Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics by Claire Bishop: Geraints text
There are some interesting ideas in this paper, some of which were quite new to me. I liked the concepts of “open-endedness” and art requiring completion by the viewer.
I found many of the ideas quite entertaining, as ideas, as gimmicks and the more I read, particularly regarding Santiago Sierra’s work, I kept coming back to the hackneyed non issues of “is it art?”, “is it explotative?”, “is it necessary?” and so many more questions for so many talking shops.
My main problem here is quite who the target audience for this work is? The modern art world seems to be composed of reasonably well educated individuals, the vast majority of whom are well aware of the disparities in society, but the modern art world, it seems to me from having read this work, has entered into a mutually beneficial (but ultimately bankrupt) relationship with Santiago Sierra. Meanwhile much of society walks past oblivious to the work & ‘it’s message’.
Much of the impact of the Sierra’s art works seems to stem from the significance of the human subjects & the name of the artist – all which rubs against the grain of the critical appraisal mantra we are advised to ask as Art student’s, “Does the work stand alone?” or “Would it pass the the rubbish skip test?”
When I covered opinion on some of Santiago Sierra’s work from people with non- fine art university degrees there was a consensus & nobody asked where they could go to see it. . .
TateShots Issue 13 – Santiago Sierra
