu māksla, un viņa piedāvāto attiecību mākslas un attiecību estētikas jēdzienu šobrīd tiek plaši izmantoti mākslas kritiķu vidū.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
91 people are currently reading
1900 people want to read
About the author
Nicolas Bourriaud
72 books89 followersNicolas Bourriaud (born 1965) is a curator and art critic, who curated a great number of exhibitions and biennials all over the world.
He co-founded, and from 1999 to 2006 was co-director of the Palais de Tokyo, Paris together with Jérôme Sans. He was also founder and director of the contemporary art magazine Documents sur l'art (1992–2000), and correspondent in Paris for Flash Art from 1987 to 1995. Bourriaud was the Gulbenkian curator of contemporary art from 2007-2010 at Tate Britain, London, and in 2009 he curated the fourth Tate Triennial there, entitled Altermodern. He was the Director of the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, an art school in Paris, France, from 2011 to 2015. In 2015, he was appointed director of the future Contemporary Art Center of Montpellier, France, due to open in 2019, and director of La Panacée art center.
Bourriaud is best known among English speakers for his publications Relational Aesthetics (1998/English version 2002) and Postproduction (2001). Relational Aesthetics in particular has come to be seen as a defining text for a wide variety of art produced by a generation who came to prominence in Europe in the early 1990s. Bourriaud coined the term in 1995, in a text for the catalogue of the exhibition Traffic that was shown at the CAPC contemporary art museum in Bordeaux.
In Postproduction (2001), Bourriaud relates deejaying to contemporary art. He lists the operations discjockeys apply to music and relates them to contemporary art practice. Radicant (2009) aims to define the emergence of the first global modernity, based on translation and nomadic forms, against the postmodern aesthetics based on identities.
(from wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
January 5, 2010
This book is overrated garbage. Bourriaud gave a great term to a body of contemporary art, but his "theory" is no more theory than a pile of sorted crayons. The sillier side of the contemporary art world so adamantly desires the newest thing that this petrified turd was held up and proclaimed gold. But this book is not gold, is not new, and it isn't good.It is only interesting because it gave a Proper Name to a bunch of good, great, and ok art work.
Some specifics:
First of all, despite his definition, all art is relational. Let's just get that out of the way. You'd think a French guy who claims to be a thinker and is obsessed with conceptual art would know that. You'd think someone like Bourriaud would have picked up one of the main tenants of post-structuralist thought, which is that the meaning of a sign is the response to it, and that the signifier/signified/sign/referent/text relationship is infinitely relational. All 'text' is always already relational because there is no outside of the text. If you believe what he claims to believe, then everything is relational. That applies to all art, not just a few pieces of art made in the last few decades. Again, you'd think a well-read French guy who claims to be a thinker would have actually, you know, read a little Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze or, hell, any contemporary theorist of the last forty years.
But we'll ignore that for now. Even if we ignore his grand bungle, his theory doesn't work on its own terms because there's no there there. Despite Bourriaud's claims to the contrary, and by his own damn definitions, some of the work he champions as relational aesthetics isn't at all, whereas many classic paintings of Western art history easily fall under his definition of "directly relational." And again, if that's true, then his main argument simply vanishes. But all of this is lost on the Great Thinker.
Bourriaud makes the claim that relational aesthetics is a new technique for dealing with "late Capitalism" and the consumer society, but claiming something is true doesn't make it so, and it's never clear that most, or even some, of the art he champions has anything to do with late Capitalism or consumer society. But as usual for this book, he makes a lot of baseless claims, pats himself on the back, and blunders on. Who needs to do irrelevant stuff like craft arguments, or support claims, or present evidence? Just claim it to be true and hope everyone is too lazy to check and see if you're right or wrong. It works for Bourriaud.
His attempt to distinguish contemporary "relational aesthetics" from the interactive art of the 60s or turn of the century is embarrassing. The connections between Kaprow's happenings, or Matta-Clark's dumpster for bums, or the interactive performance of nearly everyone from the 60s and 70s from Abromovich's endless kiss to Acconci's seed bed, is directly referenced in most of the art Bourriaud writes about, like Tiravanija's Thai dinners, Beecroft's tableau vivants, or Catelan's goofs. Baourriaud's favorite art has predecessors, despite his dreams that they exploded into the scene tabula rasa. (And again, how he can claim to have read Guattari (or even Nietzsche) and still spout such hoary watered down crap?)
Bourriaud claims that many of the art pieces he champions represent "inter-human relations" but leaves that term so wide open that tons of art, from all periods, can fit his definition of "representing inter-human relations." Worse, several of the pieces and artists he champions don't fit his definition at all, but as usual, Bourriaud blithely skips along, singing tra-la-la, ignoring all bad arguments, holes in his theories, and evidence to the contrary. Shit, practically none of the works he champions is wholly or partially concerned with "the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space." Maybe, and only maybe, that's true for a lot of art made by Tiravnija, Cattelan or Beecroft, but is it true for any of the art made by Gonzales-Torres? Or for anything made by Liam Gillick? Philippe Parreno? Pierre Huyghe? Jorge Prado? Really? Really?
I could go on, but why bother? This sorry excuse for an intellectual tract is sloppy and ill informed, and brazenly leaps to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence presented. I LOVE most of the art Bourriaud writes about; I love DIY culture, interactive art, recycling in art works, art that engages consumer culture, art that engages the service industry, and art that attacks the unidirectional nature of most art history, and I would love a theory that successfully describes any of that, but this vapid spew is not that. This "work" is a lazy, silly, and temporary flash in the pan, and although it captured the attention of the art world for the last few years, it was, is, and will remain intellectually vapid. In short, it is a fraud.
