Lish 1

Aaron Lish

Professor Deb Todd Wheeler

Comparative Analysis Paper

17 August 2011

The Effectiveness of Relational Art in the Creation of New Knowledge: A Comparison of Works by Tino Sehgal and Rirkrit Tiravanija

In contemporary art the artwork has become more about the discourse created around the work than the actual artwork itself, or as was observed by historian and art critic Arthur Danto (1981), it is no longer about the material composition of an artwork, but whether that material composition can speak. Thus, the interpretation by the viewer, or what the piece “says”, becomes an essential part of the completion of an artwork. This is most clear in interactive artwork where not only does the viewer complete the piece through their interpretation of the message, but without the viewer the artwork does not even exist yet; thus, not only does the viewer complete the piece through their interaction, but by becoming engaged in the work and contemplating its message, the viewer is also able to interpret a personal meaning from the piece.

Sociologists Ian Sutherland and Sophia Krzys Acord in the Journal of Visual Practice (2007) suggest that the shift to include the viewer as a direct part of the art-making system was in response to the perception by many post-1960s artists that the gallery space was a place of elitism, a left-over of the “artist as genius” philosophy toward art and art-making. Similarly art historian Janet Kraynak suggests one possible reason for the shift, among others, “being poststructuralist theories on authorship whereby the involvement of the viewer breaks down the aura that the individual work contains” (2003: 24). Regardless, either could be considered an “interventionist” gesture of the avant-garde (Kraynak 2003) as part of the newly developing philosophy that artworks are not objects with an inherent meaning imbued within. As such, this shift not only helped push post-modern art more completely away from the belief that artwork is a repository of knowledge bestowed upon the piece by the artist-genius, but helped to solidify the contemporary philosophy that encounters with art lead to critical discourse (Sutherland and Acord 2007).

Early examples of the viewer being an integral part of the art-making would include many of Marina Abromovic’s performances of the 1960s-70s, as well as Bruce Nauman’s interactive sculptural installations of the 1970s, as just a few among many others of this era. These artworks were not finished until the viewer entered the work; the viewer’s experience was a direct result of their being in that specific place at that specific time, and with Nauman’s work, the viewer became the subject within the work itself. How these works spoke to the viewer varied, but many of these works, by both artists, were designed to unsettle the viewer in one way or another.

Lish 2

With regards to what a piece says, Sutherland and Acord have suggested that the value of art goes even beyond the discourse created by an artwork, but that “knowledge production emerges in the connection between oeuvre and daily life” (2007: 129). Based on their review of the research, Sutherland and Acord in addressing specifically how knowledge is created through experiencing relational art state that “it is the embodied and relational encounter with aesthetic materials that creates room for modification of existing understandings, an essential condition for nascent knowing” (2007: 134). Philosopher and author on perception and experience Alva Noe (2006: 4) further states that “Experience isn’t something that happens to us; it’s something we do.” Thus, knowledge production is dependent upon direct experience with the work of art, suggesting that it must be interactive or relational in nature.

Rirkrit Tiravanija and Tino Sehgal are two contemporary artists widely acclaimed by international art critics over the past two decades who both create relational art that, based on Sutherland and Acord’s statement, would be knowledge producing; both create environments that allow the viewer / participant to “do” or engage directly with the work in some way. Tiravanija creates settings for social interaction (Performance Anxiety 1997), and Sehgal creates situations for the viewer to experience, sometimes passively and other times as an active participant (Sutherland and Acord 2007). To better understand how interaction with art might create new knowledge I will discuss several works by both of these artists in greater depth.

For Rirkrit Tiravanija art has always been more about producing something that can be used rather than evoking contemplation (Bishop 2007), or as the catalog for his Performance Anxiety exhibition states “Rather than resolved objects, he offers potential situations. In place of contemplation, he proposes social interaction” (1997: 3). One of his best known, or at least most often referred to works, is his 1992 piece Untitled (Free) which was installed at the 303 Gallery in New York. For this piece Tiravanija brought the gallery director’s office into the gallery space, along with the office supplies, packed away artwork, etc., as well as set up a make-shift kitchen and eating area. Tiravanija then cooked and served Thai curry to the viewers / guests. The audience was an integral part of the performance as they ate and socialized. In fact, in the materials lists for his installations “lots of people” is listed along with the rest of the materials / objects needed to produce each installation (Performance Anxiety 1997: 1). Untitled (Free) clearly shows the relational nature of Tiravanija’s work, but this piece in particular is also a very clear example of how his work blurs the lines between gallery and social space, as well as between the artist and the viewer. This is a goal of much of his art, and has a direct antecedent in the 1960s-70s move toward viewer involvement in the artwork as a way to break down the elitism of the gallery world.

