SC2225 The Social Life of Art Aspect Readings Compiled

Aspect Readings taken from ‘Realm of the Dead and Undead’ and ‘ruangrupa’

Realm of the Dead and Undead – chosen excerpt

“In the case of Bukit Brown, we define the local community as the people who came together to do something about it. Some were descendants of the people buried there, some were academics and researchers, aka experts, many were just enthusiasts. They were equally important to us, though we were mainly fascinated by how people, who had no personal relations to the site, were attracted to it and felt strongly about saving it. We are part of the group who started SOS Bukit Brown, the advocacy group against the highway. We are also artists who create artwork about the case and continue to talk about the issue outside of immediate circles. We consider ourselves a part of the community we speak about.” - Pg 101

The excerpt struck me due to the variability with which the local community was defined. It defied what I conventionally assumed to be the parameters around what a community exactly is, such as geographical proximity, shared stakeholders or only the descendants of the interred. The idea of a community as something which is variable, and which extends beyond these limitations was a new and interesting concept, which also may explain how the conservation of the Bukit Brown cemetry came to be so prolific to the rest of Singapore. I could not help but compare this instance of conservation (or the lack thereof, from a governmental point of view) to other historic sites in Singapore which have been or might be renovated or torn down to make way for new developments. Such examples include the coloured Rochor HDB flats, parts of the Macritchie Reservoir and older buildings with rich historical, cultural and social value such as Pearl Bank, Golden Mile Complex and Peoples Park. The petitions to save these buildings, as well as the Bukit Brown Index highlight the potential for social art to incite discussions and interest amongst people, through the means of educating them on the historic value of places which might otherwise be thought of as too old or outdated.

Ruangrupa – chosen excerpt

“By the time ruangrupa was founded, Indonesia, as elsewhere across Asia and the rest of the world, had witnessed the important development of a new generation of artists exploring a multiplicity of artistic media. This exploration included the growing development of performance art,

street art, photography, video art and collaborative projects, many of which made use of workshop models in order to facilitate interactions with a broad range of communities. The founding of ruangrupa provided not only a new platform for art, but also a whole new infrastructure for a broad range of artistic and cultural practices that revolved around the desire to ‘expand the space and the public’ for art and culture in and beyond Jakarta.” - Pg 400-401

This paragraph struck me first and foremost due to the development and experimentation of contemporary Indonesian artists using different mediums in their art, as opposed to Supangkat’s claim earlier in the article that in the past, the main mediums for art in Indonesia were paintings and sculptures. I took for granted something that i thought was so commonplace in Singapore galleries today- the sheer diversity of the mediums shown in our galleries, both government-funded and institutionalised. It was quite baffling to be reminded of a time (before Marcel Duchamp’s revolutionary piece, Fountain, or even in the Modern Art era where Salons in Paris were the primary  methods through which ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art was defined) when the notion of art was, in the public sphere, largely confined to its aesthetic value and not much else. I was reminded of Melati Suryodarmo’s exergie- butter dance as an example of Performance/Conceptual art which may still be an underutillised medium in Indonesian art. The rising prominence of such ‘alternative’ mediums was also partially a result of artists protesting against Suharto in the 1980s, reflecting how art not only permeates through society, but is also constantly evolving as a response to the social environment. Such sentiments about the shifting focus on mediums was explored in another piece by Singapore’s Lee Wen’s Journey of A Yellow Man No. 11: Multi-Culturalism, which also mirrors the article’s claim that the idea of ‘contemporaneity’ is expanding beyong American or Euro-centric ideals. It is heartening to see that in this day and age, the function of art can be extended not only as a reflection or depiction of life and its perspectives, but rather a transformative force to effect social change in local communities.

