http://www.boiler.odessa.net/english/raz1/n1r1s02.htm
INTERVIEW OF MIROSLAV KULCHITSKY WITH NICOLAS BOURRIAUD
Miroslav Kulchitsky (M.K.): My first question is about your theoretical works, primarily “Relational Aesthetics”. As far as I know, this is one of the first attempts of an overall analysis of an artistic process in 90-s. What is the role of the “relational aesthetics” in theory of contemporary art? Do you believe, that in ten or twenty years conception of “relational” might be a key one in the analysis of art of 90-s?
Nicolas Bourriaud (N.B.): I can not say, that I am dealing with “an art of 90-s”. ” The art of 90-s” - it means nothing for me. It is quite possible, that this conception will become really significant in the next decade; it is hard to forecast. But I have not tried to typify art, I have tried to create a conception, which might be an instrument of analysis and criticism of art, which is currently being done, that’s it. But this is something, anyway, isn’t it?
M.K.: However, either way, you essentially apply to artistic practice of one generation, specifically to those, who appeared on the art scene in 90-s, don’t you?
N.B.: And how about Franz West? Or let say Felix Gonzales-Torres, both are prominent figures, talking about “the relational aspect”. There are some other artists of an elder generation, who we may also talk about. As a matter of fact, any historic period of time appears to be emphasis of one or two aspects of art. At present we emphasize “the relational aspect”, although this aspect existed earlier, therefore, this is not a pure outcome of 90-s. We have never paid attention to it, because it was not “the basic trend”. So, in 80-s the focus was made on an object and an object’s position. Nowadays, this is primarily “the relational aspect”. But, in 90-s, we might raise up the problem of object again. Every time this is an issue of priorities, in other words, what happens to be the main problematics for the time being.
M.K. : Therefore, you have never intended to identify a basic tendency in art recently?
N.B. : I would rather say no. I just wanted to find a common point of contiguity of diverse artistic practices and that point was “the relational idea”. My assignment has been not only the identification of a certain tendency, but rather the identification of basic problematics.
M.K. : The following issue is the issue of the artist and the context. From my point of view, it is worthwhile to review a contemporary artistic process in two basic aspects: “relational” and “contextual”:
N.B. : Which is mainly one and the same thing.
M.K. : Not exactly.
N.B. : Let us assume, they have something in common. What do relations eventually create? relations to the artistic work, institutions and so on? - Context.
M.K. : O.K. Let’s come back to my question. I have just remembered my talk with EricTroncy, which we had last spring in Dijon in “Le Consortium”. We talked mainly about our mutual works with Checkorsky, but also dwelled upon a global issue of the contextual factor in the artistic practice and of the role of a network in the contemporary art. At that time, Troncy’s position seemed to be slightly contradictory to me. On the one hand, he assured that the geographical remoteness can not be an essential problem for a contemporary artist, since if he is a part of “the network” of contemporary art, so he is provided with a proper existence, but at the same time he asks me puzzled questions, as: “What do you actually do in Odessa? As far as I know, there is no context for your art there’. What do you think about it? And how essentially important is the problem of artist and context and what is the role of a contemporary art network and interactions within this network?
N.B. : Location is certainly not a problem. The problem is when one is not involved in the network. There are locations, which are hard to cover by this, so to speak, “network”. And of course, one can work in Odessa and be a part of this “network”. And if any problems arise, it means that these problems are not mainly your problems, but problems of the network, since in this case very little depends on you.
M.K.: How would you evaluate operation of this “network”? Does it work well?
N.B. : Why not ? It works pretty efficiently.
M.K.: I remember my first impression of publication titled “Relational Aesthetics” in “Documents”. ‘This is exactly what we are doing now. Hit the target’. At the same time we have a feeling of a certain remoteness, since we have a feeling of being in relational stream, at the same time we discovered that we were not recognized by the other members of this movement. Isn’t it a problem of the ‘network’? From the very beginning of our artistic activity we worked as international artists and it was really important for us to feel that we belong to the “tendency”, that we were a part of this movement, that we were able to see who goes by, but often, paradoxically, we turned out to be in the “wrong” context. We have been frequently invited to the international video festivals, which at times were successful, although we have been invited because we use video in our works:
N.B.: Similarly you might have been invited because you use the videocamera “Sony”.
