a conversation about conversation in art

It’s common for art to provoke dialogue. The response usually has no effect on the work. What about if the dialogue is the medium of the artwork?
This is an invitation to you, members of a wide public community to participate in a dialogue or discussion about dialogical, collaborative, participatory, socially engaging art.
Throughout this blog I want to discuss some of the key issues of this fairly contemporary, controversial art discourse.
I will define what ‘dialogical’ art is and how it relates and overlaps with ideas surrounded by relational aesthetics and other socio-political art that is being produced at the moment. How we have arrived at this point through art history and modern art theories, its functionality as a collaboration between artist and participants and some of the ethical questions that need to be addressed when criticising the works. Why the context is more important than content and how effective it is in a world filled to the brim with communication.

dialogical art

Dialogical artworks are conversational exchanges between people of different communities. They are socially engaged often closely aligned with the political. Interaction and aesthetic experiences of art can communicate to a range of people. Artists can use the public’s participation to get across a point and get a direct interpretation from viewers. Art historian, Grant Kester, in his key text 'Conversation pieces Community and Communication in Modern Art'(1) points out that ‘public artists want the viewer to move from their familiar boundaries, out of common language and existing representations.’ Dialogical aesthetic projects are collaborations with participants of different nationalities, cultures, religions and classes. It is a tool used to break down barriers or form networks between people from these different groups through interaction and participation.

For example a project by Suzanne Lacy ‘The Roof is on Fire’(1994) (Fig 1& 2) Is a performance by two hundred young people seated in cars, talking about the ‘problems faced by young people of colour in California: media stereotypes, racial profiling, under funded public schools’[2]. These conversations were listened to by people of the community and recorded by media organisations. It led these young Latino and African American people to take control of stereotypes being inflicted on them and speak out about how they were feeling. Giving a feeling of empowerment to those directly involved and sparking off ideas for ‘other collaborations and conversations’[3] that followed.


Fig 1 & 2
Suzanne Lacy:
‘The Roof is on Fire’

Political, littoral, collaborative, participatory, relational aesthetic art, interventionist, activist and new genre or temporary public art. Critic Claire Bishop defines these works all as ‘relational’ practices. Putting them all in the same category. She describes these ‘relational practices’ as ‘less likely to be works than social events, publications and workshops.’[4] Although they have lots of similarities in aims, there are defining differences between the tactics and processes of these genres as they use a diverse range of production and execution tools in their communication.

Nicholas Bourriaud coined the tern ‘relational aesthetic’ and wrote about it in a defining reading Relational Aesthetics 1998 ‘relational art (an art that takes as its theoretical horizon the sphere of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an autonomous and private symbolic space).’[5] He explains that our relational spaces being diminished globally, our worlds are becoming more and more impersonal. The machine is replacing many of our opportunities for exchange. People are beginning to make relationships on the Internet instead of in the flesh thus we are seeing new virtual communities being formed. ‘Audience is envisioned as a community: rather than one to one relationship between work of art and viewer, relational art sets up situations in which viewers are not just addressed as a collective, social entity, but are actually given the wherewithal to create a community.’[6] Relational art has some similarities and difference to dialogical, community based artworks. Participation is encouraged and the audience is active. There is the chance of randomness and undefined possibilities. The differences lie in its art institutional ties, typically relational aesthetic works are still going on within the gallery space. This is making them more easily understood as ‘art’. Thus the works are not usually related to a specific community but trying to ‘create’ communities. Bourriaud notes the works are ‘microtopian: it produces a community whose members identify with each other, because they have something in common.’[7]

New Genre Public Art crosses paths with Dialogical aesthetic, with many projects being described as being both. New Genre seems to be based more on a traditional sculptural model with community interest in mind and some public exchange. There is not always full interaction and the realisation of a work isn’t dependent on resolving through the participation. They seem to be more authored and contrived. Activist and interventionist generally (I’m making over-generalisations) is socially engaged, quiet often fighting to gain public awareness with ameliorative aims and utopian visions but is not engaging with a specific community.

