Museum as Interactive Space

8/17/2019 Museum as Interactive Space

1/29

The role of museum in the 21st Century as an interactive space with a

viewer’s participation

(Name)

(Course Code and Name)

(Date)

1


2/29

1. Introduction

The thought of vising a museum always seems lively and delightful.

ife gets a!rmed for some people who "nd meaning in their life #y visiting

places where they can get to learn a#out their human history #y loo$ing into

traditional pieces of art. %n the other hand& the people also mostly consider

the visits to museums as a #oring activity& as they do not "nd meaning in it

at all. 'owever& 21st century has witnessed these museums to #ecome an

interactive space for most of the people where they can go and interact with

each other too and not ust with the old sha##y paintings or sculptures. The

modern museum has #ecome a sort of interactive place where people also

discuss with each other a#out history and several incidents that have led to

the formation of this particular era. This has #een helpful in reinvigorating

the image of museums as one of the most interesting places to visit in view

of many of the people. This should also #e noted that museums have #een

playing a role of #eing an interactive space where the people would not only

act as audience #ut also as participants.

The researcher’s interest grew in to this aspect of art where the aspect

of viewers #ecoming participants should #e considered. The idea to develop

this research came from the eperience of the research made in the past

that people spend a very little time in ma$ing engagement with the artwor$s

displayed in museums due to which they "nd lesser meaning in any one of

the pieces. The researcher has also witnessed a transformation in the role of

museums in not ust #eing the silent places with lots of artwor$s displayed&

2


3/29

#ut also #ecoming an interactive place where the people can interact and

discuss art. The viewers can witness the art and along with that participate in

a fruitful discussion through which ideas can #e shared. That #eing said& the

main purpose of this dissertation would #e to discuss the role of museum in

21st century as an interactive space with a viewer’s participation.

*n this regard& this dissertation is #asically divided into + chapters. The

"rst chapter is introduction& as mentioned a#ove& in which the #rief idea

a#out what is to #e discuss hereon has #een presented. ,long with that

research -uestions along with aims and o#ectives of this dissertation will #e

presented in introduction chapter. The second chapter will #e of literature

review. This chapter will present scholarly research a#out role of museums in

the past and how have museums transformed to #ecome an interactive

platform for viewers to interact with each other. ,part from that& the

literature review will also discuss how the theory of relational aesthetics

presented #y Nicholas ourriaud has #een the fundamental theory in this

su#ect and along with that a #rief introduction of three main artists will #e

made in the chapter. Third chapter will #e a#out methodology and in which it

will #e told how the data for analysis is collected and how the methodology

has #een applied. /ourth chapter will present in #rief three main case studies

#ased on theory of relational aesthetics. This means that these three cases

will #e actually a#out those artists who have participated into these activities

that are held museums as #eing interactive places. /ifth chapter will present

"ndings #ased on case studies and the sith and last chapter will present

0


4/29

conclusions and recommendation concerning how the museums can #ecome

more interactive places for enhancing viewers’ participation.

1.1. Research Aims and Objectives

The introduction a#ove has su!ciently provided the ideas a#out what

is to #e done in this research. Thus the main aim of the researcher will #e to

determine ways in which museum has #ecome an interactive space for

maimiation of viewers’ participation. /or this purpose& case study analysis

will #e employed. The main o#ective #ehind that is to loo$ through the past

and in 21st

century that how the museums have #een treated #efore and how

they can #e utilied for spreading awareness among viewers a#out displayed

artwor$s.

1.2. Research questions

The main research -uestion in this regard is given as follows

How justifed and sucient is the role o museum in 21st century as being an

interactive space or participation o viewers?

This research -uestion along with many other -uestions of peripheral

importance will #e addressed at the end of this research.

2. Literature Review

The main o#ective of literature review in this regard is to eplore past

studies and theories through which role of museum& as #eing an interactive

space& can #e determined. The literature section will also descri#e

importance of participation of viewers in the museum and its rising trend in

21st century. *n this regard& past practices concerning activities held in

3


5/29

museum for spreading awareness of art and understanding artwor$ among

visitors will also #e presented.

