Relationalism, or Relational Art as it is often termed, is a specific area of contemporary artistic activity, initially promoted by Nicolas Bourriaud. It is self-consciously relational and, as Rob notes, concerns itself with a limited range of relational sets - those that traditionally operate in and around the art world. Relational art is very much art about art and, I would suggest, reactionary. In some ways it is not relational at all as it is rather restrictive as to what relations it tends to consider.
The term relational art can have another meaning, deriving largely from contemporary anthropological theory and philosophy. This derives from an understanding of immanence as a social ontology, where people and things become through their relations with one another (Latour, Ingold, Deleuze and others write on this, from different points of view). Some artists make work that consciously engages this apprehension of ontology in respect of how they consider their work being authored (a collective activity) and people emerging or being revealed through the relations it permits. I consider my own practice to be in this area. It is connected to Relationalism but engages a far greater number of sets and references philosophical rather than art-theoretical discourse. Best Simon On 16/12/2010 10:08, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/12/10 06:12, Heidi May wrote: >> >> I wouldn't mind if you expanded on the distinction you see between >> intermedia and multimedia, and more about your thoughts on the > > "Multimedia" is a phrase coined by Walt Disney in the 1950s to mean a > mass media franchise that had branded products in different media > (films, TV shows, theme parks, merchandise, etc.). A single idea in > multiple forms. > > We now use "multimedia" to mean almost the opposite, many forms in a > single work. Computing machinery is now an easy way of achieving that, > but multimedia became slide shows or stage shows with sound and special > effects before it became "interactive" with Hypercard and Director. > > I think it's useful to differentiate between artists who use different > media for different work and artists who use different media in a single > work. The former I'd call intermedia, the latter multimedia. > > It looks like I'm clashing with a historical definition (cf Simon) with > my use of "intermedia", so possibly "cross-media" would be better. > >> relationship between Relationalism and networks. > > I think that there is a network that Relational art exists within and > that can usefully be analysed, and that Relational art relies on network > effects, but I don't think it's the one that Relationalism claims it is. > > When looking at a network to try and work out how the art relates to it > and what that means we need to make sure we're looking at a relevant > network. > > The network of relationships that Relationalism pushes to the fore are > those between artist and gallery audience, or artwork and audience, or > between audience members. > > But this is not the network that has produced the work or that the work > exists within. Focussing on it obscures, if not deliberately then very > conveniently, the network of relationships that have *actually* produced > the work and that give it its aesthetic, social and financial value. > > These are the social and economic relationships between the artists, the > institution presenting the work, the people actually paying for the > work, and the real audience (for whom the Relational audience is in fact > part of the material of the work). > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ [email protected] http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