[1] ‘Conversation Pieces, The Role of Dialogue in Socially Engaged Art’ by Grant Kester, in ‘Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985’
[2] Ibid Page 4

[3] Ibid Page 6
[4] Claire Bishop ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum’ Page 2
[5] Nicolas Bourriaud article ‘Relational Aesthetics 1998’ Edited by Claire Bishop ‘Participation’ 2006 Page 160
[6] Bourriaud quoted by Claire Bishop in ‘Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics’ Pages 54
[7] Ibid

post object

More traditional object based works are generally created by the artist (creator) and presented to the viewer with the impact or response having no effect on the work. Art doesn’t usually communicate. Historically it has been about personal vision and autonomy. The conceptual art movement of the 60’s rebelled against institutions and the increasing commercialisation and globalisation within the wider world and art world. Giving birth to ‘Art as an Idea’[1] it began to challenge the visual status of the work and the way that the viewer relates to it. Conceptual art changed collectors “possession” of items.

In the 1960’s and 70’s there was a gradual movement of works being produced that welcomed direct physical interaction, (work and viewer) it began to change the concept of aesthetic experience. Early video installations that held the viewer’s attention for a long period of time, the Fluxus instructions and emergence of performative art were precursory to interactive. For example Alan Kaprow’s ‘Happenings’ and Suzanne Lacy’s feminist performances and ‘New Genre Public’ artworks that emerged in the 80’s.

Dialogical aesthetic works have been compared to the Avant guard as the “shock of the new” because it pushes viewers out of our familiar boundaries and perceptual complacencies. Kester talks about Avant guard artists trying to create ‘A kind of epiphany that lifts viewers out of our shared discursive systems (linguistic, visual) or outside of common language.’[2] Dialogical aesthetics do encourage participants to challenge fixed identities; they do it through a cumulative process rather than a single shock for a more effective long-term impact.

[1] Alexander Alberro ‘Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity’ MIT 2003
[2]Grant. H Kester ‘Conversation pieces Community and Conversation in Modern Art.’ University of California Press, London 2004

communication

Communication has changed immensely in the last few decades, our senses are attacked constantly through intense advertising. Artists want to be able to communicate without bombarding the viewer in the way our mass media and advertising culture does. Desensitised viewers are hard to make and impact on. That is why rather than creating object based artworks that are supposed to create an instantaneous shock and realisation from the viewer it may be more beneficial to use different forms of information exchange. ‘Art is the place that produces a specific sociability, it tightens the space of relations unlike TV’[1] People may benefit more from talking, listening and being involved in exchange. Capitalist society and mass media aims to make public audiences passively absorb and art discourses demand the viewers to question.
[1] Claire Bishop ‘Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics’ October 110

outside of traditional art institutions

So if the dialogue is the process and medium, that means that there will be no end product? Sometimes the dialogue results in other works being produced such as film installations, public art projects and performances. Documented evidence may be displayed in exhibitions back in a typical art institution. In the previously mentioned work by Lacy “The Roof is on Fire” it was presented as a media event. Other works are more ephemeral, once the first hand exchange is over, the work is finished (other than if it is retold or written about). For example a project by Carsten Holler called “The Boudouin Experiment: A Deliberate, Non Fatalistic, Large Scale Group Experiment in Deviation 2001”[1](fig 2). Holler got a group of people together in Brussels and asked them to abandon their usual daily routine for one working day. A remembrance of the day that Kind Baudouin of Belgium took leave of his duties to let an abortion law be passed that he didn’t agree with. The huge ‘social action was not recorded. Without documentation of such an anonymous project, would we believe that the piece ever really existed?’[2] A contradiction in its own right because the project was obviously recorded on paper otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it. Visual documentation such as photographs and film are often employed by this style of project to create a greater impact and to get their ideas to reach a larger audience than just the first hand participants or viewers.
[1] Edited by Claire Bishop ‘Participation’ 2006
[2] Bishop, Claire. The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum
www.artforum.com/imprint/id

aesthetics

Another dialogical aesthetic example is that of Turkish collective group Oda Projesi. The three-person group began organising community events from their three room flat in the Galata District of Istanbul in 1997. Their apartment became a multipurpose public space, which became a gathering place for neighbours.[1] They have mainly organised arts based events, often for children. ‘Oda Projesi argue that they wish to open up a context for the possibility of interchange and dialogue’ and talk of ‘being “mediators” between groups of people who normally don’t have contact with one another’[2]. New Zealand artist, Eve Armstrong has similar objectives in dialogical aesthetics. In her recent six week residency exhibition, ‘SLIPs : Small Local Improvement Projects’ Armstrong ‘sent our fliers and emails asking for submissions from local residents for ways in which their community could be improved’ She worked from a gallery space in Wellington responding to many submissions. She helped set up networks and contact between people through meetings and discussions. “The projects evolve in a very different way from what you started with… and often its not until you’re actually engaged with it that the real project comes out.” [3]

