Radically authorless, furiously remixed and compulsively serious

September 9, 2010 6:39 AM

What Relational Aesthetics Can Learn From 4Chan : Art Fag City considers /b/ as collaborative art.
posted by shakespeherian (43 comments total)

Trying to read that gave me a bigger headache than actually reading 4chan.

This is why people call art pretentious.
posted by ymgve at 6:50 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

So, will the galleries of the future be full of LOLCats and Demotivational posters?
posted by bionic.junkie at 6:57 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

Around 1987 I was at a performance art show in a major city on the East Coast. A heckler was in the audience, and the MC yelled "shut up, you art fag!" The audience booed, and the MC apologized. "Okay, sorry, you're right - it's an insult to fags to be associated with artists."
posted by eccnineten at 7:00 AM on September 9, 2010

no, bionic.junkie, according to the tl;tried to read article, galleries are passé. The "galleries" now and of the future are your monitor and/or iPad/pvd. The totality of art production will be a construct/intersection of photoshoppers and 4chan surfers. Really, this did nothing to further the argument that art does not need intent or content. It fails to answer the basic questions: why am I looking at this and why should I care. If the "art piece" can't answer at least one of those questions then the answer is--it is null.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:06 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

I hadn't heard about the Time 100 acronym thing and wow, that's pretty amazing.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:08 AM on September 9, 2010

I hadn't heard about the Time 100 acronym thing...

Previously
posted by DU at 7:12 AM on September 9, 2010

Sigh. MetaFilter does not do art well.

The art world is becoming increasingly professionalized. Writing intended for artists and other people active in the contemporary art world does tend to use terms and strategies which people outside of that profession / culture are not familiar with - just like any other specialized profession.

It's certainly true that there is a lot of bad writing about art out there, but I wouldn't put this article in that category. Writing about art using terminology and references that may be unfamiliar to non-artists does not mean art is "pretentious". Would you call scientists "pretentious" just because they use terminology specific to their field?

Interestingly, the writer actually addresses some of these issues in the article.
posted by oulipian at 7:13 AM on September 9, 2010 [26 favorites]

I agree with this writers premise, which seems to be, 4chan is a kind of art that is better than most MFA grads wildest dreams. The question is though, now what?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:18 AM on September 9, 2010

Oh look it's THIS post again.


;P
posted by orme at 7:18 AM on September 9, 2010

The Rodney King tape was in a Whitney Biennial, no reason 4Chan couldn't be.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:22 AM on September 9, 2010

Yeah but Relational Aesthetics can't triforce.
∆
∆∆
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:25 AM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

 λ
λ λ

TRI-LAMB FORCE!
posted by DU at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2010

Threeway Handshake: "Yeah but Relational Aesthetics can't triforce.
∆
∆∆"

Apparently neither can you.
  ▲
▲ ▲
posted by Bonzai at 7:35 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

I think the point of this is to argue for the legitimacy of anonymously produced, ephemeral artworks and linking that kind of work back to more substantial artistic thinkers. That's a totally worthy premise in a world that is necessarily obsessed with what does and does not represent an artwork. I never really learned enough about art in school, but I kinda wish someone had just said "look, you know lolcats? how they have their own self-referential language and creators appropriate and adapt ideas from other people's works to create their own works in dialog with previous works? that's how art has always worked, you just didn't see it in all one place, and it wasn't always supposed to be funny."

This is perhaps a more general point, but 4chan is the primordial ooze from which all this stuff comes in the first place, so tying its practice back to relational aesthetics is an effective way to both show artists new ways of thinking about art, and showing the internet that we can take sites like 4chan (or deviantart, or icanhazcheezeburger) as sites where legitimate artistic practice take place, even if they don't look like what museums and art history have taught us to expect them to.
posted by heresiarch at 7:36 AM on September 9, 2010 [10 favorites]

I guess Gorbachov is their piece de resistance?
posted by LogicalDash at 7:42 AM on September 9, 2010

I am glad that buried in the middle of the article is an acknowledgement that you have just lost the game.
posted by infinitewindow at 7:46 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

A central issue here is the status of Surf Clubs (broadly understood, up to and including dump.fm; and, I suppose, MetaFilter), which are either groups of people that surf the internet together and share what they find, or internet-based art collectives, or both. One (perhaps kind of boring) question is whether or not Surf Clubs count as capital-A Art, and if so, must we also let 4chan into the club.