The roles of the viewer and the artist / performer also become blurred in the artworks of Tino Sehgal in much the same way as in Tiravanija’s work in that there is often a social interaction between the viewer and Sehgal’s performers. However, Sehgal’s work is more overtly politically oriented with

Lish 3

topics such as global economy (This Is Exchange, Shanghai MOCA, 2011, originally exhibited in 2003), or the meaning of “progress” (This Progress, Guggenheim, 2010). For This Is Exchange viewers are engaged by one of Sehgal’s hired performers , or what he prefers to call “interpreters”, with the line “This piece is an offer. We offer to pay you half of the amount you paid to enter the museum if you make a short statement about market economy and discuss it with me. Are you interested in this offer?” (Harris 2011). If the viewer decides to participate they are refunded half of their admission; and they engage in a discussion on market economy with someone briefed on the topic (two of the panel members are investment advisors and Sehgal himself, although not one of the panel members, is trained in economics). By allowing the viewer to participate openly, and by respecting their opinions the viewer gains a sense of empowerment (Sutherland and Acord 2007). Or as Sehgal states (Griffin 2005: para. 26) “The viewer in my work is always confronted with himself or herself, his or her own presence in the situation, as something that matters, as something that influences and shapes the situation.” Sutherland and Acord (2007) suggest that it is through this type of self-examination that knowledge is produced.

If self-examination is indeed the key to knowledge production through experiencing aesthetic content in a relational setting, then I have to question whether all relational art can produce new knowledge. As art historian and critic Claire Bishop points out in discussing Tiravanija’s work there is no “inherent friction” created but rather a sense of “immanent togetherness” (2004: 67). A review of Untitled (Free) by critic Jerry Saltz (in Bishop 2004) reads more like a diary entry of who he had dinner with yesterday at the 303 Gallery, and who he ran into today while hanging out at Rirkrit’s. If we look at experiential learning theory we find that without reflection, there is no learning (Priest and Gass 2005). And Nicolas Bourriaud, curator, art critic and author of numerous articles and books including Relational Aesthetics (1998) states that without the “What for?” relational art only creates personal relationships for their own sake without addressing the political component (Bourriaud in Bishop 2004: 68). Using such criteria it becomes less clear if work like Tiravanija’s, although relational art, will result in self-examination, and thus produce new knowledge as Sutherland and Acord suggest.

It would appear that Tiravanija is familiar with the concepts behind experiential learning as he expresses that the viewer should be actively involved in a particular situation in a group setting (Bishop 2004) which aligns very well with the Outward Bound model for experiential education, at least with regards to the environment necessary for producing learning and growth (Priest and Gass 2005). However, the critical component of using challenge to induce a state of dissonance1 is lacking. Although experiential learning and experientially created new knowledge are two different things, when a group interacts in creative problem solving, experiential learning may lead to the creation of new knowledge.2 Further, this dissonant, or confused state, as a critical piece of the knowledge

1 Internal conflict between the way the situation is perceived relative to the way the participant would prefer to experience the situation (Priest and Gass 2005).2 With mastery of new material or skill the learner reaches a level of “systemization” where they create new knowledge from their existing knowledge base (Priest and Gass 2005).

Lish 4

production process is supported by research conducted by Milton Erickson,3 renowned American psychiatrist and hypnotherapist, who stated that “A confused person has their conscious mind busy and

occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things” (Erickson). This dissonant state is also in some ways similar to what Bishop refers to as “antagonism” in her article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” (2007) which is derived from writing by philosophers Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe on democratic relationships (1985). For Bishop, antagonism or tension is a critical component that is missing in much of relational art. Because Tiravanija’s work, and much other relational art, is completely open ended there is no catalyst (no significant discomfort created by the space or no overcoming of a challenge) to induce the self-examination needed for experiential knowledge production to occur. Tiravanija himself agrees that his work is not about contemplation, but rather about visitors using the space provided (Performance Anxiety 1997).