2.1. Theory of Relational Aesthetics

Theory of 4elational ,esthetics proposed #y Nichoas ourriaud in 1556

is considered as the most vigilant theoretical contet for accommodating the

new generation of artists. The artists considered here are those who

especially emerged in 1557s. The central premise of this theory is that

artistic practice of the 1557s can #e most comprehended in form of a shift of

paradigm in which the practice of art is more focused upon concept of inter8

human relations as well as production of socia#ility models.

The standard formula considered true in the modern art is that every

single thing is an art. The latest step in the process of considering anything

an art is that of relational aesthetics& which also means the posing of

production of social eperiences #y artist as an art ma$ing. *n his own #oo$&

ourriaud de"ned relational aesthetics as a set of artistic practices that

consider as their practical and theoretical point of departure the complete

human relations as well as their social contet rather than a private and

independent space. This also means that the proects concerning relational

aesthetics #asically di9er from traditional social as well as physical space of

any museum or art gallery and also any appropriated atelier or artist studio.

*n addition to that& the relational aesthetics also ta$es the completeness of

life as the main su#ect as it is lived. *t also ta$es it as the socially dynamic

environment& which is other than ma$ing the e9orts for imitative illustration

+


6/29

of artistic o#ects that are detached from routine life. This has also #een seen

in case of still life of Dutch aro-ue& which is soundest eample relating to

this theory.1

:imilarly& relational aesthetics has also #een de"ned #y critics in di9erent

other ways. The central o#ective of most of the art deduced from relational

aesthetics is creation of a social situation or environment. :imilarly& it is also

depicted that eperience of a viewer in a particularly constructed social

environment is also considered as an art.2 *n addition to that& the main tas$

of the artist in this regard is also to #ecome the channel for such a social

eperience. *n this manner& a physical space is often created #y the artists&

as it can #e used for speci"c social program or event.0 *n this regard& it has

further #een suggested that any form of event can #e considered in case of

relational aesthetics& such as communal meal& music show& or even a friendly

discussion. *n this regard& this concept is also fully applica#le in case of

museum #ecoming an interactive space where artists can present their art in

any form suita#le.

The framer of this theory is a champion of art. :uch an art is #asically

derived from eperimental production of social relationships and #onds.

ourriaud himself calls these #onds as ;invention of models of socia#ility’. 'e

also considers the modern discourse as a great improvement over the art of

1557s& which was more focused on traditional as well as o#ect8#ased art.

1


7/29

Critics suggest that there are o#vious ris$s involved in collection of diverse

range of practices that can #e added into this latest group of relational art.

:imilarly& ourriaud can also #e considered as an e9ective advocate of the

modern tendency for focusing on process& openness& performance&

transitivity& social environments and creation of dialogue over traditional

o#ect hood as well as hyper8individualism.3

4elational ,esthetics has also #een strongly criticied #y many modern

artists and curators. >ost of such critics and enemies are the conservative

artists who always prefer the art that depict #eauty in paintings. Dave 'ic$ey

has written a #oo$ namely 'nvisible (ragon in which he has strongly opposed

the idea of relational aesthetics proposed #y ourriaud.

ourriaud mainly claims in his #oo$ that the relational models are

#ased on responses to the real alienation and misery found in our society. 'e

also admits the fact that those artists a#out whom he is writing a#out are not

considered as challenging the current social relations’ system& which in other

words can also #e considered as capitalism. *t is further descri#ed that the

relational artists will ac$nowledge what ourriaud terms ;eisting real’ and

they are also delighted with playing with the social relations.

The author also claims that the relational aesthetics #asically wor$s

within the fa#ric of society. This also has reliance upon the live commentary

as well as -uic$ discussion and it also has reliance upon the aspect of

duration. ithin this duration& there is relational art& which struggles to

3 :arah Thornton& )even (ays in the !rt *orld (New Eor$ . . Norton F Company& 2776)&23

G


8/29

accomplish the modest connections and which also opens up with the

congested passages.+ *t also connects with the levels of reality that remained

set apart from each other. 'e has further claimed that the industrialied

societies in the est that are found within our 27th century world& the social

environment has #ecome so rapid that the associations and interactions

among di9erent individuals are eroding with the passage of time. ourriaud

has also claimed in the #oo$ that time is near when people will not #e a#le to

form and maintain their relationships with each other outside such trading

areas. 'e has also touched upon the #asic concept& which has inHuenced

many modern artists and also has #een a#le to introduce an artistic tool that

will #e helpful in esta#lishing as well as maintaining the connections that had

#een lost and missed otherwise.