M.K.: That’s right. And in the other case, because we are Ukrainians. But does it have anything to do with our artistic practice? We only use video in our works. We are not video artists, our artistic experiments are entirely different. Many European art forums are pretty dull in this respect. They constrain genres, i.e. video, audio and so on. I guess, that this problem is the problem of obtaining of a relevant background (and of accessibility to the relevant channels) appears to be the basic one for the contemporary artist, since artist is “possible” when he is placed in the proper environment.
N.B.: I got your point. The problem is to become “visible”, that provides for setting up communication with like-minded people, arrangement of travels, and an active interaction. Actually, this is very simple. One could have an opportunity to invite counterparts and go out. Certainly, one can create a smashing art inside of the room, but at a certain point it should become visible, be exhibited. It is also important from the standpoint of reviewing of personal ideas. I made pals with a lot of artists in the early 90-s, whose approaches to art have been strongly changed, ever since, owing to the impact of the other artists, and this “space for discussion”, which I constantly talk about, is of great importance.
M.K.: What is the role of interpretation in the “relational” theory? Does the focus displacement onto relations within the audience mean shifting of the center of gravity to the field of a description of events?
N.B.: I would compare interpretation with a map. You are drawing a map for someone to see what you can see. That’s it. Then somebody else will draw another map, which will be a bit different or completely different.
M.K. : A sort of navigation chart.
N.B.: Yes, it is. We constantly show up these charts to each other. When I am interpreting, I just want to show something to somebody. The art critic’s task is to show you, what you did not see earlier or show it in a different way, at another angle.
M.K.: In your lecture you draw attention to an issue of impacting of new technologies on contemporary art. Talking about art, which exists on the institutional level, we can emphasize an increase of the role of festivals of a new media, appealing to the blunt statement, that development of a contemporary art is determined by development of new technologies, and that all experiments in art lately have been related to involvement of new technologies in the artistic practice. What can you say about it?
N.B.: I think that new technologies create new structure of thinking. As a matter of fact, this new structure of thinking does not mandatory express itself through these technologies. Internet does not give a rise to artists, who use Internet. Internet creates new possibilities in our consciousness. New technologies penetrate art. This is an instrument which gives opportunity to do something different.
M.K.: I wonder whether you take part in the discussion about the status of contemporary art, provoked by Boudrillard, Foster and other of that ilk?
N.B.: Yes, I did it once. In a French weekly magazine. I will be sued by Jean Claire, in this regard. He charges me with slander. The case will come up for trial the day after tomorrow. I don’t care much though. I called him a fascist. But I do really think so!
M.K.: Generally speaking, is this a serious discussion?
N.B.: There is a tendency here, in France, to blow it up. You know, this is an old French tradition of an intellectual struggle. In France this discussion is more acute then anywhere.
M.K. : It might be more efficient.
N.B. : It is not very efficient, since those, who are involved in discussion, have a lack of arguments.
M.K.: Do you still keep on collaborating with “Documents”?
N.B. Yes, of course. I was the founder of this magazine.
M.K.: I am sorry, I did not know about it.
N.B. : Yes, I founded ” Documents” in 1992 and asked Eric to be my assistant, actually to provide me the help.
M.K. : How is it going, with the magazine?
N.B.: We planned to issue it during one year and then to publish collection of texts three months apart. To work rather as a publishing house, with subsequent annual issuing of magazines, than as an editorial office.
M.K.: Mr. Bourriaud, how are the things going with publication of our materials in “Documents”?
N.B.: What materials?
M.K. Mr. Troncy, your assistant, has made us a suggestion to write an article for “Documents” #11. We have made it and safely posted it to “Le Consortium”, with attached illustrative materials. In a little while, we have been advised that materials were received and that they were approved and would be published. Unfortunately, I have never had any news from Dijon ever since.
N.B.: But he didn’t even tell me anything!
M.K.: Might it be a problem of communication?..