More interesting, to me, is why exactly artists might appropriate the gestures and strategies of e.g. 4chan and forum culture—specifically, the posture of recalcitrant apathy which characterizes 4chan in particular. I read a comment here recently contrasting "grace" (the font of detached coolness) with "good acts"; forum culture lauds something that is a lot like grace, but also a lot like laziness. Here I'm thinking of, for example, jstchillin.org, or Cory Arcangel's troubling version of Schoenberg's Op. 11 played by cats from YouTube.

There is serious friction between the norms and mores of forum culture and those of the art world, and there are some serious contortions going on, on the part of the artists, to both capitulate to certain art world expectations and also to make it look like their work is authentically a part of forum culture. These two goals are completely, utterly at odds.
posted by avianism at 7:47 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

Writing about art using terminology and references that may be unfamiliar to non-artists does not mean art is "pretentious". Would you call scientists "pretentious" just because they use terminology specific to their field?

Nope. But then particle physics and art, particularly performance art, and particularly if one calls 4chan performance art, have somewhat different barriers to entry.
posted by tyllwin at 7:58 AM on September 9, 2010 [2 favorites]

For those interested in the article who may have a hard time following the references, here is an explanation.

Nicolas Bourriaud, a French curator and critic, wrote a book called Relational Aesthetics in 1998. Bourriaud noticed a lot of contemporary artists who were making work which relied on social exchanges, in which human interaction and relationships were intended as art. For example, Rirkrit Tiravanija reorganized an art gallery as a kitchen, cooking and sharing meals with gallery visitors. One of the jobs of curators and critics is to explain what artists are doing, so Bourriaud wrote Relational Aesthetics to present his theory about this kind of artmaking and why it was becoming important.

Since it was published in English in 2002, Relational Aesthetics has become quite influential, and is seen as the defining text of a kind of artmaking also called Relational Art, which has become more widely practised in recent years.

The IMG MGMT article examines 4chan in the context of Relational Aesthetics. The writer's premise is that if we look beyond what is conventionally labelled as "art", we find that a lot of web-based collaboration (such as the "raids" organized by /b/) is similar to the work that Bourriaud described as Relational Aesthetics.

This similarity is explored with various examples. For example, the writer compares the way that memes develop on 4chan to the way that trends and terminology develop in the contemporary art world, suggesting that artists could learn a thing or two from 4chan about how to use the web effectively.

Finally, the writer uses 4chan to demonstrate that some of Bourriaud's thoughts might be a little outdated. In particular, looking at anonymous collaborative online interactions as Relational Aesthetics, rather than focussing on social exchanges constructed by individual artists in art institutions, might actually help to reinforce Bourriaud's ideas.
posted by oulipian at 8:06 AM on September 9, 2010 [10 favorites]

No one has described 4chan as performance art. Bourriaud's notion of relational art is actually antithetical to performance art, in that he proposes that 'the role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever scale chosen by the artist.' See this thingy.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:08 AM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

huh, this is kind of fascinating, at least the parts my layman head can wrap around.

It would be sort of cool to discuss this article with my mom and aunt, seeing as they're both interested in performance art, in their sort of 60s-hippies way (they both went to art school in the mid 60s), and if I'm understanding Relational Aesthetics, the social aspect bits would fascinate them. They'd certainly get the art referential stuff in the article and probably be able to explain it to me in ways I can understand. They definitely get the viral nature of some internet memes, and think the social broadcast aspect of that is nifty (my aunt was the first person who ever managed to rickroll me, for the record).

...but then, discussing this article with them would likely require me to attempt to explain 4chan to these dear old ladies, who are both in their 70s. I kinda don't want to even go there.

on preview, thanks, oulipian.
posted by lonefrontranger at 8:15 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

Point taken that I should not lump performance art and relational art together without some justification of why I see them as related, and certainly shouldn't use the terms as if they were synonyms.

Though I can easily see some of the people on /b/ self-consciously thinking of their posts as a sort of performance art
posted by tyllwin at 8:21 AM on September 9, 2010

I love AFC, and I am glad they posted this.
posted by fake at 8:24 AM on September 9, 2010

That taught me a little bit about Relational Aesthetics, which I'd never heard of before. Lovely!
posted by Greg Nog at 9:13 AM on September 9, 2010

So, will the galleries of the future be full of LOLCats and Demotivational posters?

And we'll tour them with jetpacks! It'll be glorious!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:18 AM on September 9, 2010

Writing about art using terminology and references that may be unfamiliar to non-artists does not mean art is "pretentious". Would you call scientists "pretentious" just because they use terminology specific to their field?