ourriaud has further de"ned the term relational aesthetics as a form of art

#ased on its theoretical horion and on the realm of human interactions in

social contet rather than the concept or even application of a private and

independent sym#olic space.G *n view of the author& furthermore& one of the

most fundamental and o#vious issues in terms of dealing with the modern

art of relational aesthetics is concerned with approaching the #ody of wor$&

which #asically wor$s and operates without any form as well as contet of

the traditional material.6

+ Claire ishop& 'nstallation !rt" ! +ritical History (New Eor$ 4outledge& 277+)& 101 Carolyn Aorsmeyer& !esthetics" The ig #uestions (>alden lac$well Bu#lishers *nc.&2771)& 132

G Claire ishop& !rt % The ,ncounter" !ntagonism !nd $elational !esthetics (+irca& no. 113&277+)& 02

6 Tom olfe& The -ainted *ord (2nd ed.& New Eor$ /arrar& :traus F Iirou& *nc.& 2711)& 0+

6


9/29

*f we leave out for a while the aesthetic value and -uali"cation of this o#ect

or even its aestheticiation for a while& it has #een said that relational

aesthetics will still #e reduced to the following.5 *t is a form of art in which

the inter8su#ectivity is important for forming the su#strate and in which the

central theme is of #eing together.17 *t is also considered as an encounter

#etween the picture and the #eholder.11 *t is further ta$en as the collective

ela#oration and understanding of the meaning. ,s a matter of fact& art has

most of the times #een considered as relational and this has #een considered

in di9erent degrees and styles& i.e. founding principle of the dialogue and the

factor of socia#ility.12 This has also #een ac$nowledged #y ourriaud. This

can also #e argued that the art history would not have eisted as a matter of

fact if the people were not having the relational history. ,s a matter of fact&

the relational aesthetics is very uni-ue and this is #ecause its primary form is

completely and fundamentally interlaced with the culture& society and

history.10 This therefore demands the historians as well as critics to adopt a

#it di9erent method for classifying and deciphering the certain physical

o#ects in order to completely understand the same.13 :uch di9erence also

provides more value to this su#ect and ma$es it important for us to eamine

5 4ichard >eyer& !rt .ow" Teaching +ontemporary !rt in /os !ngeles (ecture& Bomona

College ,rt 'istory Department& Claremont& C,.& 2775)& 2317 ,nthony Downey& =Towards , Bolitics %f (4elational) ,estheticsJ (Third Te0t 21 (0)& 277G)&2G82G+

11 Dee 'i##ert8*T Bress& 277)& 103

10 Nicolas ourriaud& $elational !esthetics. (Dion es Bresses du 4Lel& 2772)& 1+013 :tewart >artin& +riti4ue % $elational !esthetics (Third Tet 21 (3)& 277G)& 05806

5


10/29

whether the relational aesthetics can #e evaluated with the help of use of

similar principles as in the o#ect #ased wor$s or there are other -ualities

re-uired which the historians should use for -ualifying for such artistic

practices. ,s a matter of fact& the relational aesthetics cannot #e considered&

as the only category formed in 21st century& which has given higher

importance to the viewers as participants and it is also not the "rst category

that has -uali"ed to do so over the last 177 years. Therefore& the art #ased

entirely on human interactions and associations& which is also $nown as

o#ect8#ased art& is highly valued in the modern days& as the people place

high value on participation or response of viewers.1+

ourriaud had discussed a#out the people through relational aesthetics as

the ones #eing oined together in a form. *f this is the case& then the form

can #e easily de"ned as a continuous encounter. :imilarly& it can also #e

seen that the relational wor$s essentially help create the form. 'ence it can

#e said that to udge the artwor$ essentially #ased on its formal components

will no more #e an issue in case the durational interaction is comprehended

as comprising the formations or forms. 4ather than that of udging the latest

wor$ #ased on the forms in the past& it will #e necessary for the form to

evolve with passage of time. *n this respect& in addition& the form #ecomes a

relational property as well. This is the reason that ourriaud claimed that

human$ind essentially and purely is #ased on the trans8individual ma$e up&

1+ Toni 4oss& !esthetic !utonomy !nd 'nterdisciplinarity" ! $esponse To .icolasourriaud5s ? $elational !esthetics? (


11/29

which comprises of #onds that connect the persons together in di9erent

social forms that are historical in an invaria#le style.1

The social form& in this contet& will then #e recorded as a sort of

physical #eing. :imilarly& li$e any other place in society& the world of art is

also essentially relational& as it is a#le to present a system of di9erent

positions with the help of which it can #e read. 'ence the eperience of the

same& i.e. relational art is very important as well as critical. The deeper

networ$ of interconnections among the mem#ers of a group would mean

that everything happening in #etween them would #e a function that will

#asically #e performed #y all of these mem#ers.