The catalog for Performance Anxiety (1997) suggests that a discomfort, or unsettling feeling is created by the messy, even chaotic look of Tiravanija’s spaces being at such odds with the elegant surroundings of a gallery, or that the free activities provided are so out of place in a museum setting.4 However, comments on his work are consistently about the social setting or the togetherness, and not about the dissonance created by the cluttered feel of the space or the activities being so incongruous with the setting (Bishop 2004).

In his piece Performance Anxiety (1997), where Tiravanija reproduced a recording studio complete with instruments for the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, there was potential for creating a sense of dissonance, or anxiety, for the viewer. However, because the instruments were not amplified and the sounds were only played through headphones worn by the participants inside the recording studio, no one outside the studio could hear the music, thus eliminating much of the anxiety that would have otherwise been induced. In eliminating the anxiety, the dissonance, or internal conflict over whether to play music and get your own free CD of your music at the price of possible criticism by others was also eliminated. Yes, viewers could see into the recording studio from outside the space as the walls were made of glass, but as many people will “air guitar” to a song but never pick up an instrument, I question how much anxiety was produced for someone who entered the space, picked up an instrument, and put on the headphones once they realized they could not hear the music without them. Such a realization would allow the person to play as softly or as wildly as they wanted without any anxiety at all because no one else could hear it, which appears to be Tiravanija’s exact intent.

3 Erickson is noted for his approach to the unconscious mind as creative and solution-generating.4 For example, being able to play music in the middle of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, or being able to help oneself to a nap on Tiravanija’s bed or shower in his bathroom in the piece Untitled (Tomorrow Is Another Day) (1996) where Tiravanija re-created his New York apartment at the Kolnischer Kunstverein and made it open to the public twenty-four hours a day.

Lish 5

Unlike Tiravanija’s work, which is often focused on creating a useable space for the viewer to engage in an activity not typical of a gallery or museum setting, Tino Sehgal’s pieces often provide for a social interaction that is not typical of a gallery or museum. In this way, their work appears to have some similarities (both artists creating unusual situations within formal art-viewing centers) and both artists achieve a blurring of the boundary between artist and viewer through these practices. However, as mentioned previously, there tends to be a more politically-oriented intent behind much of Sehgal’s work; as a result, differing from Tiravanija, whose work is not intended to provoke contemplation, Sehgal specifically wants to elicit further thought about what you have seen, what you have said, what you have heard in one of his installations (Sutherland and Acord 2007). As a result viewers report an increased experience of self consciousness, as well as an increased awareness of the presence of other viewers and their surroundings (Bishop 2005). “Through this embodied relationship to the artwork, the visitor exits the traditional activity of trying to figure out what the artwork “means”, and instead wonders if they have “encountered” the work correctly…It is through self-examination that the artwork unlocks a subjective process of knowledge production” (Sutherland and Acord 2007: 132).

Although more performance than relational Sehgal’s piece Selling Out (2007), in which once a viewer entered the gallery space that housed sculptures by three other artists a guard would come in and begin to strip off all of his clothes, is an excellent example of how Sehgal creates a situation that will cause the viewer to question what they saw, and whether they encountered it correctly. When the guard was finished undressing he would announce the title of the piece, Selling Out, and then put his clothes back on. The title would then cause further questions to enter the viewer’s mind; “Is this about selling one’s body for money?”, “Who is the sellout?”, “By watching the strip show rather than appreciating the sculptures I had entered the gallery to look at, was I the sell out?” are just a few of the innumerable questions that may come up.

