ABSTRACT
In the previous chapter we touched upon a form of art practice that made communality, sociability or relationality its creed for art production, contrasting it with the more private form of encounter with art offered by Ono’s praxis. Central to the argument of Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics (2002) is the notion that the reception of art is formed collectively rather than individually, and thus the art it describes facilitates a social or participative role for those who enter into any kind of relationship with it. Bourriaud’s optimistic claims for these kinds of art practice have come in for some serious criticism, but are nonetheless reflected in the ambitions and proposals expressed by the artists he admires. Of particular significance is the idea that art might have the potential to open up new avenues of social exchange through collective action or response – indeed, that this might be the most critical directive for the art of today. In many respects, however, the situations produced by such projects do little to live up to that promise, while the art itself qua art often turns out to be disappointingly insignificant.