>ore importantly& the author also presents the reference of a relational

we#& which plays a very important role as compared to how people #asically

recognie it. *t is in words of the author the art& which ma$es it an art& and

not the artists who really ma$e it. 'ence every individual in such a relational

arena is considered as an artist and thus the art also functions in the creation

of art itself. This aspect also hints towards the radical disorder of the

aesthetic& political& social and cultural goals and o#ectives that are

introduced #y the modern art #asically& and in this the artist is considered as

the "nal mastermind. *t is also reported that the relational aesthetics& as a

matter of fact& does not present any sort of tur#ulence in the way as it shows

one.1G

1 Irant atson& $esponse To +laire ishop5s -aper %n $elational !esthetics (Circa& no.113&277+)& 0

1G ,rthur Danto& JThe ,rtworldJ. *n !esthetics" The ig #uestions& (1st ed.& 00833. >aldenlac$well Bu#lishers *nc.& 2771)& 3+83

11


12/29

The relational wor$ actually integrates to a large etent the artistic

aspect too& and it approaches as well as integrates the same in a very

di9erent manner from contemporary tradition that the humans accept and

ac$nowledge. :imilarly& there are altogether di9erent levels of material

presentations and depictions and which are occasionally found in author’s

theory too. %ccasionally it is also de#ata#le that whether the author will #e

categoriing some thing as the relational art or not. 4elational art is also not

directed #y any theme and hence it is not stipulated. *ts form is the theme it

follows& i.e. the sphere of inter8human relations.

*n any art ehi#ition& one of the many possi#ilities is that of immediate

discussion or which can #e considered for a later review that is opposed to

the -uic$ commentary that is also one possi#ility. *n case of latter& the #asic

driving force is relational aesthetics. ,dditionally& the main goal of the

relational art is that of the #etterment of society. ,uthor of the #oo$ also

insists that relational aesthetics is all a#out learning to incorporate this world

in #est possi#le way so as to try to shape it #ased on the predetermined

concept of historical evolution. /urthermore& the wor$ in case of relational art

will #e #ased on the preconceived evolution and which will #e discussed as

theatre. ,uthor in this regard insists that art should #e considered as a way

of living and a model of action within the currently eisting real framewor$&

which will #e opposed to the a#stract and ideal as well as rehearsed reaction

to the reality.16

16 inton&alch F Company& 2772)& 233

12


13/29

:imilarly& it should also #e noted that with the passage of time&

relational art is #eing performed across many avenues and arenas. *n

museums also& the people are performing the relational art where an

interactive space is created for the people& and the participants are all

performing to socialie with each other and present their art. This is not only

descri#ed #y ourriaud in his #oo$ a#out the relational aesthetics #ut other

modern researchers and artists have also agreed with the founder of

relational art that its application is paramount in case of its application in the

museum #eing an interactive space.15

The concept of the glo#al art also originated after a revision of the

relations organied in the world today.27 ith the epansion of technology as

well as modern forms of communication& the glo#al world eperienced a new

form of inter8connectivity.21 New forms of media and aesthetics were made

together as a response to the em#odiment of the interchanges among

people of di9erent cultures and it was possi#le for the easier transmutation.22

*n glo#al culture& art is now represented in di9erent forms now and the

museum is also considered as an interactive space where relational

aesthetics can #e performed.20 There are many cases where the artists have

used the museum space for relational aesthetics.23 The museum has #een

used as an interactive space #efore as well and since the #eginning of 21st

15 *#id.& 2138233.27 *#id.& 0815.21 *#id.& 07803.22 *#id.& +6861.20 *#id.& 103811.23 *#id.& 12816.

10


14/29

century& the museum is #eing used as an interactive space. The case studies

relating to the application of relational aesthetics in the museum as #eing

interactive space for emerging artists will #e discussed in the net sections.