Relationships between the two

Both excerpts discuss a shift beyond the simplistic relationship between the ‘artist’ and the ‘audience’ as producers and consumers of art respectively. In blurring the distinction between the two, as shown in Ruangrupa’s efforts to use ‘workshop models ‘ to interact with communities, the questions that art asks of us can effect change in our everyday lives beyond the scope of merely thinking about them philosophically in a gallery and forgetting about it once we step out. This rings true to what is mentioned earlier in the article as ‘recent heuristics...[which give] priority to direct encounter with art and its situations of occurrence’ in that, also for the Bukit Brown Index, communities and artists are immersed in the process of the work/piece thus experiencing firsthand rather than making them simply detached creators. However, it must be noted that between the two projects and excerpts, the aesthetic value might differ, since the Bukit Brown project is more grounded in reality(being described as Indexing rather than Creating the cemetery) to all involved, as opposed to the more abstract ideas presented by Ruangrupa in their attempts to push the boundaries of the Indonesian art scene. Hence, it is my opinion that the Bukit Brown Project tends to veer more towards the category of activism, and Ruangrupa to traditional notions of Art, despite the fact that there are clearly aspects of both Activism and Art interspersed between both projects.

Aspect Reading #2: Authors ALANA JELINEK & ANNA GRIMSHAW AND AMANDA RAVETZ

An artist’s response to an anthropological perspective – chosen excerpt

“Western, or Ancient Greek, knowledge is beset by a violent duality of self (good) and Other (horrific). This horror can only be minimised when the Other is assimilated as part of the same. As Simon Critchley, a scholar of Levinas and Derrida, puts it, ‘the Other is not allowed to be other; it must be an extension of the self or the same’ (1992: 31). Misogyny, Orientalism, primitivism and, in the case of animals, anthropomorphism, can all be understood as cultural manifestations of the extension of the self. They are projections of the self onto the other, obliterating the immanent, unique qualities of the other as Other.” Pg 505

and

 “Gardner, not understanding the discipline of art and not caring to understand it from the inside, instead works within the stereotype of an artistic practice, assuming it is primarily about a relationship to aesthetics. This is a similar mistake to the one that traditional art historians make of modern and contemporary art practices. Gardner uses his aesthetics, his beautiful cinematography, to make claims to being an artist and therefore to the right to say anything he likes, however he likes, in a way that clearly jars with anthropologists. The reason he is not an artist lies in the fact that he has an unproblematic and unproblematised relationship to beauty. It is not simply because his films ‘do not look like’ art films but because he has a relationship to aesthetics that is simplistic and un-reflexive. It is in the gift of anthropologists to ascertain whether, in appropriating the methods and products of art, he or anyone else are making contributions to the field of anthropology. As an artist, I can say Gardner is either not making art or not making any contribution to the field of art.” - Pg 504

Concepts involving the self and other often spark debate on how to reconcile one’s individual rights and freedoms with the good of the collective. We see in the examples given - Misogyny, Orientalism, primitivism- echoes of the effects of what happens when one social group tries to classify or invoke an impact on another. Whilst the intent may be good, the mechanism through which this is achieved can be questionable. This struck me in particular because, sociologically, we seem to be at a point in time where there is an impression that society is moving forward, away from ‘backward’ ideologies which fueled the Holocaust and Colonialism. However, I believe that there are still as many nuanced and arbitrary social divisions interwoven in human interaction now, despite the fact that we may be becoming more willing to discuss these complex issues with each other. It is admirable that our species tries to rectify such problems about the lack of understanding between groups, but to say that we are definitively moving away from discrimination, or ‘projections of the self onto the other, obliterating the immanent, unique qualities of the other as Other’ would be a gross oversimplification. This has been proven time and time again, through repetitions of Stanley Milgram’s famous psychological experiment which sparked a conversation about obedience to authority figures