Oda Projesi 'Picnic' 2001 Installation event with community participation organised by Erik Gonrich Oda Courtyard, Istanbul, June 10 2001



Claire Bishop writes about Oda Projesi saying ‘aesthetic judgements have been overtaken by ethical criteria’[4] Although the group has clearly stated that they are interested in creating relationships and are not worried about aesthetics. Bishop is still concerned with criticising the aesthetic levels of their work. ‘This discourse, she argues, has focused mainly on the artist’s process and intentions, or the project’s socially ameliorative effects, to the neglect of the works aesthetic impact.’[5] This is an important art criticising argument between ethics and aesthetics of dialogical works. It relates to the idea that context is much more important than a works content or medium. Suzanne Lacy says ‘Considering process and context as aspects of the actual work does not eliminate discussion of its aesthetic impact.’[6] Aesthetic impact is important and can be a powerful communication tool. Context is the most important aspect of dialogical practices and works should be able to be related to different contents. The idea of the work is always put before the medium. ‘Maria Lind writes of Oda Projesi, “They have loose connections with the art world and are less occupied with discussing what is and is not art; it seem to suffice that art offers a method and a zone for certain types of activities.”’[7] If art discourse fits the practice and style of the work (then why not?) Similarly, a group called Iconoclast 98 has voiced their aim to put context and idea before medium and if they need to they will turn to other mediums. They say, “In practice, the world of contemporary art has proved to be the most flexible environment for diverse projects, being a free zone of experimentation within the society at large….In fact, in IC-98’s idealist-pragmatic program the projects are labelled art only for strategic reasons – the strategy works as long as the concepts of art do not come to dominate the discourse…..you call yourself artist, just because it is institutionally convenient, because the very concept of ARTIST is obscure.”[8]

[1] Oda Projesi ‘oda projesi’ webpage http://odaprojesi.org/lang-pre/en
[2] Claire Bishop ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum’
www.artforum.com/imprint/id
[3] Renee Gerlia ‘Summer at Enjoy’ Eve Armstrong Website Salient www.salient.co.nz/index.php
[4] Claire Bishop ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum’
www.artforum.com/imprint/id
[5] Roche, Jennifer. ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006 www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php
[6] Suzanne Lacy, Model for Elements in Public Art – ‘Fractured Space’, from ‘Art in the Public Interest’ Ed. Pg 290
[7] Leisure Arts collective and blogg space “Maria Lind - Tactical/Agnostic Artist - Ted Purves” http://leisurearts.blogspot.com/2006/04/maria-lind-tacticalagnostic-artist-ted.html
[8] Iconoclast by Iconoclast Publications http://www.socialtoolbox.com/ 2004

judging

Dialogical and relational works cannot be judged on sensory guides like a single object would. As Grant Kester points out ‘Critics judgements are usually authorised by their pleasure based response’[1] Other factors come into a judgement of dialogical work, differently to the judgement of an object. Such as the communication, interactions, collaboration model and ethics, as well as the context and the content. Critics are evaluating the works ‘as being un aesthetic and gains no sensory stimulation therefore labelling it as failed art.”[2] We need to create new ways of judging these works taking all of the separate issues of dialogic practice into consideration. A problem that keeps’ arising is that critics are worried about not being sympathetic to the issue therefore works are not judged separately from the issues. ‘Interactions all require an argumentative framework where participants can exchange ideas, insights and observations. Solicit participation and involvement openly developed in consultation with viewer.’[3] Bourriaud suggested we ask ourselves the following questions when beginning to critic a relational work. “Does this work permit me to enter into dialogue? Could I exist, and how in the space it defines?”[4] I think we defiantly do need new models or methods to evaluate and criticise these projects. It’s important to discuss the ideas, differing points of view, observations and effects or results of the work.
[1] Grant. H Kester ‘Conversation pieces Community and Conversation in Modern Art’. 2004
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Nicolas Bourriaud ‘Relational Aesthetics’1998 page 109