. !ethodolo"y

The main purpose of this dissertation is to descri#e the museum as an

interactive space for the viewers’ participation. The main method used for

the purpose of this dissertation is that of case study analysis. *n this regard&

the net section will #e discussing three cases in which the artists have used

the museum as an interactive place in order to interact with each other. *n

this respect& they have also applied various concepts of theory of relational

aesthetics in case of using museum as interactive space.

The main reason #ehind the selection of case study method for this

dissertation is that the case study is epected to capture the compleity of a

case. The case is always discussed in greater detail and di9erent methods

are com#ined within case study so as to gather more and in8depth

information. ,nother #ene"t for using this is that it has #oth -ualitative and

-uantitative means for analying the data. /or the purpose of this research&

as mentioned a#ove& three cases relating to interactive space in museum

and the inclusion of relational aesthetics into it was #e discussed. These

cases will now #e eplored in net section #ased on which the analysis of the

data will #e esta#lished.

#. $ase %tudies

13


15/29

The "rst case to #e discussed is that of >ar$ ,llen and >achine Broect.

The proect was primarily concerned a#out creation of a gallery& which

#asically deals with the relational aesthetic art and #ased on which the

artists might not #e the younger artists only. 'owever& >ar$ ,llen had

created the >achine Broect that too$ a longer time for its creation. *n

general for the world of arts& >achine Broect was anticipated vis8M8vis its

inception for a long period of time. :ince the #eginning of his career as an

artist when he had started wor$ing as curator in Teas& and when he was

studying the California *nstitute of ,rts& >ar$ ,llen had showed interest in

the art community #ecause such a community had wor$ed outside as well as

within the academic institutions. 'e had found at earlier stage of his career

that there was a #asic di9erence #etween the art educational communities

outside of the academic institutions and the communities of formal and

appropriate art education in the same academic institutions. 'e had further

eperienced that there was an intrinsic disconnection #etween these two& i.e.

there was an institutional conversation collapse outside the particular

environment where it is considered as the eternal and real world.2+

Therefore& it had #ecome a very important thing for >ar$ ,llen to oin the

investigation of academic art community outside the academic institution

and similarly deal with it in some way that the pedagogical issue comes

against asserting agency that is outside of the institution.

2+ >ar$ ,llen& $elational !esthetics 'n person (?cho Bar$& C,& 271)& 22

1+


16/29

:imilarly& the >achine Broect was the idea of >ar$ ,llen. This proect

is #ased on the nonpro"t performance and installation space eamining art&

natural history& science& technology& literature& music and food. The proect

also presents di9erent wor$shops& events& as well as site8speci"c

installations with the help of hands8on engagement for ma$ing the

accessi#le and rare"ed $nowledge. The >achine Broect also wor$s as a

loose and confederated association of the artists who operate for producing

the shows in locations that are conducted in a wide range of museums& i.e.

#eyond the storefront space ac-uired #y the >achine Broect initially. ,llen

founded it& as mentioned a#ove& and it has #een wor$ing as an educational

non8pro"t institution since 277+.

>achine Broect has further developed itself into a mission and it is

now an informal& educational non8pro"t institution. *t now has the main

mission of creating& studying as well as sharing the new forms of ways of

living and culture.2 The mem#ers of this proect #uild colla#oration with

di9erent artists and local communities and the production of non8commercial

proects for investigation of art& technology& science& performance& literature&

music and new ideas is made. The #asic purpose in this regard is to #uild the

creative engagement of the young artists and general pu#lic in arts. The

main #elief of the mem#ers of this organiation is that it can #ecome a

machine for collective thought of the individuals. The organiation has also

#een running on8site as well as o98site programs and functions. *n this

2 >ar$ ,llen and


17/29

respect& the o98site functions have #een mostly conducted in museums&

where the latter have played the role of #eing interactive space for the

participation of viewers. *n this regard& it can also #e said that various

activities under the >achine Broect have also engaged the common viewers

for participation within the space provided #y the museum.