[If you're interested in a serious take down of the bobble-headed M. Bourriaud, check out Claire Bishop's critique in October 110 (2004). Or just google Bourriaud + Relational + Aesthetics.:]
Some specifics:
First of all, despite his definition, all art is relational. Let's just get that out of the way. You'd think a French guy who claims to be a thinker and is obsessed with conceptual art would know that. You'd think someone like Bourriaud would have picked up one of the main tenants of post-structuralist thought, which is that the meaning of a sign is the response to it, and that the signifier/signified/sign/referent/text relationship is infinitely relational. All 'text' is always already relational because there is no outside of the text. If you believe what he claims to believe, then everything is relational. That applies to all art, not just a few pieces of art made in the last few decades. Again, you'd think a well-read French guy who claims to be a thinker would have actually, you know, read a little Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze or, hell, any contemporary theorist of the last forty years.
But we'll ignore that for now. Even if we ignore his grand bungle, his theory doesn't work on its own terms because there's no there there. Despite Bourriaud's claims to the contrary, and by his own damn definitions, some of the work he champions as relational aesthetics isn't at all, whereas many classic paintings of Western art history easily fall under his definition of "directly relational." And again, if that's true, then his main argument simply vanishes. But all of this is lost on the Great Thinker.
Bourriaud makes the claim that relational aesthetics is a new technique for dealing with "late Capitalism" and the consumer society, but claiming something is true doesn't make it so, and it's never clear that most, or even some, of the art he champions has anything to do with late Capitalism or consumer society. But as usual for this book, he makes a lot of baseless claims, pats himself on the back, and blunders on. Who needs to do irrelevant stuff like craft arguments, or support claims, or present evidence? Just claim it to be true and hope everyone is too lazy to check and see if you're right or wrong. It works for Bourriaud.
His attempt to distinguish contemporary "relational aesthetics" from the interactive art of the 60s or turn of the century is embarrassing. The connections between Kaprow's happenings, or Matta-Clark's dumpster for bums, or the interactive performance of nearly everyone from the 60s and 70s from Abromovich's endless kiss to Acconci's seed bed, is directly referenced in most of the art Bourriaud writes about, like Tiravanija's Thai dinners, Beecroft's tableau vivants, or Catelan's goofs. Baourriaud's favorite art has predecessors, despite his dreams that they exploded into the scene tabula rasa. (And again, how he can claim to have read Guattari (or even Nietzsche) and still spout such hoary watered down crap?)
Bourriaud claims that many of the art pieces he champions represent "inter-human relations" but leaves that term so wide open that tons of art, from all periods, can fit his definition of "representing inter-human relations." Worse, several of the pieces and artists he champions don't fit his definition at all, but as usual, Bourriaud blithely skips along, singing tra-la-la, ignoring all bad arguments, holes in his theories, and evidence to the contrary. Shit, practically none of the works he champions is wholly or partially concerned with "the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space." Maybe, and only maybe, that's true for a lot of art made by Tiravnija, Cattelan or Beecroft, but is it true for any of the art made by Gonzales-Torres? Or for anything made by Liam Gillick? Philippe Parreno? Pierre Huyghe? Jorge Prado? Really? Really?
I could go on, but why bother? This sorry excuse for an intellectual tract is sloppy and ill informed, and brazenly leaps to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence presented. I LOVE most of the art Bourriaud writes about; I love DIY culture, interactive art, recycling in art works, art that engages consumer culture, art that engages the service industry, and art that attacks the unidirectional nature of most art history, and I would love a theory that successfully describes any of that, but this vapid spew is not that. This "work" is a lazy, silly, and temporary flash in the pan, and although it captured the attention of the art world for the last few years, it was, is, and will remain intellectually vapid. In short, it is a fraud.
[If you're interested in a serious take down of the bobble-headed M. Bourriaud, check out Claire Bishop's critique in October 110 (2004). Or just google Bourriaud + Relational + Aesthetics.:]
June 22, 2017
So far pretty interesting, though nothing unexpected. But, more importantly: who the hell edited this thing? How could 2 translators collaborate to do such a bad job?
July 8, 2014
If you can read French, don’t even bother reading this: Get the original French version (Esthétique relationnelle) instead.
Although this English translation has been commissioned by the original publisher, it is so bad that it is barely comprehensible. You have to drag all the way through the apparently-never-edited 104 pages. A lot of the text still reads like French, except that all the words are in English; often it either sounds so strange or is so grammatically awkward you are tempted to try (often in vain) guessing what the original French text would have been. Even the typography is unusually bad (the whole book looks like a printout straight from Microsoft Word, or a raw manuscript that has gone through neither a copyeditor nor a book designer), and it actually slows you down with all the bad punctuation and formatting.
I understand this is supposed to be a theoretically important work. Perhaps the French original is brilliant, but this English translation is a waste of time. I would suggest that if you can read any French at all and have access to the original French version at a library then just get the original version and don’t even bother with this one.
Although this English translation has been commissioned by the original publisher, it is so bad that it is barely comprehensible. You have to drag all the way through the apparently-never-edited 104 pages. A lot of the text still reads like French, except that all the words are in English; often it either sounds so strange or is so grammatically awkward you are tempted to try (often in vain) guessing what the original French text would have been. Even the typography is unusually bad (the whole book looks like a printout straight from Microsoft Word, or a raw manuscript that has gone through neither a copyeditor nor a book designer), and it actually slows you down with all the bad punctuation and formatting.