In the earlier part of the reading, when mentioning the differing ethical concerns and boundaries which surround art and ethnography, Jelinek uses the example of Artur Zmijewski’s 2005 piece Repetition, which recreates the (in)famous Stanford Prison Psychology experiment. This stood out to me, because as (potential) Psychology major, it was interesting to reconcile the 2 differing standards of ethics, and reminded me of Marina Abramovic’s Rhythm 0, Tania Bruguera’s Yo Tambien Exijo , as well as Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece. I was intrigued by this discussion as to why art seems to have a more ‘liberal’ or ‘wide’ range of ethical allowances than ethnography, or any of the social sciences seems to have. A part of it seems to stem from the participary/ consentual nature of ethnography and psychological experiments. In art involving only the traditional ‘artist’ ie. the person who has devised the concept  of the piece, their participation seems almost agiven. Any other participation from ‘spectators’ who may proceed to interact with/create the artistic process is left to their own jurisdiction. Ethnography and Psychology seems to prioritise the overall well-being (in its organic state) of a person/ community over anything else, which can sometimes come into conflict with the themes an artist might be trying to push through, such as Pain or Discomfort. Pragmatically speaking, it is difficult to force people who do not want to step outside their comfort zone into a state of discomfort, due to the fact that participating in a piece requires in and of itself the consent of individuals. I’d like to highlight here that I am not implying there is a distinct line between art and ethnography, or between the ‘start’ and ‘end’ of an artistic project. I am merely giving insight towards the physical/ legal boundaries when art and ethnography mix, especially when one party’s intent is in direct contradiction to another. An example of ethics causing such a dilemma is in the case of consensual homicide, such as that of Armin Meiwes and his victim. I am in no way trying to posit that his act of murder and cannibalism is related to art, but merely using this example to further my point about consent, the ethics which surround it and its implications on others. To those who argue that Bruguera’s piece was not art but merely

The ethnographic turn – and after: a critical approach towards the realignment of art and   anthropology – chosen excerpt

“non-traditional forms (for example, film, exhibitions, photo-essays, soundscapes) to be taken seriously as anthropology. All too often they are seen as secondary to anthropology proper or understood as a sort of popularisation. Moreover, work considered experimental within anthropology can be viewed as aesthetically limited by those in the creative arts for whom the critical interrogation of form or medium is central to their approach.” - Pg 419

and

“Instead Clifford outlined a much broader and more complex landscape that promised to bring anthropology back into dialogue with a host of other practitioners who shared an interest in the ethnographic, understood, as he subsequently explained to Coles, to involve ‘a willingness to look at common sense, everyday practices – with extended, critical and self-critical attention, with a curiosity about particularity and a willingness to be decentered in acts of translation’ (Clifford 2000: 56). In extending the definition in this way, ethnography became a general term that encompassed a range of activities, practices and sites. Such a conception offered a different way of thinking about – and, from both anthropologists’ and art historians’ points of view, evaluating – certain developments in contemporary art. It also made possible a new dialogue between practitioners working in fields hitherto divided by professional conventions and expectations...The subsequent essays traversed an extensive terrain of ethnography – one predicated on Clifford’s refusal to separate ‘avant-garde experiment’ and ‘disciplinary science’ (1988: 12). Instead he proposed to ‘reopen the frontier’, since, as he puts it, ‘the modern division of art and ethnography into distinct institutions has restricted the former’s analytic power and the latter’s subversive vocation ” - Pg 420-421

and

“Drawing on the ideas of artist Joseph Kosuth, he proposed a new configuration between the two fields – what he termed ‘ethnographic conceptualism’ (2013a, 2013b). In particular, he was attempting to establish an alternative alignment of art and anthropology predicated on a radical departure from conventional understandings of the ethnographic. Following the example of conceptual artists like Kosuth, who abandoned the traditional art object in favour of ideas or concepts and collapsed the distinction between artist and audience, work and commentary, Ssorin-Chaikov made a similar case for anthropology. Ethnography was no longer seen to be about the description and representation of pre-existing social and cultural realities, but as ethnographic conceptualism, ‘it explicitly manufactures the social reality that it studies and in so doing goes well beyond a mere acknowledgement that we modify what we depict by the very means of this depiction’ (2013a: 8).” - Pg 425