The second case study to #e discussed is that of )low (ancing proect

#y David >ichale$. This proect is actually helpful in creation of durational

dance photography. This wor$ #asically highlights the shapes formed in split

seconds that the #odies of dancers pass through during when they are

forming movement. :uch movement is created through the stretching of the

"ve to ten seconds long clips& which have #een applied on 30 dancers

chosen from all around the world. , ten8minute "lm is also produced #ased

on that. The producer was actually a#le to divide the dancers’ movement as

well as the movie’s method in simultaneous manner while he was a#le to

maintain the essential factor of time so as to allow the eistence of dance

into all the dimensions. This form of slow dancing was "rst time featured in a

+78feet proection in the incoln Center /estival in 277G in which the

producer was a#le to capture the attention of hundreds of thousands of

viewers in a matter of few days. :uch slow dancing actually also illuminates

the eperimentation of >ichele$ with that of eperimentation with the "lm&

which is centered on the series of photographic stills. The initial aim was to

show it during an ehi#ition in the museum& #ut the slow dancing later on

#ecame a huge success owing to the street audience’s engagement that sat

1G


18/29

and also watched all the parts of it. Those people watched all the parts of

this movie during the festival as well as later on and also had #een

conversing among each other. Those people were also relating this wor$ with

their own life eperiences as well as with the wor$s already displayed in the

center. This was the main intention of the producer& i.e. to engage the

audience and to etract more out of the people #y showing his wor$. ,nother

application of this proect was o#served in case of engagement of idea of

relational aesthetics proposed #y ourriaud.

*t can also #e said that >ichale$’s wor$ of :low Dancing is clearly

meeting the criteria set #y ourriaud in case of eplaining his model of

relational aesthetics. *t is righty said in the #oo$ written #y ourriaud that

the wor$ itself does not provide any spatial whole& which can #e traced

through the eye& #ut it can #e considered as a time span for crossing it in

se-uential manner& which is also similar to the short movie created #y the

com#ination of stills especially in which the viewers are themselves evolving.

:imilarly& the assem#ly of people who gathered as viewers had watched this

wor$ unfolding in front of them actually reHected the description given

earlier #y ourriaud. 'e stated it already that the appearance of art does not

lie in the world that a wor$ represents and it also does not form itself& #ut it

is presented in front of the world. 'e also said that this wor$ ta$es the

temporary collective form& which it forms when it is put on the show.

'ence& this is the #asic importance of the :low Dancing proect& which

has de"ned the concept of relational aesthetics. The main aspect of

16


19/29

relational aesthetics o#served here is that the wor$ itself #ecomes the

interactions that are located in front of it. :imilarly& this wor$ not only

reHects the viewers #ut also relocates the heart of the wor$ in terms of what

is #eing displayed as a display and also as the interaction in front of the

people. The physical o#ect also wor$s in order to produce the relational

component& which #asically resides at the center of the viewers’ attention.

This has also #een stated in ourriaud’s #oo$ that the social #onds and

connections actually transform into the standardied artifacts. *n this regard&

>ichale$ has not only changed the dancers’ movement via time& #ut he had

also changed the movement of the viewers as well. *t was o#served in the

incoln Center Blaa that the time remained still for the audience. The time

remained still for the dancers as well in order to allow them to lose their

stillness in case of >ichale$’s movie. The produced had #een a#le to

transcend the >anhattan time where even an hour goes #y li$e a second& as

the life there is too #usy.

,dditionally& the slow dancing eists in the way that >ichale$ has

presented. The producer has displayed the "lm inside as well as outside the

museum. 'e has also #een successful in transforming the wor$ #y

investigating the line #etween "lm and photography. 'e has also tried to

reside in the movie’s realm& which actually catches the sight of the

movement. ,lthough his main medium of production is the "lm& #ut the

manner in which he has tried to manipulate it has #asically caused it to wor$

as #oth photography and the "lm. ,s a matter of fact& the durational

15


20/29

interaction of the audience actually denies the photographic eplanation of

the piece and hence it also refuses the transformation of the setting& which is

the incoln Center Blaa& for the importance of wor$ itself. *n the words of

ourriaud& production of a form is aimed at invention of plausi#le encounters&

which receive the form for creation of conditions for the echange.2G

,nother case is that of 4ir$rit Tiravania& who is a Thai artist and who also

used the concept of relational aesthetics in his art and performed in the

museum. esides& he has also produced so many art products and has

displayed them in museum for sale or display and so that he could ma$e

some pro"ts out of these products. 'e has also used the place of museum as

a location from where he can interact with other people and where people

themselves can also #ecome audience and discuss themselves his products.