I understand this is supposed to be a theoretically important work. Perhaps the French original is brilliant, but this English translation is a waste of time. I would suggest that if you can read any French at all and have access to the original French version at a library then just get the original version and don’t even bother with this one.
Read
March 22, 2022I can't rate this because I barely understood it but I will try again once I have a PhD
Want to read
November 29, 2012I should read it, since one of my favorite articles is a critique of this essay.
That essay being
http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-con...
which basically arrives at the point that the audience is the shared ground where self reflexivity can take place.
That essay being
http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-con...
which basically arrives at the point that the audience is the shared ground where self reflexivity can take place.
June 24, 2022
Me ha parecido muy interesante su postura. El capitulo sobre Felix González-Torres me ha encantado ya que me gusta mucho su obra. Sin embargo, la última parte relacionada con Guattari no la he entendido muy bien y creo que está forzosamente incorporada a la temática del texto.
December 7, 2022
not sure how sound this is (especially because of the poor translation) but illuminating as a picture of a historical moment and (anti)teleology in the art world and the hype surrounding certain artists that i’ve never fully understood. pleasant to read, especially compared to the guattari.
September 12, 2020
A solid 4 star. Easy to skim a bit, didn't seem that dense. Got some good grounding out of it.
October 3, 2025
helt grei, litt preg av "nå skriver vi teori, folkens"
June 26, 2025
read both the french and english versions. i think bourriaud offers an interesting critical approach, it lacked the necessary depth or nuance and at times felt a bit out of touch with what the artists discussed were actually doing.
November 23, 2025
nicolas miej w opiece mój dyplom
August 2, 2009
i'm not done with this book, but i wrote a few emails about it in the Empyre list, here:
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/piperma...
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/piperma...
I'm curious about asking what we mean by queer and by relational. I
decided to look back at Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics for this
discussion, and I think that I would even claim that relational aesthetics
has a certain queerness about it, or an affinity with queer world
building, or a statement like michael warner's saying in Publics and
Counterpublics that "by queer culture we mean a world
making project". Bourriaud states
"before long, it will not be possible to maintain relationships between
people outside these trading areas... You are looking for shared warmth,
and the comforting feeling of well being for two? So try our coffee... The
relationship between people, as symbolised by goods or replaced by them,
and signposted by logos, has to take on extreme and clandestine forms, if
it is to didge the empire of predictability... Herein lies the most
burning issue to do with art today: is it still possible to generate
relationships with the world"?
In this initial gesture of relational aesthetics, I actually see a queer
gesture, in that if the relation is the form of the artwork, then the role
of the artist is to invite new forms of relation. (although later
Bourriaud tosses newness aside as a criteria for relational aesthetics)
Admittedly, I have a lot to learn about relational aesthetics and am
looking forward to learning from you all this month... Yet, if global
capital offers heteronormative couplings around a cup of starbucks coffee
(and this leaves aside a discussion of quer cooptation for later...), than
the move by artists to create new spaces to reimagine relationality can be
seen as a move outside of the heteronormative structures of biopower.
Here I am reminded of a quote from Myron Kreuger that "the only aesthetic
concern should be the quality of the interaction." My own work has been in
the new media trajectory, which can be seen as in a trajectory with the
interactive environments of Myron Kreuger. In Becoming Dragon, I sought to
explore the subject in transition, in a way creating a space of relation
between the audience and a subject who's state of being-in-transition or
becoming is foregrounded. The performance coincided with the beginning of
my hormone therapy, so it was also a meditation on the resonances between
a physical becoming or transformation and a digital becoming avatar,
becoming mythopoetic and becoming the body-in-transmission. I definitely
can see this as a queer relational piece, between genders as well as
between spaces, the physical space and the space of second life.
Which brings me back to an opening the question of queer. I appreciated
the quote from Foucault about homosexuality, but do we see queer in this
discussion as an active blurring of binaries, or of boundaries and
categories themselves? My own conception of queer began with my experience
in the alter-globalization and No Borders movements, in which I regularly
organized and struggled with people who had notions of creating their own
gender outside of male/female binary restrictions, and these notions
energized and were energized by anarchist and world-building political
strategies.
Ok, that's enough for now. I just wanted to get out some of what I was
thinking about...
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/piperma...
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/piperma...
I'm curious about asking what we mean by queer and by relational. I
decided to look back at Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics for this
discussion, and I think that I would even claim that relational aesthetics
has a certain queerness about it, or an affinity with queer world
building, or a statement like michael warner's saying in Publics and
Counterpublics that "by queer culture we mean a world
making project". Bourriaud states
"before long, it will not be possible to maintain relationships between
people outside these trading areas... You are looking for shared warmth,
and the comforting feeling of well being for two? So try our coffee... The
relationship between people, as symbolised by goods or replaced by them,
and signposted by logos, has to take on extreme and clandestine forms, if
it is to didge the empire of predictability... Herein lies the most
burning issue to do with art today: is it still possible to generate
relationships with the world"?
In this initial gesture of relational aesthetics, I actually see a queer
gesture, in that if the relation is the form of the artwork, then the role
of the artist is to invite new forms of relation. (although later
Bourriaud tosses newness aside as a criteria for relational aesthetics)
Admittedly, I have a lot to learn about relational aesthetics and am
looking forward to learning from you all this month... Yet, if global
capital offers heteronormative couplings around a cup of starbucks coffee
(and this leaves aside a discussion of quer cooptation for later...), than
the move by artists to create new spaces to reimagine relationality can be
seen as a move outside of the heteronormative structures of biopower.