These particular passages struck me because, to summarize (assuming i’ve understood them correctly), they discuss a shift in the dynamics in both art and anthropology, as well as the relationship between the two. Increasingly, the older ways of what were thought to be distinct lines between artistic practices and the process of ethnography are blurring together. By creating a more holistic and inclusive understanding of what can be defined as art/ethnography, the parameters of both are being expanded, allowing for a more creative process for both artists and ethnographers to showcase and formulate their methodology. In particular, the phrase “breaking with convention is a privilege for those with tenure”made me laugh purely because it was so relatable. I have often entered an existential dilemma about why I am slogging through 4 years of university just for a piece of paper. Unfortunately, my experiences with the local education system up till this point have almost completely made me lose an interest in studying. Not to mention, in this faculty of arts and social sciences, it is easy to be swept away by the current of large words and abstract concepts. I will say however, that I am glad to be witnessing this potential shift in the way academics view ethnography and how they chose to evaluate it. If I were given the chance to do a research project on sociology, I would definitely be much more willing to express my findings through a creative/artistic project rather than through a typed out paper. There are also many emotions and meanings which can be conveyed through art, which may not otherwise come across through academic writing, especially for those who are not as well-versed in it (myself being a prime example). The GENERATIVE process of art is integral to the study of humans because it reflects the transient nature of our societal norms and ideas, as well as integrates whatever we find into life, beyond just reading a paper, putting it down, then continuing on with life as per usual. The process is iterative in that every experience is contingent on the different people who participate in it, thereby giving a more context-specific assessment of those involved.

Relationships between the two

Admittedly, it is a little difficult to reconcile my conclusions from the two readings, as well as the effect they have produced on me. Overall, I feel glad and happy about the direction that sociology and art are taking with respect to how they interact with each other. The idea of consent mentioned in the first part of this Aspect reading ties in greatly with the idea of ethnography/artistic practices moving towards a case whereby ‘it explicitly manufactures the social reality that it studies and in so doing goes well beyond a mere acknowledgement that we modify what we depict by the very means of this depiction’

The manufacturing of such a social reality is partly contingent on the participant’s (artists/viewers/ anything in-between) willingness to want to learn something new or be a part of some form of a change (reflection, refraction, or representation) in society. The ethics behind such consent can often lead to problems in the execution of art or of ethnographic studies, but I believe that the more people become educated and exposed to the benefits of having an open mind and participating in things outside of their comfort zone, the more they will be willing to look at the world not only for its aesthetics, but also for how they can derive meaning from these aesthetics, and transmit this into their own social practices and self-evaluations.

Aspect Reading #3: Readings by Tom Finkelpearl and Tim Ingold

KNOWING FROM THE INSIDE – chosen excerpt

“ To date, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Schneider and Wright 2006, 2010), collaborations between anthropologists and arts practitioners have been few, and those that have taken place have not all been entirely successful. Once again, the source of the difficulty lies in the identification of anthropology with ethnography. For the very reasons that render arts practice highly compatible with the practice of anthropology are precisely those that render it incompatible with ethnography. On the one hand the speculative, experimental and open-ended character of arts practice is bound to compromise ethnography’s commitment to descriptive accuracy. On the other hand, the retrospective orientation of ethnography runs directly counterto the prospective dynamic of art’s observational engagement.” - Pg 8

To begin, it is important to note the difference mentioned here between sociology, anthropology and ethnography. Whilst sociology seems to be the study of social structure and social relationships, anthropology seems to be the science behind humankind as a whole. Ethnography involves ‘working within a community, learning their culture, and letting the subjects of your research... present their own point of view in their own words’. Hence, when it is said that arts practices are highly incompatitble with ethnography, but compatible with anthropology, the author brings up the distinction of ethnogrphy as a ‘ commitment to descriptive accuracy’. This connotes that, as far as possible, ethnographers try to present a detailed report of a community from what is to be perceived as an objective point of view. I have often heard the term ‘seeing the strange in the familiar’ used when describing the approach social scientists (especially sociologists) employ to report their findings. However, I would argue that it is almost impossible to come from a place of complete neutrality and objectivity. By pure virtue of the fact that the person conducting the research has had their own form of belief systems and, despite trying as hard as possible not to take that into account, also continues to conduct research with other fundementally biased humans highlights the sheer feat of deducing any practice or trait of a community as ‘unique to the community’ or ‘universal to humanity’.