Well, as I once heard it put, judgment is pretentious, so let's just drop the "p" word altogether.

To me, it all gets down to questions of intention and expectation. Call me a rube but I don't expect scientists to communicate with me. It seems to me they have way bigger concerns (curing cancer, feeding the planet, trying to get to other planets, etc). So I fully accept that the depth, complexity and nuance of their discussions with one another are such that, it would be counterproductive for them to always have to bring things back to my Grade Eleven level of understanding (Chem-11 being the last proper science course I ever completed).

Art, on the other hand, is all about communication. Or more to the point, about a certain richness of communication that cannot be achieved any other way. So it may be a toilet in an art gallery, it may be the Mona Lisa, it may be a 9 hour movie about how shadows move across a dodgy stretch of wallpaper -- if it's not about MORE than just what it immediately appears to be (a toilet, a picture of girl, some shadows moving), then it's not art. And (and here's where I get political) it's got to accomplish this rich communication entirely on its own, without a pamphlet attached to it (or whatever) explaining to me, usually in big multi-syllabic words, WHY it's so darned worthy of my precious attention.

Now if artists want to jaw about stuff like this behind the scenes, using various bits of jargon and short hand to streamline the discussions -- all power to them. But when this jargon and shorthand goes public (with a straight face) and only succeeds at inspiring confusion, bemusement, boredom, loathing, even from people such as myself who have Fine Arts degrees and have worked in and around the so-called Art World for more than three decades --- I get to call BULLSHIT. That is, if you're just fucking with me, well, you know, I love you, too. But if you're honestly trying to communicate something that you feel is of value to anyone beyond your immediate inner-circle/cell/bollo/scene, please, please, please take a deep breath, acknowledge that you have an audience of strangers that is trying to care, and stoop to actually engage them.

This rant, by the way, should in no way be read as a condemnation of the article in question. I quite enjoyed it, particularly to the degree that it's communicating an enthusiasm for getting (so called) art the hell out Art Galleries, Art museums, Art magazines, Art schools (basically any professional organization, institution etc that spells Art with a capital "A") --- now that's an evolution a man can get excited about.
posted by philip-random at 9:42 AM on September 9, 2010 [6 favorites]

Apparently neither can you.

See, the joke is that it is copied without the "invisible character" on purpose. That you cannot see the obvious attempt at humor in this shows that you are a summerfag & the cancer that is killing Metafilter.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:01 AM on September 9, 2010

The idea of Relational Art seems to nicely coincide with something in an Elliot Smith song that stuck with me "For someone half as smart, you'd be a work of art, You put yourself apart." I like the idea of thinking of someone as a work of art. And to me the quote says that if someone is smart enough to play that as a game, they aren't really a work of art but something else.

I think to me this speaks to the distinction in the article between what artists are doing as "Relational Art" and what 4chan does. People on 4chan aren't trying to make an artistic statement, they are trying to communicate something in pictures with other people. And it seems this is part of the idea of Relational Art. If you sent out to create a work of Relational art, maybe you are doing it wrong. If you do something interesting or unique as an expression of who you are, maybe that's art.

Hmmm, unless you are the kind of person who always sets out to self-consciously make everything an art project.
posted by jefeweiss at 10:16 AM on September 9, 2010

you are a summerfag...

Is this real life?
posted by everichon at 10:18 AM on September 9, 2010

"It fails to answer the basic questions: why am I looking at this and why should I care. If the "art piece" can't answer at least one of those questions then the answer is--it is null."

Oh, Dad, is this generational? I found the essay clear and compelling, and in line with the lineage of Duchamp, Beuys, Kosuth constantly seeking to expand the answers to the question "What is art?"
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on September 9, 2010 [3 favorites]

If I were concerned about precise communication I wouldn't use poorly defined words like "art" in the first place.
posted by LogicalDash at 10:39 AM on September 9, 2010

On the one hand, I agree completely with klangklangston above. On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that people mostly look at 4chan to see boobies and to cause general havoc among outsiders.
posted by Justinian at 10:54 AM on September 9, 2010

The point of the article isn't that /b/tards are deliberately engaging in Artmaking, it's (partially) that the scope of capital-A Art as restricted to the contents of galleries is too narrow, and that the ways in which people interact in collaborative and self-codified ways to generate aesthetic experiences, whether it's 'shopping Drew Carey's head onto a kitten's body or having five thousand pizzas delivered to a Scientology church, is worthy of critical examination and can be useful for considering the ways in which meaning and forms are arranged. In other words, people mostly looking at 4chan to see boobies and cause general havoc doesn't obviate 4chan as cultural generator or aesthetic point of interest, and it doesn't mean it can't be looked at through a particular critical lens in an attempt to better understand both aesthetics and ourselves.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:02 AM on September 9, 2010 [5 favorites]

Art, on the other hand, is all about communication. Or more to the point, about a certain richness of communication that cannot be achieved any other way. [...] if it's not about MORE than just what it immediately appears to be (a toilet, a picture of girl, some shadows moving), then it's not art.

