Gillick is t ypical of his gener at ion in nding no

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: hat part of the building . . . the architect s came to a better conclusion about how to resolve their designs, without the need for any art” (Gillick, Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics 61 uses is “scenar io,” and to an extent his ent ire output is governed by an idea of “scenar io t hinking” as a way to env isage change in t he world—not as a t argeted cr it ique of t he present order, but “to examine t he extent to which cr it ical access is possible at all.”25 It is wort h not ing t hat alt hough Gillick’s wr it ing is frust ratingly int angible —full of deferr al and possibilit y, r at her t han t he present and actual—he has been inv ited to t roubleshoot pr act ical project s, such as a t r affic system for Por sche in Stuttgart , and to design intercom systems for a housing project in Brussels. Gillick is t ypical of his gener at ion in finding no conflict bet ween t his t ype of work and convent ional “white cube” exhibit ions; bot h are seen as ways to cont inue his invest igat ion into hypot het ical future “scenar ios.” Rat her t han determining a specific outcome, Gillick is keen to t r igger open- ended alternat ives to which ot her s may cont r ibute. The middle ground, t he compromise, is what interest s him most . I have chosen to discuss the examples of Gillick and Tiravanija because they seem to me t he clearest expression of Bourr iaud’s argument t hat relat ional art pr ivileges inter subject ive relat ions over det ached opt icalit y. Tiravanija insist s that the viewer be physically present in a part icular situat ion at a part icular t ime — eating t he food t hat he cooks, along side ot her v isitor s in a communal situat ion. Gillick alludes to more hypot het ical relat ions, which in many cases don’t even need to exist , but he st ill insist s that the presence of an audience is an essent ial component of his art : “My work is like the light in the fr idge,” he says, “it only works when there are people there to open the fr idge door. Without people, it’s not art— it’s something else — stuff in a room.”26 This interest in the cont ingencies o f a “ r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n ”— r a t h e r t h a n t h e o b j e c t i t s e l f — i s a h a l l m a r k o f Gillick’s work and of his interest in collaborat ive pract ice as a whole. This idea of consider ing the work of art as a potent ial tr igger for part icipat ion is hardly new — think of Happenings, Fluxus instruct ions, 1970s per formance art , and Joseph Beuys’s declarat ion that “ever yone is an art ist .” Each was accompanied by a rhetor ic of democracy and emancipat ion that is ver y similar to Bourr iaud’s Renovat ion Filter, p. 21). One cr it ic has dismissed this mode of working as “corporate feng shui” (Max Andrews, “Liam Gillick,” Contemporar y 32, p. 73), drawing attent ion to the ways in which the proposed changes were pr imar ily cosmet ic rather than structural. Gillick would reply that the appearance of our environment condit ions our behavior, and so the t wo are indivi...
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