Participatory Art. - chosen excerpt

“So, in broad strokes, participatory art can be considered to fall into three categories: relational, activist, and antagonistic. But while the motivations in the three cases are quite different as are the means, all depend on participation. A painting alone in a gallery would still be a work of art. If

Tiravanija prepared pad thai and no participants arrived at the gallery, however, there would be no artwork, and just so for Project Row Houses and “Tatlin’s Whisper.” In these projects, it is the social space, the interactive moment, that is the subject of aesthetic consideration, not the food, architecture, or equine choreography... Agreeing on the possibilities of participation as art is one thing. Agreeing on aesthetic criteria, however, remains particularly difficult in the light of the diversity of practices and the fact that the aesthetic, ethical, and social values can be diametrically opposed. While one artist or critic might seek healing through participation, another might valorize rupture. Some see political potential in artistic social action; others see the likelihood of the cooptation of artists and communities. But perhaps the most fundamental questions arising from participatory art revolve around authorship and use.” Pg 4-6

Tackling the idea of aesthetics has been a long journey for myself, who, a few years ago, thought that it just meant having a certain visual style or prettiness to it. For me in the past, aesthetics was a purely visual concept. A quick google search of the definition of the word Aesthetic brought up “ branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of art, beauty and taste and with the creation or appreciation of beauty. My eyes have been opened to the beauty which arises not purely from colour or photo composition, but also in seeing people come together in times of strife or political instability. The complex and intricate ways in which humans interact with each other never ceases to amaze me, and I am glad that more artists are starting to emerge to educate the public about what aesthetics mean beyond the visual. By extending and exploring what it means to be aesthetic (which is such a fundemental part of art in and of itself), the meaning of art can be expanded to incorporate activities which evoke social change, instead of merely seeing these activities as ideas separate from art. To not see these as art would be to denounce the beauty present in social interaction and in humans across time and space.

Reading the two together

Aesthetics and the parameters surrounding participatory/community art can at times come into conflict with one another. I mentioned in an earlier aspect reading about the ethics surrounding art and anthropology. It is imperative that the uniqueness of the rituals or practices of certain communities be recognised for their beauty, as not doing so would undermine the notion that every human is unique in their own way. Participatory art is also aesthetic/ beautiful because it at times brings iterative and lasting change to communities, or explore the questions we never thought about asking ourselves. This can be seen in pieces such as Moon by Ai Weiwei & Olafur Eliasson, Rirkrit Tiravanija's untitled 2018 (the infinite dimensions of smallness), and David Belt’s Glassphemy!

Participatory art also brings to light the aesthetic value of the process or journey of artistic practices, rather what can be commonly thought by the layman to be the ‘point’ of art: the product itself. Too many times, have pieces been oversimplified-through an involuntary lack of understanding or otherwise- due to a viewer’s inability to reconcile the piece with what they perceive to be natural or to have meaning. The curiosity and action incited by community and participatory art allows such change and, possibly, discourse generated to spread to a wider audience, as well as to incite the desire to learn more.

Bibliography

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-anthropology-ethnography-and-sociology

Aspect Reading #4: Readings by Strohm and Marrero-Guillamon

Strohm- Chosen excerpt

To a degree, fieldwork is thus always already collaborative, always already a working together (though not necessarily sharing a goal) for the invention of new relations, entities, subjectivities, worlds (Dattatreyan and Marrero-Guillamón, introduction). Here, it is important to remember that knowledge is produced not discovered; such interventions and enactments are the conditions of possibility for anthropological knowledge and as such invite different methods for thinking the world. It is in this sense that we must surely acknowledge that there is a colaboring always already at work within fieldwork, however minimal it may be. Without this minimal degree of collaboration, from asking questions to disagreeing, there would be no encounter or exchange, no fieldwork, no field, no knowledge. - Pg 251