Here I am reminded of a quote from Myron Kreuger that "the only aesthetic
concern should be the quality of the interaction." My own work has been in
the new media trajectory, which can be seen as in a trajectory with the
interactive environments of Myron Kreuger. In Becoming Dragon, I sought to
explore the subject in transition, in a way creating a space of relation
between the audience and a subject who's state of being-in-transition or
becoming is foregrounded. The performance coincided with the beginning of
my hormone therapy, so it was also a meditation on the resonances between
a physical becoming or transformation and a digital becoming avatar,
becoming mythopoetic and becoming the body-in-transmission. I definitely
can see this as a queer relational piece, between genders as well as
between spaces, the physical space and the space of second life.
Which brings me back to an opening the question of queer. I appreciated
the quote from Foucault about homosexuality, but do we see queer in this
discussion as an active blurring of binaries, or of boundaries and
categories themselves? My own conception of queer began with my experience
in the alter-globalization and No Borders movements, in which I regularly
organized and struggled with people who had notions of creating their own
gender outside of male/female binary restrictions, and these notions
energized and were energized by anarchist and world-building political
strategies.
Ok, that's enough for now. I just wanted to get out some of what I was
thinking about...
December 2, 2017
It must be the goal of the modern successful French intellectual (since Sartre? or maybe Rousseau?) to obfuscate a large amount of their writing, and when one can actually pick it apart, one may find the simplest obvious idea underneath the wreckage of syntax and think WTF is this, this stinks of academic class pretension and cultural superiority.
Thankfully for Bourriaud he does have some discernible good material in here, and takes an anti-globalization stance, as well as advocating for the artistic "relation" of "micro-utopias" between artist and audience, a sort of micro-political statement that's fun as well. Not that relational aesthetics seems to be all about that, if we are to believe there is great philosophical truth hidden beneath the obfuscated portions, then it is everything! The whole universe contained in this book!
As other reviewers have said, Nicolas sounds best when he's talking about artists and giving examples of their work. Theory sloughs off, idea shines through.
Read this book in a couple sittings and your writing may come out academicized, obfuscated, and impressive. I read it a couple weeks ago so I apologize for not using enough big words and being indiscernible. After all I only have a bachelor's degree, and thus could never be a modern French intellectual!
Quotes:
Maurizio Cattelan feeds rats on "Bel paese" cheese and sells them as multiples
For anything that cannot be marketed will inevitably vanish.
Before long, it will not be possible to maintain relationships between people outside these trading areas. So here we are summonsed to talk about things around a duly priced drink, as a symbolic form of contemporary human relations. You are looking for shared warmth, and the comforting feeling of well being for two? So try our coffee...
hands-on utopias
Otherwise put, the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and models of action withing the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist.
Social utopias and revolutionary hopes have given way to everyday micro-utopias and imitative strategies, any stance that is "directly" critical of society is futile, if based on the illusion of a marginality that is nowadays impossible, not to say regressive.
For a series titled Wedding Piece (1992), Alix Lambert investigated the contractual bonds of marriage: in six months, she got married to four different people, divorcing them all in record time. In this way, Lambert put herself inside the "adult role-playing" represented by the institution of marriage, which is a factory where human relations are reified.
Carsten Holler invented a drug that releases a feeling of love
Carsten Holler rendered poultry inebriated with the help of bits of bread soaked in whisky (Unplugged, 1993)
It seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present than to be on happier tomorrows.
Present-day art is roundly taking on and taking up the legacy of the 20th century avant-gardes, while at the same time challenging their dogmatism and their teleological doctrines.
Nobody nowadays has ideas about ushering in the golden age on Earth
When a collector purchased a work by Jackson Pollack or Yves Klein, he was buying, over and above its aesthetic interest, a milestone in a history on the move. He became the purchaser of a historical situation. Yesterday, when you bought a Jeff Koons, what was being brought to the fore was the hyperreality of artistic value. What has one bought when one owns a work by Tiravaija or Douglas Gordon, other than a relationship with the world rendered concrete by an object?
In a show at Le Magasin in Grenoble, Gonzalez-Torres altered the museum cafeteria by painting it blue, putting bunches of violets on the tables, and providing visitors with information about whales.
They are not naive or cynical enough "to go about things as if" the radical and universalist utopia were still on the agenda
Mike Kelley and Paul McCarthy have had Vito Acconci's performance "reenacted" by models, in soap opera sets (Fresh Acconci, 1995)
Present Continuous Past(s), Dan Graham's extraordinary 1974 installation, which broadcast the picture of anyone venturing into it, but with a slight time lapse, the filmed visitor shifted from the status of a theatrical "character" caught in an ideology of representation to that of a pedestrian subjected to a repressive ideology of urban movement.
The reigning ideology would have the artist be a loner, imagining them solitary and irredentist: "writing is always done alone", "we have to take refuge behind the world", blah, blah, blah... This rather naive imagery muddles two quite different notions: the artist's refusal of the communal rules currently in force, and the refusal of the collective. If we must reject all manner of imposed communalism, it is precisely to replace it by invented relational networks.
The principal argument held against relational art is that it supposedly represents a watered down form of social critique.
Those who see in a Tiravanija or Carsten Holler show nothing more than a phonily utopian pantomime, as was not so very long ago being advocated by the champions of a "committed" art, in other words, propagandist art.
Free parties lasting several days, thus extending the concept of sleep and wakefulness [how bs does that sound eh?]