Further, as Yasmil Raymond, curator at the Walker Art Museum in Minneapolis, remarked about her experience in seeing Selling Out, “I slowly crawled behind the Dan Graham [sculpture]. I was so embarrassed I didn’t know what to do with myself. I wanted to know the title of the piece, and I had to wait” (Midgette 2007). Clearly there was a sense of dissonance, or internal conflict, being created by the performance. This work of Sehgal’s, and others that are designed to lead the viewer into a situation where they feel socially uncomfortable produce the tension needed to create a state of antagonism, or dissonance. This relational antagonism Bishop argues “would thereby provide a more concrete and polemical grounds for rethinking our relationship to the world and to one other” (2004: 79) . And thus, one could expect knowledge production as a result of this re-examination and self-reflection. However, as this work was performative and not relational, the “doing” in the creating of an experience by the viewer is all internal in dealing with the dissonance created by the situation rather than by any outward dialog being created through social interaction. One must ask then would this piece then be less effective in triggering knowledge production by the viewer? Or is the relational

Lish 6

component outside of the immediate viewing and rather the discussion that the viewer has later with others about the piece, and is this how knowledge could then be created?

Another example of Sehgal’s work creating a sense of discomfort, but in a truly relational installation, comes from critic Jorg Heiser in his account of the piece This Is Critique (2011):

But then I felt really embarrassed because I had asked Mot whether he and Sehgal had split (the kind of embarrassed you feel when you see a friend you haven’t seen in a while and congratulate her on being pregnant and then it turns out she just gained some weight). It’s usually annoying if someone leads you up the garden path. But after that initial rush of embarrassment I felt (in that order) relieved, amused, delighted (Heiser).

For this piece Sehgal had coached his dealer Jan Mot, who performed, or as Sehgal likes to say “interpreted” the work, to wait until the viewer approached him at his office in the empty gallery, and then after greetings to make a “a slightly grumpy, critical remark about Sehgal’s work” to try to engage the viewer in critical conversation about Sehgal’s art (Heiser). This work about criticism, and art criticism specifically, uses the artist and his own work as the subject for critique as a new work of relational art! For anyone who knows that Jan Mot is Sehgal’s dealer, to engage in critical discussion about Sehgal’s work “behind the artist’s back” so to speak would likely engender some degree of discomfort by itself. It just happened that Heiser assumed that Mot was acting the way he was due to Mot and Sehgal splitting ways, which lead to the embarrassment mentioned in the excerpt above. Heiser closes the article with “All of this is truly mind-boggling. And (in that order) embarrassing, amusing, delightful”, which to me suggests that he continued to contemplate the work long after the experience itself.

Not all of Sehgal’s pieces are as effective in creating an embarrassing, or truly uncomfortable, and therefore potentially knowledge-producing situation. The Kiss, originally created for the MoMA in 2002 and re-performed at the Guggenheim in 2010, utilizes pairs of professional dancers,5 one male and one female, who play two young lovers who silently embrace and writhe around in the middle of the floor in a synchronized, slow motion acting out of various kisses from historical artworks (Courbet, Brancusi, Rodin, etc.) (Sneed 2010). This work, which like Selling Out could be argued as being more performative than relational, and thus from Sutherland and Acord’s (2007) criteria may be considered to be less effective in producing new knowledge just based on its form, was exhibited in the rotunda of the new Frank Lloyd Wright building at the Guggenheim Museum in 2010. The performance was the first sight that greeted visitors upon entering the museum, yet the accounts of the visit tend to center on This Is Progress (2010), which was being shown at the same time on the spiral ramp that leaves the rotunda and leads the visitor upwards in the Wright building. One review that focused solely on The Kiss was written by critic Alice Whitwham for Bombsite.com (2010) in which she mentions feeling “mildly irritated and slightly embarrassed” by the sight of the two passionately kissing, and then after a

5 Each pair performs for one hour and then is seamlessly replaced by two new dancers.

Lish 7

slight sense of voyeuristic curiosity caused her to look back at the young lovers she realized that it was a performance. After that the impact of the piece was dramatically lost for her. And it was not just for her, as she writes that “More accustomed to having their attention claimed by the million-dollar objects on the walls, many observers appeared to brush by the erotic dance, casting back only a glance or two as they walked up the rotunda’s levels” (Whitwham 2010).

