theanyspacewhatever

I just read a review by Kathryn Shattuck in the New York Times, Shining a Light On a Movement That Maybe Isn't, about a show opening at the Guggenheim (now through Jan 7) with work by the following artists:

• Angela Bulloch
• Maurizio Cattelan
• Liam Gillick
• Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster
• Douglas Gordan
• Carsten Höller
• Pierre Huyghe
• Jorge Pardo
• Phillippe Parreno
• Rikrit Tiravanija

The reviewer suggests that the show brings together a group of disparate artists. Shattuck quotes Mr Gordan, one of the artists, saying "none of us felt we were a group until the Guggenheim identified as a group." She writes that the "group identification took hold when Nancy Spector invited the artists to formulate a vision for an exhibition..."

The list of artists seemed vaguely familiar to me. So I cracked open Wikipedia, and read the entry for Relational art.

What these artists have in common is that they have all been curated together in group shows by the influential theorist Nicolas Bourriaud, under the label "relational art". The first such show was the Traffic show, in 1996, which presented Liam Gillick, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Philippe Parreno, Pierre Huyghe, Carsten Höller, Christine Hill, Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan and Jorge Pardo. Bourriaud has also written several books on relational art, including the widely read book Relational Aesthetics. The full list of artists mentioned on the Relational Art page are:

• Vanessa Beecroft
• Henry Bond
• Angela Bulloch
• Maurizio Cattelan
• Liam Gillick
• Felix Gonzalez-Torres
• Douglas Gordon
• Jens Haaning
• Christine Hill
• Carsten Höller
• Pierre Huyghe
• Jorge Pardo
• Philippe Parreno
• Rirkrit Tiravanija
• Gillian Wearing
• Andrea Zittel

Although Shattuck does mention that the artists had been involved in group shows together, there is no mention of relational aesthetics, or Bourriaud. This strikes me as revisionist. Are we to assume that appearing in group shows and being written about by Bourriaud for ten years under the label "relational art" was not enough to foster a group identity? But a group show at the Guggenheim changed that? I'm curious to find out more.

I must admit, I was also a tiny bit amused that artists who have been described as making "relational art", all about fostering relations between people, would, in the end, decide to make work as individuals for the show. Tiravanija is quoted as saying "It’s a kind of reluctant group show, because of the group itself." And Shattuck writes that Mr Gillick created "S-shaped benches that he sees as yet another metaphor, a glib one, for the show: people sitting together but facing in different directions, thereby eliminating the requirement to interact." Relational art might redefine the role between viewer and art, or between art and institution, but artists remain will always be artists!