The widespread failure of modernity can be found here through the way interhuman relations are turned into products, along with the impoverishment of political alternatives, and the devaluation of work as a non-economic value, to which no development of free time corresponds.
Ideology exalts the solitude of the creative person and mocks all forms of community.
When want to kill off democracy, we start by muzzling experiments, and we end up accusing freedom of having rabies.
The Situationist "constructed situation" concept is intended to replace artistic representation by the experimental realization of artistic energy in everyday settings.
[The powers that be are out to manipulate our own subjectivity for us, tell us what we like, who we are, what the collective society wants, etc.]
[The Guattari section is the worse, and reeks of the hinterlands of post-structuralism]
Thankfully for Bourriaud he does have some discernible good material in here, and takes an anti-globalization stance, as well as advocating for the artistic "relation" of "micro-utopias" between artist and audience, a sort of micro-political statement that's fun as well. Not that relational aesthetics seems to be all about that, if we are to believe there is great philosophical truth hidden beneath the obfuscated portions, then it is everything! The whole universe contained in this book!
As other reviewers have said, Nicolas sounds best when he's talking about artists and giving examples of their work. Theory sloughs off, idea shines through.
Read this book in a couple sittings and your writing may come out academicized, obfuscated, and impressive. I read it a couple weeks ago so I apologize for not using enough big words and being indiscernible. After all I only have a bachelor's degree, and thus could never be a modern French intellectual!
Quotes:
Maurizio Cattelan feeds rats on "Bel paese" cheese and sells them as multiples
For anything that cannot be marketed will inevitably vanish.
Before long, it will not be possible to maintain relationships between people outside these trading areas. So here we are summonsed to talk about things around a duly priced drink, as a symbolic form of contemporary human relations. You are looking for shared warmth, and the comforting feeling of well being for two? So try our coffee...
hands-on utopias
Otherwise put, the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and models of action withing the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the artist.
Social utopias and revolutionary hopes have given way to everyday micro-utopias and imitative strategies, any stance that is "directly" critical of society is futile, if based on the illusion of a marginality that is nowadays impossible, not to say regressive.
For a series titled Wedding Piece (1992), Alix Lambert investigated the contractual bonds of marriage: in six months, she got married to four different people, divorcing them all in record time. In this way, Lambert put herself inside the "adult role-playing" represented by the institution of marriage, which is a factory where human relations are reified.
Carsten Holler invented a drug that releases a feeling of love
Carsten Holler rendered poultry inebriated with the help of bits of bread soaked in whisky (Unplugged, 1993)
It seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present than to be on happier tomorrows.
Present-day art is roundly taking on and taking up the legacy of the 20th century avant-gardes, while at the same time challenging their dogmatism and their teleological doctrines.
Nobody nowadays has ideas about ushering in the golden age on Earth
When a collector purchased a work by Jackson Pollack or Yves Klein, he was buying, over and above its aesthetic interest, a milestone in a history on the move. He became the purchaser of a historical situation. Yesterday, when you bought a Jeff Koons, what was being brought to the fore was the hyperreality of artistic value. What has one bought when one owns a work by Tiravaija or Douglas Gordon, other than a relationship with the world rendered concrete by an object?
In a show at Le Magasin in Grenoble, Gonzalez-Torres altered the museum cafeteria by painting it blue, putting bunches of violets on the tables, and providing visitors with information about whales.
They are not naive or cynical enough "to go about things as if" the radical and universalist utopia were still on the agenda
Mike Kelley and Paul McCarthy have had Vito Acconci's performance "reenacted" by models, in soap opera sets (Fresh Acconci, 1995)
Present Continuous Past(s), Dan Graham's extraordinary 1974 installation, which broadcast the picture of anyone venturing into it, but with a slight time lapse, the filmed visitor shifted from the status of a theatrical "character" caught in an ideology of representation to that of a pedestrian subjected to a repressive ideology of urban movement.
The reigning ideology would have the artist be a loner, imagining them solitary and irredentist: "writing is always done alone", "we have to take refuge behind the world", blah, blah, blah... This rather naive imagery muddles two quite different notions: the artist's refusal of the communal rules currently in force, and the refusal of the collective. If we must reject all manner of imposed communalism, it is precisely to replace it by invented relational networks.
The principal argument held against relational art is that it supposedly represents a watered down form of social critique.
Those who see in a Tiravanija or Carsten Holler show nothing more than a phonily utopian pantomime, as was not so very long ago being advocated by the champions of a "committed" art, in other words, propagandist art.
Free parties lasting several days, thus extending the concept of sleep and wakefulness [how bs does that sound eh?]
The widespread failure of modernity can be found here through the way interhuman relations are turned into products, along with the impoverishment of political alternatives, and the devaluation of work as a non-economic value, to which no development of free time corresponds.
Ideology exalts the solitude of the creative person and mocks all forms of community.
When want to kill off democracy, we start by muzzling experiments, and we end up accusing freedom of having rabies.
The Situationist "constructed situation" concept is intended to replace artistic representation by the experimental realization of artistic energy in everyday settings.
[The powers that be are out to manipulate our own subjectivity for us, tell us what we like, who we are, what the collective society wants, etc.]
[The Guattari section is the worse, and reeks of the hinterlands of post-structuralism]
April 20, 2011
Bourriaud makes makes some bold statements and takes a stance. He speculates, and doesn't hesitate to say what he thinks, but stands behind it. He has written a manifesto for Pete's sake......who the hell does that kind of thing anymore?! In a way he is a quack, a little bit of a charlatan...and he risks falling flat on his face. It is this risk taking that makes Bourriaud, in my opinion, worth reading.