collaboration and artist

The participants are creating the work through their interactions so this collaboration takes the ownership away from the ‘artist’. Or does it? If that were truly the case we would hear more about large group artworks rather that keep coming across certain ‘dialogical’ or ‘relational’ artists. The roles and responsibilities of artist, curator and critic are changing. Art works are being judged ‘ethically’ on how the collaboration takes place and how the author treats the participants. Factors that arise are whether the ‘co-creators’ are paid and how much recognition they actually get for helping with the creation and realisation of the work. How the author treats the participants is taken into consideration. As Bishop points out “Accusations of mastery and egocentrism are levelled at artists who work with participants to realise a project instead of allowing it to emerge through consensual collaboration.”[1] The critic seems to have been replaced with the curator in recent exhibitions, with very little criticism written about the work. Works have been ‘evaluated from an ethical viewpoint, (good versus bad models of collaboration) curatorial writing is concerned with fair mediation between artists and audiences so is often orientated toward ethical questions.’[2] Projects can be criticised on how the participants are treated and the way the work deals with the problem of working with race and class. It’s also important that projects celebrate the individuality and uniqueness as well as shared commonalities of the participants and their experiences.

[1] Roche, Jennifer. ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006 www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php viewed 17/04/07
[2] Roche, Jennifer. ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006
www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php

ongoing conversation

This is just the beginning of what I am hoping will be an ongoing conversation. Conclusions cannot be drawn at this early point in the discussion. I hope that this blog will draw enough interest for people to respond and add their points of view and ideas about dialogical projects going on at the moment. It is important with this style of art to discuss and analyse so writing about it should be treated in the same manner. I am interested to hear your views and hope that we can continue this conversation in more depth with relation to other examples. I hope to hear from you soon.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Claire Bishop ‘Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics’ October 110, Fall 2004 Pages 53-70

Edited by Claire Bishop ‘Participation’ 2006 Whitechapel London and MIT Press Massachusetts 2006

Grant Kester, ‘Conversation Pieces, The Role of Dialogue in Socially Engaged Art’ in ‘Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985’, ed. By Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung, Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005, Oxford, UK, Pages 76-88

Grant. H Kester ‘Conversation pieces Community and Conversation in Modern Art.’ University of California Press, London 2004

Nicolas Bourriaud ‘Relational Aesthetic’1998 (Dijon Les Presses du Reel 2002)

Suzanne Lacy, Model for Elements in Public Art – ‘Fractured Space’, from ‘Art in the Public Interest’ Ed. And intro by Arlene Raven, DA Capo Press, NY, 1993, page 295

Patricia C Phillips ‘Temporality and Public Art’, in ‘Critical Issues in Public Art, Content, Context and Controversy’, ed. By Harriet F Senio and Sally Webster, 1992, Harper Collins, NY, pages 295-304

Alexander Alberro ‘Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity’ Massacheusetts Institute of Technology 2003

Suzanne Lacy ‘Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art’ Seattle Bay Press 1995

Oda Projesi ‘oda projesi’ webpage http://odaprojesi.org/lang-pre/en 2004 viewed on 11/06/07

Renee Gerlia ‘Summer at Enjoy’ Eve Armstrong Website Salient www.salient.co.nz/index.php viewed 03/26/07

Claire Bishop ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum’
www.artforum.com/imprint/id viewed on 18/04/07

Jennifer Roche ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006
www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php viewed 17/04/07

Leisure Arts collective and blogg space “Grant Kester – Art forum – Claire Bishop (The continuing Saga)” May 2006 http:/leisurearts.blogspot.com/2006/05/grant-kester-art forum-claire-bishop.html viewed on 17/04/07

Leisure Arts “Art Forum – New Art Practices- Cross Pollination” March 2006 http://leisurearts.blogspot.com/2006/03/artforum-new-art-practices-cross.html viewed 17/04/07

Sarah Carrington ‘Generosity Projects’ February 2002 http://welcomebb.org.uk/projects/generosity.html viewed on 3/05/07

Images

1. The Roof is on Fire, Performance with 220 teenagers, by Suzanne Lacy, Annice Jacoby and Chris Johnson, Oakland, California (1994) Photograph by Sosa. Grant. H Kester Conversation pieces Community and Conversation in Modern Art. University of California Press, London 2004 page 4


2. The Roof is on Fire, Performance with 220 teenagers, by Suzanne Lacy, Annice Jacoby and Chris Johnson, Oakland, California (1994) Photograph by Saghafi. Grant. H Kester Conversation pieces Community and Conversation in Modern Art. University of California Press, London 2004 page 5

3. Oda Projesi, Picnic, 2001. Installaion even with communiy participation organised by Erik Gongrich Oda Courtyard, Istanbul. June 10 2001
Claire Bishop ‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. Art Forum’
www.artforum.com/imprint/id viewed on 18/04/07