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