Strohm discusses the breaking down of the barriers between the social scientist/ ethnographer and the experimental subject/ community being studied, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between the two parties. In the reading, I feel that Stuart Mclean’s quote ‘What if instead anthropology were to entertain the possibility that its most radical potential to intervene in the world consisted not in describing an assumed to be given reality but in putting such a reality into question?’ very succinctly and accurately summarizes this idea by highlighting the numerous possibilities brought about just through intervention alone.

Additionally, there is much to say about how collaboration makes projects speculative by definition. The notion that ‘knowledge is produced not discovered’ was very new to me, as I had always been under the impression that there was an infinite amount of information to be made known to us over time, but never did i think about whether or not that information was already there, or needed to be created. But i guess there needs to be some kind of catalyst to foster the production of this knowledge, rather than seeing the entire process as a kind of archeological experiement in trying to dust off and view existing notions. Such an antiquated idea would kind of be an insult to the whole process of ethnography, as it devalues one of the primary components essential to its conception: that of human interaction, and by extension, the unpredictability which can arise from placing two people of different cultures/ two people with different motives together. It is only through this process of colaboring that both parties can gain knowledge about each other, but also produce an entirely new set of relations unique to the project at hand.

Marrero-Guillamon – Chosen excerpt

In contrast, the kind of ethnographic collaboration I am attempting to conceptualize in this chapter, structured around the co- production of ‘public platforms’, had little, if any, theoretical ambition. Theorization was neither a shared disposition amongst participants, nor the aim of the collaborations that ended up taking shape. In fact, it is not unlikely that we collaborated with different motivations, and engaged in these public outings for equally different reasons (see Kelty et al. 2009). What these platforms had in common was an aspiration to act as ‘hosting devices’ – in other words, to enact a space of hospitality, of structured (and fragile) reciprocity between guests and hosts. - Pg 188

This paragraph was written in contrast to an analysis of what Marrero-Guillamon called ‘the production of conceptual and theoretical knowledge as the prime locus, as well as the final aim, of a collaborative refunctioning of ethnography’, with reference to readings by Holmes & Marcus, and Rappaport. The contension between these two points of view reflect very accurately the struggle between, and attempts to reconcile, effects produced by parties with separate and (at times) confliction views. Where  Holmes & Marcus, and Rappaport might prioritise ‘epistemic’ collaboration in a very scientific way( much like a scientist might want all changing factors to be accounted for in her experiment) to produce a set of knowledge about the existing state of the community, Marrero-Guillamon seems to place more emphasis of the effect of these collaborations, with no set/concretised goals to attain knowledge in mind. Rather, it is the aim to create a public platform

Relationship between the 2

I’m going to be honest and say that to this day, I am still unsure for the exact nature of Art and Anthropology producing imminence, but reading these 2 pieces definitely painted a clearer picture for me. They both explore the idea of pushing the boundaries of both art and anthropology, their generative effects on the world, as well as the blurring of lines between what may have previously been thought of as 2 completely separate fields.

Both readings also emphasize that there does not need to be a common goal in mind for either the ethnographer or the community being studied, in that the actions taken eventually by both parties will result in the same results, to be interpreted differently by the different parties ( Strohm’s ‘different methods of thinking [about] the world” with different motives (ie. Whether or not the result of the project adequated fulfiled the quest for knowledge/social change/broader artistic endeavors etc.) However, that is not to say that the expected outcome for all parties (community, artists, ethnographer) is always in line with each other/ not in conflict. But this is where the idea of co-labouring, and Marrero-Guillamon’s ‘fragile reciprocity’ comes into play, with each stakeholder compromising to deal with real-world issues which arise, instead of merely striving for theoretical accuracy, or an ‘untainted’ ethnography.