This is therefore the plot from where the products of 4ir$rit can #e #ought or

from where he can also conduct his #usiness. The application of relational

aesthetics is also seen here& as the people are interacting with each other

and discussing art& and the interest of the artist is also #eing met there. This

does show the use of relational art in case of museum once again.26 The case

studies descri#ed a#ove show that the interactive space is important& as it

provides the artists an opportunity to display their arts. The theory of

relational aesthetics has #een presented a#ove. Theory of 4elational

,esthetics proposed #y Nicolas ourriaud in 1556 is considered as the most

2G David >ichale$& )low (ancing (ecture& Bomona College Dance Department& Claremont&C,.& 2776)& 12

26 ,rden 4eed& The Movement o )low !rt (ecture& Bomona College ?nglish Department&Claremont& C,.& 2776)& 00

27


21/29

vigilant theoretical contet for accommodating the new generation of artists.

The artists considered here are those who especially emerged in 1557s. The

central premise of this theory is that artistic practice of the 1557s can #e

most comprehended in form of a shift of paradigm in which the practice of

art is more focused upon concept of inter8human relations as well as

production of socia#ility models.

The standard formula considered true in the modern art is that every single

thing is an art. The latest step in the process of considering anything an art is

that of relational aesthetics& which also means the posing of production of

social eperiences #y artist as an art ma$ing. *n his own #oo$& ourriaud

de"ned relational aesthetics as a set of artistic practices that consider as

their practical and theoretical point of departure the complete human

relations as well as their social contet rather than a private and

independent space.

&. 'indin"s

*t has #een discussed in the literature review as well as the case study

section that relational aesthetics did not appear out of nowhere rather it was

#ased on the participating predecessors. *n the same time& it has #een seen

that history also supports the relational aesthetics in case of such a historical

traectory. %n the other hand& there are also reasons concerned with the

relational aesthetics that appeared at the particular period of time. 4elational

wor$s have #een discussed in the previous chapter and the three cases have

#een eplained in relation to the ourriaud’s concept of relational aesthetics.

21


22/29

There were other community8#ased groups or clu#s& which played an

e9ective role in the 27th century. The present generation of the people who

were in their 37s had missed on the closed community8#ased organiations

and clu#s. :uch a community had eperienced a totally di9erent type of

eperience. >ost of the gatherings were face8to8face and were on the fringe.

The invention of the *nternet was also another factor that shaped the

current world. *t also shaped how art is displayed and perceived among the

people. The act of #ringing together people has also #een made easy owing

to the fruits of *nternet. This is #ecause the people are invited and are given

the opportunity to interact with each other. *n case of museum as #eing an

interactive space& it can also tae advantage of the new styles and traditions

#eing adopted #y the people. This should also mean that the people are also

adopting new ways and means. The museum has #een considered as one

case study a#ove& which has #een considered as interactive space where the

relational aesthetics can #e used.

The case studies descri#ed a#ove show that the interactive space is

important& as it provides the artists an opportunity to display their arts. The

theory of relational aesthetics has #een presented a#ove. Theory of

4elational ,esthetics proposed #y Nicolas ourriaud in 1556 is considered as

the most vigilant theoretical contet for accommodating the new generation

of artists. The artists considered here are those who especially emerged in

1557s. The central premise of this theory is that artistic practice of the 1557s

can #e most comprehended in form of a shift of paradigm in which the

22


23/29

practice of art is more focused upon concept of inter8human relations as well

as production of socia#ility models.

The standard formula considered true in the modern art is that every

single thing is an art. The latest step in the process of considering anything

an art is that of relational aesthetics& which also means the posing of

production of social eperiences #y artist as an art ma$ing. *n his own #oo$&

ourriaud de"ned relational aesthetics as a set of artistic practices that

consider as their practical and theoretical point of departure the complete

human relations as well as their social contet rather than a private and

independent space. This also means that the proects concerning relational

aesthetics #asically di9er from traditional social as well as physical space of

any museum or art gallery and also any appropriated atelier or artist studio.