From this account6 it would appear that, at least for most people, The Kiss, did not result in relational antagonism, or create an internal state of dissonance that would produce further contemplation and introspection resulting in possible knowledge creation. But in trying to determine how, and therefore why, this piece differs in its impact relative to other of Sehgal’s works, the question comes to mind “What was the intent of this piece?” As this work is a live re-enactment of various scenes from past art that produces an experience for the viewer without creating any new physical objects, it would appear that The Kiss is more about Sehgal’s other political art statement, that of the over-abundance of “stuff” that has been made in the world, including art objects, which his entire art practice is designed to illustrate. In this way The Kiss differs considerably from This Is Critique or This Is Progress where Sehgal had a separate political commentary as his primary objective for each work, with the commentary on producing “stuff” only being illustrated through how he carried out the works.

Intent by the artist, or at least when looking at works by Tiravanija and Sehgal, appears to be a critical contributor to the effectiveness of the piece when “effectiveness” is determined by whether the artwork speaks in a way that is likely to produce new knowledge. Work that has a pointed political goal, and that is designed to cause the viewer to contemplate the work, especially if achieved through the creation of a sense of discomfort in the viewer, would appear to be more effective than work directed toward social interaction and use of the space created by the artwork (even if the activity seems to be incongruous with the space it is performed within).

Works Cited

Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.” October 110 (2004): 51-79. Print.

6 Extended quote from Whitwham’s article to further support the statement made in the text: “As live action performed on the ground-floor lobby, Sehgal’s piece could easily become merely a part of the museum’s environment. Sure enough, once the kissers had revealed themselves as performers, much initial curiosity diminished… many observers appeared to brush by the erotic dance, casting back only a glance or two as they walked up the rotunda’s levels.” Whitwham revisits this issue later in the article with: “The artificiality of The Kiss was made more obvious by the repetition of its action. As I stayed to watch, it became apparent that the couple’s amorous entwining was part of a cyclical routine, and one that would be performed in the same spot for the duration of the museum’s opening hours. Moreover, as I ascended the spiraling rotunda, growing more distant from the couple, the less they appeared to my eyes as dancing lovers and became simple artifact.”

Lish 8

Bishop, Claire. “No Pictures, Please: Claire Bishop on the Art of Tino Sehgal.” Thefreelibrary.com. Art Forum 1 May 2005. Web. 17 Aug 2011.

Danto, A.C. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print. In Sutherland and Acord (2007).

Erickson, Milton H. Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia n.d. Web. 17 Aug 2011.

Griffin, Tim. “Tino Sehgal an interview.” Thefreelibrary.com. Art Forum 1 May 2005. Web. 17 Aug 2011.

Harris, Gareth. “Tino Sehgal’s Chinese Puzzle.” Theartnewspaper.com. The Art Newspaper 15 Jun 2011.

Web. 14 Aug 2011.

Heizer, Jorg. “Tino Sehgal at Jan Mot Gallery – or not?” Frieze.com. Frieze Magazine n.d. Web. 14 Aug 2011.

Kraynak, Janet. “Dependent Participation: Bruce Nauman’s Environments.” Grey Room 10 (2003): 22-45. Print.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso, 1985. Print. In Bishop (2004).

Midgette, Anne. “You Can’t Hold It, but You Can Own It.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times 25 Nov 2007. Web. 15 Aug 2011.

Noe, Alva. “Experiences Without the Head.” http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/Phil951/Noe.pdf 24 May 2004. Web. 17 Aug 2011.

Performance Anxiety. Catalog. Chicago: Museum of Contemporary Art, 1997. Print.

Priest, Simon and Michael A. Gass. Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. 2nd ed. Champaign, Il.: Human Kinetics, 2005. Print.

Sneed, Gillian. “Tino Sehgal Presents a Work in Progress.” Artinamericamagazine.com. Art in America 04 Feb 2010. Web. 16 Aug 2011.

Sutherland, Ian and Sophia Krzys Acord. “Thinking with art: from situated knowledge to experiential knowing.” Journal of Visual Practice 6 (2007): 125-140. Print.

Whitwham, Alice. “Review: Tino Sehgal, The Kiss.” Bombsite.com. Bomblog 22 Feb 2010. Web. 16 Aug 2011.