This reminded me of a project I read about recently: Creativity Explored by artist Florence Ludins-Katz and her husband, psychologist Elias Katz where they allow artists with developmental disabilities to congregate, learn from each other, and even earn financial benefits from the production of their art. Although this may not strictly be an anthropological or ethnographic study in its purest form, the project does encompass the bringing together of different groups of people ( artists, persons with disabilities, buyers who wish to contribute to the organisation etc.) with different motives ( making money, artistic expression, giving voices to marginalised members of society, engaging in conversations to spur a gaining in knowledge and creative ideas etc.)

Ultimately, both readings seem to conincide in their experiences and advocacy for greater interaction between artists, conceptualists, as well as ethnographers in social art exhibitions/projects. I cannot, however say that I am entirely convinced of the complete and utter combination of the two, as, being a Psychology student, the importance of unbiased date collection in experiments is of great importance. Experiment conductors may even go so far as to ‘double blind’ their subjects, to prevent subconscious bias from affecting their results, but i see that in this pariticular context of sociology and art, greater liberties can (and sometimes must) be taken, if we are to gain knowledge through the formation and study of relationships between human beings.

Aspect Reading #5 – Readings by Boudreault-Fournier and Davis

Davis- Chosen Excerpt

“In some ways, the category of “social practice” attempts to forestall the problem of its own incorporation into the system by deliberately removing itself from commerce and making outwardly avowed political solidarity part of its defining trait. Yet the fixation on escaping the commercial art world itself shows a narrowed understanding of art’s role in a capitalist society. Art has a variety of functions for today’s ruling class—and these include many that have little to do with raw profit. In fact, one classical function of art is precisely to allow robber barons and rapacious corporations to symbolically associate themselves with something that distances them from their own ideology, allowing them to put on a good face. Among the patrons listed on the Project Row Houses website, along with Chevron and Ikea, is Bank of America—currently in the crosshairs for making a deliberate policy of deceiving home owners hit by the housing crisis, extracting extra profits by keeping them languishing in misery.”

This reading explores the relationship between the world of art/aesthetics and the so-called ‘real world’, encompassing aspects such as politicisation and capitalism, which some have posited, may be ‘tainting’ the true integrity of art, by engendering art with a motive, rather than, say, making art for arts sake. I was particularly fascinated by the paragraph on the inception of Bauhaus and Ikea, which is something that had been mentioned in an earlier lecture, but that i forgot to look into. It is a unique way of incorporating capitalism into the world of art, by effectively marring the two in a way that produced one of the biggest furniture brands known worldwide today.

Social practice as a way to remove itself from commerce is a bold and innovative move, but one that, as i agree with Davis, depicts a relatively close-minded understanding of the part art can play in society. To remove ‘true art’ from commerce is to create/emphasize the non-existent/ideological distance between the two, and therefore directly contradict that age-old saying “ Art imitates life, Life imitates art”. It would be to unfairly discount the effects created by art on society, and vice versa, which, to me, seems entirely contradictory to the whole notion (and even the words themselves) of Social Practice.

Boudreault-Fournier – Chosen Excerpt

“The art critic defines relational art as a “Group of artistic practices that takes as a theoretical and practical starting point all human relations in their social context, rather than in a private and autonomous space” (Bourriaud 2001:117).Bourriaud also explains that contemporary artists aim at constructing “artistic practices in correspondence” or forms of art whose substratum is the production of inter-subjective relations (Bourriaud 2001:15). To put it plainly, “the idea of relational aesthetics is that an art form is a form of social exchange” (Martin 2007:370; my translation). It is a call to create beyond the walls of museums and to dig into human relations. It is a shift from the artwork as an object to the artwork as an event (Martel 2008-2009:28). In this context, human relationships become the artistic work (Schneider & Wright 2010:11), implying that they can be viewed as aesthetic experiences (Kester 2004).”

