But how do we measure or compare these relat ionships

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: died in 1991), urban violence (handgun laws in Unt itled [NRA] [1991]), and homosexualit y (Perfect Lovers [1991]). Bourr iaud, however, demotes this aspect of Gonzales -Torres’s pract ice in favor of it s “structure”— it s literal generosit y toward the viewer. Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics 65 portrait of the heterogeneit y of ever yday life,” and do not examine their relat ionship to it .37 In other words, although the works claim to defer to their context , they do not quest ion their imbr icat ion within it . Gillick’s pinboards are embraced as democrat ic in structure —but only those who own them may interact with their arrangement . We need to ask, as Group Mater ial did in the 1980s, “ Who is the public? How is a culture made, and who is it for?” I am not suggest ing that relat ional art works need to develop a greater social conscience —by making pinboard works about internat ional terror ism, for example, or giving free curr ies to refugees. I am simply wonder ing how we decide what the “structure” of a relat ional art work compr ises, and whether this is so det achable from t he work’s ostensible subject matter or permeable wit h it s context . Bourr iaud want s to equate aesthet ic judgment with an ethicopolit ical judgment of the relat ionships produced by a work of art . But how do we measure or compare these relat ionships? The qualit y of the relat ionships in “relat ional aesthet ics” are never examined or called into quest ion. When Bourr iaud argues that “encounter s are more import ant t han t he indiv iduals who compose t hem,” I sense t hat t his quest ion is (for him) unnecessar y; all relat ions t hat permit “dialogue” are automat ically assumed to be democrat ic and t herefore good. But what does “democr acy” really mean in t his context? If relat ional art produces human relat ions, t hen t he next logical quest ion to ask is what t ypes of relat ions are being produced, for whom, and why? Ant agonism Rosalyn Deut sche has argued t hat t he public sphere remains democr at ic only insofar as it s naturalized exclusions are t aken into account and made open to contest at ion: “Conflict , division, and inst abilit y, then, do not ruin the democrat ic public sphere; they are condit ions of it s existence.” Deut sche t akes her lead from Ernesto Laclau and Chant al Mouffe’s Hegemony and Sot St rategy: Towards a Radical Democrat ic Polit ics. Published in 1985, Laclau and Mouffe’s Hegemony is one of the fir st books to reconsider Left ist polit ical theor y through the lens of postst ructur alism, following what t he aut hor s perceived to be an impasse of Mar xist theor izat ion in the 1970s. Their text is a rereading of Marx through Gramsci’s theo r y o f h e g e m o n y a n d L a c a n ’s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s u b j e c t i v i t y a s s p l i t a n d decentered. Several of the ideas that Laclau and Mouffe put forward allow us to reconsider Bourr iaud’s claims for the polit ics of relat ional aesthet ics in a more cr it ical light . The fir st of...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/20/2014 for the course PHILOSOPHY 244 at University of Tennessee.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online