Keep in mind the essays in this book were originally published in a French publication in the mid nineties.
If you read this, you definitely should read Claire Bishop's response: Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. Here is a link to her essay:
http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-con...
Keep in mind the essays in this book were originally published in a French publication in the mid nineties.
If you read this, you definitely should read Claire Bishop's response: Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. Here is a link to her essay:
http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-con...
January 5, 2017
Un texto que a primera vista explica muchas cosas sobre el arte actual, pero solapadamente se han abierto ciertas críticas como rajaduras que lo están socabando bastante. Interesante para pensar y dilucidar
Want to read
February 24, 2012I've been avoiding this one because I know it's going to squeeze my brain into a tiny little raisin... but I think it's finally time I face it.
December 9, 2014
so inspirational!!!! inter the altermodern I go!! >.< wooosh
October 21, 2023
This is a book that it's hard to "review" because it's kind of a primary source rather than something I'd be interested in for its writing. I wanted to know what relational art was about, so I went to the source.
As Bourriaud recommends, it is easiest to start with the glossary:
What I found interesting about this is that "art has always been relational in varying degrees". A monument like a painting possesses, implies, and creates a social context of 'viewing a painting in a gallery'. It's designed to provoke a shared experience. By identifying the painting with the unique social situation it is designed to provoke, one can generalize art from the simple case of a monument to the broader case of 'something designed to provoke a social situation'.
The other thing I found interesting is the explicitly anti-capitalist nature of some of these ideas. Simply by coming at things from an angle of looking for novel aesthetics, art in its self-examination turned towards examining its own relationship to the conditions of production and consumption.
In particular, art has a kind of transparency of intent that comes with its unique kind of use-value. "Art is... a space emptied of the factitious." You can't pretend that art is something other than what its author chose for it to be, something 'thrown' into the artist's world outside of their control, and still be considering it as art. "The 'transparency' of the artwork comes about from the fact that the gestures forming and informing it are freely chosen or invented, and are part of its subject". This is what enables it to create authentic social situations. And indeed:
But overall, art is still valued for its aesthetic content. And relational art offers myriad aesthetic possibilities. I am reminded of Games: Agency As Art for the kinds of possibilities that open up when you consider a new aspect of human experience as a viable realm for aesthetics.
As Bourriaud recommends, it is easiest to start with the glossary:
Relational (aesthetics)
Aesthetic theory consisting in judging artworks on the basis of the inter-human relations which they represent, produce or prompt.
What I found interesting about this is that "art has always been relational in varying degrees". A monument like a painting possesses, implies, and creates a social context of 'viewing a painting in a gallery'. It's designed to provoke a shared experience. By identifying the painting with the unique social situation it is designed to provoke, one can generalize art from the simple case of a monument to the broader case of 'something designed to provoke a social situation'.
The other thing I found interesting is the explicitly anti-capitalist nature of some of these ideas. Simply by coming at things from an angle of looking for novel aesthetics, art in its self-examination turned towards examining its own relationship to the conditions of production and consumption.
Over and above its mercantile nature and its semantic value, the work of art represents a social interstice. This interstice term was used by Karl Marx to describe trading communities that elude the capitalist economic context by being removed from the law of profit: barter...By virtue of its unique relationship to use- and exchange-value, and its inherent social-relational aspects, art
encourages an inter-human commerce that differs from the "communication zones" that are imposed upon us.This resonated with me- I often sense that my everyday communication is mediated by corporations.
In particular, art has a kind of transparency of intent that comes with its unique kind of use-value. "Art is... a space emptied of the factitious." You can't pretend that art is something other than what its author chose for it to be, something 'thrown' into the artist's world outside of their control, and still be considering it as art. "The 'transparency' of the artwork comes about from the fact that the gestures forming and informing it are freely chosen or invented, and are part of its subject". This is what enables it to create authentic social situations. And indeed:
Artistic praxis appears these days to be a rich loam forsocial experiments, like a space partly protected from the uniformity of behavioural patterns. The works we shall be discussing here outline so many hands-on Utopias.
But overall, art is still valued for its aesthetic content. And relational art offers myriad aesthetic possibilities. I am reminded of Games: Agency As Art for the kinds of possibilities that open up when you consider a new aspect of human experience as a viable realm for aesthetics.
December 13, 2020
parfois cela semblait une liste de supermarché avec des noms d'artistes... je trouve qu'il manquait un peut d'argumentation pour vraiment distinguer l'art des années 90' des années 60' comme il le voulait.