N.B.: He really didn’t tell me anything. But now I will certainly make it clear. You see, I am in Paris, and he is in Dijon. He doesn’t always inform me, what is going on.
M.K.: Are you going to make curator’s projects shortly?
N.B.: I am currently working on French exhibition for ARCO. It’s not easy. Selection of participants, contacts with institutions etc: A lot of fuss.
M.K.: In our curators’ projects, I mean “4 rooms” and “Supermarket”, we intended to reach up an ultimate collaboration, aimed at that form of work , which does not emphasize distribution of roles, but establishes priorities of interactions inside of the team of curators-artists and joint decisions making. Does this approach to curators’ practice is apt to you or you prefer “tough” curating?
N.B.: I prefer a “collaborative” approach, on conditions of availability of powerful ideas, I hope… First of all, I need to have a general conception. Then a discussion starts out. I am more concerned not with creation of works, but with, I would say, a program, I would compare it with a computer program, with the same degree of flexibility.
M.K.: How does the team of artists look like? I mean those who you, actually, work with. Who are those artists you basically work with?
N.B.: Regardless that I am working with artists of both 60-s and 70-s, I find it more attractive to do something with artists of my generation and I do enjoy it, since that is what has not been packed up yet, I would say, and that what I know much less about. It occurs, that I work with it, analyze it, make findings, and all of a sudden I realize - Oh hell! - I was wrong, everything is different. And now I have to start over. I truly like it. This is a power, which demolishes my habits.
M.K.: You wrote about it in the “Relational Aesthetics”.
N.B. : Correct. Art constantly transforms me. I am not a historian, and I am not interested in writing good things about good artists.
M.K.: Who would you identify on today’s European art scene?
N.B.: Maurizio Cattelan, Liam Gillick. New works of Pierre Josef are very interesting. By the way, his exhibition is supposed to be open today. You may see it, if you go to the airport right now.
M.K.: OK. I am leaving in 10 minutes. And where is the exhibition? In Paris?
N.B.: Yes, in “Air de Paris”.
M.K.: Good gallery.
N.B.: : Of Pierre Hyughe, although his last works are slightly straightforward.
M.K.: His exhibition of video projections in “Le Consortium” in 1997 was perfect.
N.B.: Agree. I have know these people almost 10 years, from the very beginning. However, I am interested in new artists.
M.K.: Let’s get back one more time to the “relational aesthetics”. Are you happy with the way a process of recognition and mastering of your conceptions is going on?
N.B.: Yes and no. Yes, because I am recognized in art circles, more and more artists start working this way. No, because there is a strong resistance from “external world”. All they want is - to copy objects. It’s really important for me, because this is an anthropological and sociological direction, and it, sooner or later, should be in the field of vision of institutions. It has not happened so far, but in the future…
M.K.: It may happen, but not shortly.
N.B.: Quite possible. Remember, for instance, how it was with the conceptual art.
M.K.: And what is the reason for a slow recognition of the relational art? Stereotypes? Art market?
N.B.: Main reason is a custom. People get accustomed to something and are scared to lose it. As far as the art market is concerned, it needs to have products to sell them out. In regard to relational artists, it is pretty hard to do. For instance, what is done by Rirkrit Tiravanija - how it could be sold? But anyway, it’s being sold, may be not very good, but it is.
M.K.: But may be these cases are exceptions? Can buying and selling of relational works become casual practice?
N.B.: Absolutely.
M.K.: But most people who buy artworks today are motivated by a wish to “possess a thing…”
N.B.: Moreover, they prefer to buy autographs. Not as much of a thing itself, as autographs of the famous artists. How one can recognize a bad collector? He seeks something typical for the specific artist. A good collector, on the contrary, looks for something specific - a work, that falls out from context of his activity. As for relational works, they are often “not signed”. Taking a look at works of Tiravanija, you will not exclaim: oh! this is the work of Tiravanija! But when you come to the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, you recognize them at the first sight, after you’ve just come in the hall. This is a sort of mimetism.
Kiev, March 199
About this entry
You’re currently reading “ article- interview with Nicholas Bourriard ,” an entry on x dormant field journal 1
Published: 12.4.06 / 6pm
Category: article
