Relational Aesthetics Must Die, and Can It Take Francesco Vezzoli With It When It Goes?
The only thing worse than superficial conceptualism is superficial conceptualism that poses as social activism...not for a specific socio-political cause, mind you, but rather for the very soul of the social itself. That sounds abstract enough to be indefensible, right? The phoney-baloney, egotistical bullshit that the art world tolerates and validates under the various descriptors of "participatory", "relational", "social sculpture" et. al., stands as a sad indictment of art's disconnection from the actual social sphere, which is more participatory, interconnected and vibrant than it has ever been, and certainly is not in need of a "white-man's-burden" type savior from the art world. The sad contrivances of 'theanyspacewhatever' read more as the pathetic efforts of an out-of-touch parent trying to "get hip" with their kids--the kids in this case being an actual, healthy sphere of social relationships which extends far beyond the networks on display in the jerk-off contrivances of these artists. What's more, the continued insertion of the individual artist's ego and authorship among these 'social sculptures' kind of deflates the entire overly-self-important exercise.
"How can art be used to connect people and experiences?" seems to be less the question than "how far up its own ass can the artworld crawl?" The radical democratization of practice that followed in the wake of conceptualism has resulted in a deregulation of all aesthetics; a new kind of hell of images, but without the production values. The artists who adopt the mantra of "anything is art" should be reminded that this is more interesting as a critical metaphor rather than adopting it as an operational practice. Because yes, these days, access to modes of production are very democratized. Everybody has pretty much equal access to the methods of making things. Unfortunately for many high-end artists working these days, this means that the world doesn't actually *need* their contrived interventions. The real world has actually absorbed these critical notions unconsciously and moved beyond them; sadly, Beuys lost and "America's Funniest Home Videos" won. The only impression one receives at the Guggenheim, for example (in the afore-mentioned 'anyspacewhatever'), is less about a touchy-feely revitalized social space but more along the lines of "I just paid $20 to forcibly interact with art which is little more than this group of practical jokers jerking each other off? I could have gone to a bar and watched the game, or to a concert in the park, and actually interacted with people and have a hell of a lot more fun, for cheaper."
The sphere of the 'social' does not need these artists to save its soul, it is doing perfectly well. Better than ever, in fact. Roberta Smith, paraphrasing the goals of relational aesthetics, writes in her too-forgiving review:
"The larger point is to resensitize people to their everyday surroundings and, moreover, to one another in a time when so much — technology, stress, shopping — conspires against human connection."
I assure you that asking people to forcibly ingest the oblique, in-joke laden, abject staginess of this exhibition is not the way to go about it. So-called relational art really needs to fuckin move past the creation of 'zones' for people to sit around in, hoping that they'll talk to each other. Someone needs to invite these artists to the party, any party, or simply instruct them to visit any park on a Sunday afternoon in any city across the land, in the hope that they realize they are contributing to the oft-reinforced cliche that the artworld is completely out of touch with reality. While this is fine (I'm all in favor of art being a space of imagination, silliness, sensations, bourgeoise escapism and other such non-real-world notions of fancy and impressions), hiding its distance behind a veneer of social activism is embarassing and delusional.