few of my fav quotes :
« toute représentation (mais l’art contemporain modélise plus qu’il ne représente, s’insère dans le tissu social plus qu’il ne s’en inspire) renvoie à des valeurs transposables dans la société. Activité humaine basée sur le commerce, l’art est à la fois l’objet et le sujet d’une éthique : et il l’est d’autant plus que, contrairement à d’autres, il n’a pas d’autre fonction que de s’exposer à ce commerce. L’art est un état de rencontre. » (p.16)
« Si, comme l’écrit Serge Daney, « toute forme est un visage qui nous regarde », que devient une
forme lorsqu’elle est plongée dans la dimension du dialogue ? » (p.19)
« l’unité de base de l’esthétique de Gonzalez-Torres est double. Le sentiment de solitude n’est jamais figuré par « 1 », mais par l’absence du « 2 ». C’est pourquoi son oeuvre marque un moment important dans la représentation du couple, figure classique de l’histoire de l’art : il ne s’agit plus de l��addition de deux réalités fatalement hétérogènes, qui se complètent en un subtil jeu d’oppositions et de dissemblances, [...]. Le couple de Gonzalez-Torres se caractérise au contraire comme une unité double et calme, comme une ellipse » (p.54-55)
« La question posée par Gonzalez-Torres, lancinante, pourrait se résumer à : « comment puis-je habiter dans ta réalité ? » ou « comment une rencontre entre deux réalités peut-elle les modifier bi- latéralement? »... L’injection de l’univers intimiste de l’artiste dans les structures de l’art des années 1960 crée des situations inédites, et infléchit rétroactivement notre lecture de cet art vers une réflexion moins formaliste et plus psychologisante. » (p.56-57)
« Une représentation n’est qu’un moment M du réel ; toute image est un moment, [...] Cette temporalité est-elle figée, ou au contraire productrice de potentialités ? Qu’est-ce qu’une image qui ne contient aucun devenir, aucune « possibilité de vie », sinon une image morte ? » (p.86)
« Esthétique : Enterrer ses morts, rire, se suicider, ne font finalement que les corollaires d’une
intuition fondamentale, celle de la vie comme forme esthétique, ritualisée, mise en forme. » (p.118)
« Matérialisme critique : L’art actuel ne présente pas le résultat d’un travail, il est le travail lui- même, ou le travail à venir. » (p.120)
few of my fav quotes :
« toute représentation (mais l’art contemporain modélise plus qu’il ne représente, s’insère dans le tissu social plus qu’il ne s’en inspire) renvoie à des valeurs transposables dans la société. Activité humaine basée sur le commerce, l’art est à la fois l’objet et le sujet d’une éthique : et il l’est d’autant plus que, contrairement à d’autres, il n’a pas d’autre fonction que de s’exposer à ce commerce. L’art est un état de rencontre. » (p.16)
« Si, comme l’écrit Serge Daney, « toute forme est un visage qui nous regarde », que devient une
forme lorsqu’elle est plongée dans la dimension du dialogue ? » (p.19)
« l’unité de base de l’esthétique de Gonzalez-Torres est double. Le sentiment de solitude n’est jamais figuré par « 1 », mais par l’absence du « 2 ». C’est pourquoi son oeuvre marque un moment important dans la représentation du couple, figure classique de l’histoire de l’art : il ne s’agit plus de l��addition de deux réalités fatalement hétérogènes, qui se complètent en un subtil jeu d’oppositions et de dissemblances, [...]. Le couple de Gonzalez-Torres se caractérise au contraire comme une unité double et calme, comme une ellipse » (p.54-55)
« La question posée par Gonzalez-Torres, lancinante, pourrait se résumer à : « comment puis-je habiter dans ta réalité ? » ou « comment une rencontre entre deux réalités peut-elle les modifier bi- latéralement? »... L’injection de l’univers intimiste de l’artiste dans les structures de l’art des années 1960 crée des situations inédites, et infléchit rétroactivement notre lecture de cet art vers une réflexion moins formaliste et plus psychologisante. » (p.56-57)
« Une représentation n’est qu’un moment M du réel ; toute image est un moment, [...] Cette temporalité est-elle figée, ou au contraire productrice de potentialités ? Qu’est-ce qu’une image qui ne contient aucun devenir, aucune « possibilité de vie », sinon une image morte ? » (p.86)
« Esthétique : Enterrer ses morts, rire, se suicider, ne font finalement que les corollaires d’une
intuition fondamentale, celle de la vie comme forme esthétique, ritualisée, mise en forme. » (p.118)
« Matérialisme critique : L’art actuel ne présente pas le résultat d’un travail, il est le travail lui- même, ou le travail à venir. » (p.120)
April 5, 2025
Me ha encantado. Es un libro “poco concreto” pero que da muchas claves poéticas para una lectura del arte colectivo actual marcado por la sociedad, el espacio que cada una ocupa en ella (contexto) y sobre todo, el tiempo. La lectura es desde la modernidad hasta el arte de los años 90 y sus malentendidos.
He disfrutado un montón del glosario, en el que define términos fundamentales en el arte que muchas veces se olvidan en la práctica, (deberíamos repasarlos como rezo).
“Relaciones Pantalla” el epígrafe que más he disfrutado, extrañamente. “Todas las imágenes que conocemos son la consecuencia de una acción física”, recordar.
El texto termina con el epígrafe “Hacia una política de las formas”, analiza la obra de Guattari y Deleuze, centrándose más en la parte de la subjetividad individual, brevemente pero con cosas claves, por si te apetece profundizar más en alguno de sus textos.
En definitiva; un libro muy generoso en cuanto a referencias y categorías, para que conformes tu propia crítica respecto a preguntas realmente interesantes que no deja de plantear.
Muuuuuuua!!!!!
He disfrutado un montón del glosario, en el que define términos fundamentales en el arte que muchas veces se olvidan en la práctica, (deberíamos repasarlos como rezo).
“Relaciones Pantalla” el epígrafe que más he disfrutado, extrañamente. “Todas las imágenes que conocemos son la consecuencia de una acción física”, recordar.
El texto termina con el epígrafe “Hacia una política de las formas”, analiza la obra de Guattari y Deleuze, centrándose más en la parte de la subjetividad individual, brevemente pero con cosas claves, por si te apetece profundizar más en alguno de sus textos.
En definitiva; un libro muy generoso en cuanto a referencias y categorías, para que conformes tu propia crítica respecto a preguntas realmente interesantes que no deja de plantear.
Muuuuuuua!!!!!