Art is often used to communicate, but not all art is intended to be metaphorical or communicative in this way. For example, Op art is mostly about the sensory experience of viewing the work, rather than representing anything. Relational Art also emphasizes real world social interactions instead of any abstract meaning, as shakespeherian pointed out.

In a broad way, art is about expanding boundaries, so it tends to resist any lines drawn around it. It is almost impossible to make a argument ending in "...then it's not art" that carries any weight.

I agree with your other point that many artist's statements are written without consideration of a broader audience, or are simply badly written.
posted by oulipian at 11:07 AM on September 9, 2010

  ▲
▲ ▲

That is all. (but is it "art"?)
posted by indiebass at 11:13 AM on September 9, 2010

Oh, Dad, is this generational? I found the essay clear and compelling, and in line with the lineage of Duchamp, Beuys, Kosuth constantly seeking to expand the answers to the question "What is art?"

Oh, if I had time right now to reread it, I think I would get more out of it--I did gain insights from some of the comments in thread, especially philip-random & shakespeherian's.

I found Bourriaud to be, yes, dated. As I said at the outset, tl; tried to read.

Generational? I don't know. You mean I'm old? Yeah. That. Or do you mean that it generates conversation? Maybe my comment was a performance.
posted by beelzbubba at 11:51 AM on September 9, 2010

they made a Found Cinema film about me and all i did was fap
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:03 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh great, more artfags in /b/. That's the real reason all the usual suspects got driven out screaming and had to invade /c/. Hunker down Sailor Scouts, get ready to repel boarders all over again.
posted by jfuller at 1:57 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

  ▲͔̟̗̰̦̻ͮͯͮ̒̆̈ͮ
͇̞͙̭̳̮ͯ̿͢▲̣̬̘̤̌͑̌́͞ ̸̪͍̣̳́̾ͦͭ̐̊ͤ̚▲̴͖̰͉̩̙ͩ͐ͧ̐̄̎ͧ̕
̨͖͙̳͐ͭͮ͘͜
posted by NMcCoy at 2:06 PM on September 9, 2010 [1 favorite]

Metafilter is a surf club!! We finally have a name for it.
posted by Joe Chip at 1:42 AM on September 10, 2010

I don't know art, but I know what I like fap to.
posted by Theta States at 11:08 AM on September 10, 2010

I love the fact that 4chan exists. It is stupid and busy and strange and sometimes hateful and sometimes silly and quite different from what has come before it. The fact that its individual members generally don't look at it as an art project only makes it more interesting as a cultural phenomenon.

Attempts to use /b/'s structure to create art remind me of the Nemonymous concept.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:32 PM on September 11, 2010

I would offer that the internet that knows the /b/tard Chan Clan could apply a lot of their knowledge about them to the institutionalized art (or "Art") world (which is a way to be clear about what you're talking about - the gallery system, Museum-Industrial complex, academic art, the journals can be usefully encapsulated as institutionalized art; This is helpful when discussing art, because you can separate that institution's structure, ideology & values from other creative human enterprises).

An initial observation on my part concludes the following statements to be probably true about both institutionalized art & 4/chan:

• Specialized jargon and behavior patterns is required for success within the group.
• The group is locally & internally valid, but becomes incomprehensible outside of that locality.
• They create works which add value to the lives of those who take the time to experience them, but are otherwise fairly easy to dismiss as more or less inconsequential
• They irritate people who are on the outside.
• Members often don't see their membership as that big a deal.
• Lots of people wish they could be a part of it, but can't quite get how to make that happen.

I noticed that many things people said about one could also be sad about the other, to wit:

…why am I looking at this and why should I care. If the [artifact being viewed] can't answer at least one of those questions then the answer is--it is null.
or
this is kind of fascinating
or
The question is though, now what?
posted by illovich at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]