*n addition to that& the relational aesthetics also ta$es the completeness of

life as the main su#ect as it is lived. *t also ta$es it as the socially dynamic

environment& which is other than ma$ing the e9orts for imitative illustration

of artistic o#ects that are detached from routine life. This has also #een seen

in case of still life of Dutch aro-ue& which is soundest eample relating to

this theory.25

/rom the a#ove case studies& one aspect that can #e seen is that relational

aesthetics can #e criticied in the sense that relational aesthetics are too

much of a wor$ in progress. This means that the aspect of relational

aesthetics is still not fully developed and there is much more progress

25 >arie :hur$us& $elational !esthetics9 $e:enactment9 and the -ost:Medium +ondition"*hat (i;erence (oes 't Ma


24/29

needed in this regard.07 This also means that the relational aesthetics as

de"ned and developed #y ourriaud was still not complete and more

practical research is needed in this regard. That #eing said& the main "nding

deduced from this case study analysis presented a#ove is that the artists

have #een using the museum as interactive space in order to showcase their

wor$ and also let the people interact with each other. This lets the people

study a#out art and di9erent artistic things and also let them have an

opportunity to eplore di9erent aspects of art.

(. $onclusion

This dissertation was #asically divided into + chapters. The "rst

chapter was introduction& as mentioned a#ove& in which the #rief idea a#out

what was to #e discussed has #een presented in this dissertation. ,long with

that research -uestions along with aims and o#ectives of this dissertation

have also #een presented in introduction chapter. The second chapter was of

literature review. This chapter has presented scholarly research a#out role of

museums in the past and how have museums transformed to #ecome an

interactive platform for viewers to interact with each other. ,part from that&

the literature review has also discussed how the theory of relational

aesthetics presented #y Nicholas ourriaud has #een the fundamental theory

in this su#ect and along with that a #rief introduction of three main artists

has #een made in the chapter. Third chapter was a#out methodology and in

which it has #een told how the data for analysis is collected and how the

07 iam Iillic$& +ontingent actors" ! $esponse to +laire ishop=s >!ntagonism and$elational !esthetics (%cto#er >againe& 277)& 56

23


25/29

methodology has #een applied. /ourth chapter has presented in #rief three

main case studies #ased on theory of relational aesthetics. This meant that

these three cases were actually a#out those artists who have participated

into these activities that are held in museums as #eing interactive places.

/ifth chapter has presented "ndings #ased on case studies.

*t has #een stated that Theory of 4elational ,esthetics proposed #y

Nicholas ourriaud in 1556 is considered as the most vigilant theoretical

contet for accommodating the new generation of artists. The artists

considered here are those who especially emerged in 1557s. The central

premise of this theory is that artistic practice of the 1557s can #e most

comprehended in form of a shift of paradigm in which the practice of art is

more focused upon concept of inter8human relations as well as production of

socia#ility models. The main conclusion that can de drawn from this

dissertation #ased on the research -uestion posed a#ove is that relational

aesthetics is a great emerging concept in art and it is helping in the

emerging artists to #ecome more ac-uainted with audience. The main

conclusion is also that the museum can #e used as an interactive place

where the artistic activities can #e held and people in general can interact

with each other for sharing insights a#out art and di9erent artistic things. *t

can also #e concluded that relational aesthetics can #e usti"a#ly

implemented in the museum if it is made as an interactive space. The

usti"cation comes from those artists who have #een using this space for

2+


26/29

their own purpose so that their artwor$ is appreciated and also the audience

and viewers are also attracted towards the new forms of art.

)iblio"ra*hy

,llen& >ar$. 4elational ,esthetics *n person. ?cho Bar$& C,& 271.

,llen& >ar$ and achine Broect Iuide to Cultural

'istory F the Natural :ciences& edited #y >ar$ ,llen and


27/29

Dewey& inton& alch F Company& 2772.

Dewey& alden lac$well

Bu#lishers *nc.& 2771.

2G


28/29

'i##ert8


29/29

:talla#rass& useum as rand.@ ecture& :cripps College ,rt

'istory Department& Claremont& C,& 2776.

Thornton& :arah. )even (ays in the !rt *orld. New Eor$ . . Norton F

Company& 2776.

olfe& Tom. The -ainted *ord. 2nd ed.& New Eor$ /arrar& :traus F Iirou& *nc.&

2711.

atson& Irant. J4esponse To Claire ishopPs Baper %n 4elational ,estheticsJ.

+irca& no. 113 0. doi17.207GO2++30G7& 277+.

25

Documents

Museum as Interactive Space