The idea of relational art is something my group tackled in our presentation titled Nerve, so it was interesting for me to get a more in depth understanding of Relational Art/Aesthetics used in a real-life context, such as the project Echo mentioned in the reading. I was particularly interested in this because of my background in Music (12 years in choir, 10 years studying piano), and the link i made from the project to a more commercial/easily accessible level: the app Smule:Sing! on the apple app store, which strikes me as another example of a ‘Microtopia’ which was introduced in the reading as well. Just for context: the app allows for collaboration between singers and music producers all over the world by overlaying one voice with another user’s voice, and a separate user’s instrumental production of the background music. In this way, although it may not strictly be classified as ‘art’ ( which i would argue against, personally, because i feel that music still constitutes as art), it encapsulated this idea of creating a ‘non-physical’ space for collaboration and exploration. As a social media app, it also allows users to comment on each others’ productions, thus leading to a discursive, and therefore generative (in my opinion, at least), practice which might possibly be considered to be art.

This is also poignant to me due to the fact that in class, we were introduced to the idea of relational art through Rirkrit Tiravanija and tania bruguera, except I did not exactly have the right frame to understand it at the time. The ‘call to create beyond the walls of museums and to dig into human relations. It is a shift from the artwork as an object to the artwork as an event’ is also significant in that it reflects our ever-expanding definitions of not only what the definition of art is, but also the definition of what preconceived notions are, which echoes the themes brought about in the postmodernist movement.

Relationship between the two

Even though the two readings expand more on issues which have been covered earlier in the course, seeing the many different examples presented in the two articles helped to solidify my understanding a lot. In particular, it brought me back to the idea of Ethics which i discussed in an earlier aspect reading, as the changes in ethics across human history have both been affected by, and have affected Art as a whole. The piece entitled Helena by Marco Evaristti encapsulates this by questioning how far we are willing to go for art’s sake, and how much intersection there is between our ‘real lives’ and what many conventional people may perceive to be a distant or removed separate world of art. In Davis’s reading, he utilises the idea of commerce/capitalism to reflect this lens of the intersection between art and life, whilst in Boudreault-Fournier’ reading, the intersection is highlighted through art’s ability to influence social trends and transcend physical space in order to greater facilitate collaboration, and by extension discussions, creativity and interconnectedness (a staple of relational aesthetics/Social practice).

I’d link Helena to pieces I’ve mentioned in earlier aspect readings: Cut Piece and Rhythm 0, as well as an additional piece I’ve discovered, The Maybe where Tilda Swinton ‘plays dead’ in the MoMa. It has been said that the piece is an ‘exploration of the links between the “live” (performance art) and the “death” of the gallery space (its tendency to freeze in time and space that which is displayed there’ which i feel accurately ties in to the constant desire to relate Art with our daily lives, and might be reminiscent of Boudrealt-Fournier’s proposal of a non-physical space for collaboration. The definition of Art, Anthropology and the Relationship between the two is ever changing, and it seems to be humanity’s duty to continue pushing these boundaries, tying in to the idea of the ethnographic turn and imminence, so that anthropology and art can move towards playing more active and relatable roles in our lives, giving it greater meaning. The notion of art in relation to anthropology, therefore, seems to be encapsulated (to me) in an anecdote at the beginning of Davis’ reading which showcases the need for such revolutions in art: “I was doing big, billboard-size paintings and cutout sculptures dealing with social issues, and one of the students told me that, sure, the work reflected what was going on in his community, but it wasn’t what the community needed. If I was an artist, he said, why didn’t I come up with some kind of creative solution to issues instead of just telling people like him what they already knew. That was the defining moment that pushed me out of the studio.”

References

Lever, C. 2013. Tilda Swinton’s The Maybe. Retrieved from: http://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/2664/tilda-swintons-the-maybe

SC Lect 1

Depicting the world as it is vs as it could be

Both art and anthro produce/invent/create relations between people places and things.

Understand what is happening by creating relations between them

Why does it matter?

Santiago sierra and prostitutes

Ethical problems ? ^^

Tania bruguera

What it provoked in you, feelings, thinking for 2 readings. Relationship between the 2? How to grade???? First person!!!