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