April 18, 2025
I read this for my seminar presentation/presentation paper, and honestly… it was a bit of a struggle. I get that Relational Aesthetics is kind of a big deal in contemporary art theory, but reading it felt more like wading through abstract buzzwords than gaining clear insight. There were definitely some interesting ideas—like thinking of art as a social interaction or a lived, shared experience—but the delivery was so dense that it lost me more than once.
It’s not that the concept itself is uninteresting (because the idea of art existing in the space between people? That’s cool as hell), but the writing made it hard to stay engaged. I had to keep pausing to ask myself, “Okay, but what is he actually saying?” And when you’re prepping a presentation, that’s not really the vibe you’re hoping for.
That said, I do get why it’s cited in a lot of art discourse—it sparked a shift in how people think about participatory and socially engaged art. But would I revisit this by choice? Probably not. Two stars for concept, not for clarity.
It’s not that the concept itself is uninteresting (because the idea of art existing in the space between people? That’s cool as hell), but the writing made it hard to stay engaged. I had to keep pausing to ask myself, “Okay, but what is he actually saying?” And when you’re prepping a presentation, that’s not really the vibe you’re hoping for.
That said, I do get why it’s cited in a lot of art discourse—it sparked a shift in how people think about participatory and socially engaged art. But would I revisit this by choice? Probably not. Two stars for concept, not for clarity.
May 14, 2018
Generally speaking, the book is definitely not an easy read, albeit some articles (since the book itself is comprised of several articles which were somewhat adapted for the purpose of the book) are easier to take in than others.
It is worth reading slowly and carefully if the subjects Bourriaud deals with are of interest to you, though I would also recommend reading supplementary literature and/or articles after reading the book itself (while it is still fresh!) to help cement its basic principles in your mind.
Also, the glossary at the end is a very practical reference tool which I believe will come in handy for me in the future!
It is worth reading slowly and carefully if the subjects Bourriaud deals with are of interest to you, though I would also recommend reading supplementary literature and/or articles after reading the book itself (while it is still fresh!) to help cement its basic principles in your mind.
Also, the glossary at the end is a very practical reference tool which I believe will come in handy for me in the future!
October 16, 2025
de todo corazón me pareció mucho mas interesante postproduccion, no se si se escribió antes o después, pero me da la sensación de que en este el francés se pasa de pretencioso (((como no))). Aunque sinceramente no soy muy imparcial porque bourriaud hablando de arte ya me parece frivolo y distante d cojones sin meterme a fundamentos ((((y creo que el arte lleva intrínseco el sentir, si lo ignoras no tiene tanto sentido ser explicado)))). Pero bueno, en general me ha gustado leer sobre arte actual, arte interactiva, performatica, tan distinta entre si, pero no se refiere ya la mayoría del arte al arte de las relaciones humanas ???? nose tengo sueño le daré un repaso en algún punto
January 25, 2022
I‘m preparing a PhD project on a group of 90s artists and I knew I couldn‘t ignore a book that is so profoundly connected with how we perceive that decade‘s art history. I can safely say now that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Bourriaud‘s laughably naive reading of Marx is a pain, more so because he is French and the ideas he is presenting would majorly benefit from him spending some extra time to look into French art history of the 60s. In any case this is an interesting fossil of the birth of a particular demeanor found in art historically blind curators of today.
March 29, 2025
Makes some good points on the concept of relational aesthetics emerging as important in contemporary art and on the topic of trends emerging in new artists’ work in the gallery space.
But it was so hard to read at some points, like a riddle - especially towards the end. Plus the technological aspects are mostly outdated by now, as expected; and the glorification of certain types of art (performance or installations including public) over others was a bit unnecessary.
But it was so hard to read at some points, like a riddle - especially towards the end. Plus the technological aspects are mostly outdated by now, as expected; and the glorification of certain types of art (performance or installations including public) over others was a bit unnecessary.
December 2, 2025
Es bastante básico y un poco desactualizado, pero es una lectura clave si estás empezando a explorar lo relacional o lo participativo. Muchísimas obras contemporáneas hacen referencia a este libro, así que está bien tenerlo leído, además se lee rapidísimo. Me gustó especialmente que entra más a fondo en la práctica de Félix González-Torres, porque no hay tanto escrito sobre él. La manera en que articula el significado de su obra es realmente muy buena.
January 7, 2020
Una buena lectura para aprender más de arte, especialmente si se es alguien que no tiene mucho conocimiento en este ambito.
Encontré bastantes párrafos explicativos y otros que me revolvieron más; algunas frases muy útiles. Recomendaría ir buscando a los artistas que menciona el libro para entender mejor lo que se menciona.
Encontré bastantes párrafos explicativos y otros que me revolvieron más; algunas frases muy útiles. Recomendaría ir buscando a los artistas que menciona el libro para entender mejor lo que se menciona.
August 16, 2023
Essential reading for my dissertation, glad to have finally gotten around to reading it. I didn’t think it was too dense or difficult to read, but it seems I’m in the minority there from the other reviews I’ve read. I thought it was pretty straight to the point without too much rambly academic jargon that bogs a book down. Nice and easy. Very citable.
May 7, 2021
A bit dated now but still a landmark book about socially engaged art and participatory contemporary art. While a massive intellectual he writes (or is translated) in a way that wants to convey to any lover what this new(ish) genre is offering.
September 15, 2021
Pas top. Un ensemble de textes tentant de cerner le paysage de l'art contemporain des années 90 sans réelle vision. Brassage de beaucoup de noms sans en détailler vraiment les pratiques. Assez lassant dans l'ensemble, je n'en retiens pas grand chose.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews