Sean Hedman, Year 1, CG11

Context is Everything - discuss (keep in mind social, cultural, institutional and physical context)
Firstly it is important to gain a clear understanding of what the term context actually means. According to Nicolas Bourriaud there is no one meaning to the word. He writes in his book Relational Aesthetics, context is a form of artistic activity that encompasses the space in which it is on view (Bourriaud 2002, p109). This could be considered the physical context. The institutional context may come from global or socio-economic features; and the people involved and interactiveness refer to a social context of work. Bourriaud's ALTERMODERN stresses a change in society. The 21st century has propped up a handful of artists referencing the past, present and future. Every artist manifests themselves on their individual wavelength... this personal wavelength conveys in its emanations signs that are both heterogeneous (belonging to different registers or cultural traditions) and heterochronic (borrowed from different periods). (Bourriaud 2009, p14) Many artists work in this way, appropriating the media and referencing popular cultures. These artists chose to work in a range of medium, ranging from painting and sculpture, to video art and anything in between. This defines the cultural context of work. An early example of an artist appropriating popular culture was artist and DJ Christian Marclay. Back in the 1980's he was one of the first to manipulate vinyls; he would break, scratch, bend, wobble, creating sounds that were not intended of the instrument or musical piece, creating an entirely new sound experience when played.

Christian Marclay, Record Players, 1983

A more recent example of an artist referencing cultures is Spartacus Chetwynd whose performance piece The Fall of Man (2006), she describes in Bourriaud's ALTERMODERN as an attempt to extract a moment from history in which Eden becomes a state of mind (Bourriaud 2009, p58). Bourriaud underlines the effects our recent credit crunch has had on society, and invariably our art. Peter Sloterdijk (2004) described us as living in a fast-burn culture; a society that has gambled on a sort of explosion (Bourriaud 2009, p16). What drives this world is an abundant need for fossil fuels and the focal point of today's action films is an explosion of some sort- take Bruce Willis for example, jumping out of that burning building in Die Hard (1988). It's a reflection on our addictive mindsets- constantly craving more from life.

The word life is an interesting one. Life is the source inspiration for many modern artists. Our world has changed so drastically in the past decades, and our quality of life is changing as we speak Groups of artists such as Phillipe Pareno, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Carten Hller, Jens Haaning and more unwillingly began to reflect on these issues and formed a new movement, Bourriaud coined Relational Aesthetics (1998). Ben Lewis of the BBC explores this new movement in his documentary Art Safari- Relational Art- Is it an Ism? (2004). Tiravanija famously exhibited his own flat within an art gallery (1998), allowing visitors to cook, read and rest as they pleased. He later organised an event named Social Pudding, where the idea was visitors would come, cook and the artwork itself was the act of social interaction. The empty pots and pans where later displayed in the gallery as an artwork in itself. This is a prime example of a recent do-it-yourself and recycling culture Bourriaud describes in his Relational Aeshetics (Bourriaud 2002, p14).

Rirkrit Tiravanija & Superflex, Social Pudding, GfZK, 2003, Leipzig

One important criticism of work such as Tiravanija is where do we draw the line between what is art and what is life? Gavin Brown, a gallerist featured in Ben Lewis's documentary on Relationalism expressed his views. After having first seen Tiravanija's Untitled work of stacked beer bottles, Brown comments I found the work quite irritating to begin with... I suppose that stayed with me for a while. What won you over Lewis asks Brown. I don't know... a sense of liberty to the work I suppose. Ben Lewis later questions the work of Tiravanija stating I wasn't sure if Rirkrit's work was art, but that may be proof that it is. Ignorant people have always reacted to important new art movements with the exclamation That is not art! Consider this definition of a relational art, now question the idea of 'flash mobs'. Can we consider them art, or must we simply dismiss them as calculated pranks on a mass scale? The possibility of a relational art (an art taking as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic space), points to a radical upheaval of the aesthetic, cultural and political goals introduced by modern art. (Bourriaud 2002, p14) Some people see it as a form of protest, others see performance. I believe this may be considered art, as they carry close parallels to relational aesthetics, i.e. life art (the

aspect of human interaction outside a private symbolic space is the linking factor). Improv Everywhere are a flash mob group which causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places. Improv Everywhere has executed over 100 missions involving tens of thousands of undercover agents... based in New York City This act of causing joy and chaos is their mission, not protest or anger. They do not see themselves as protestors, nor artists. Frozen Grand Central (2008) was an example of one of their most successful missions; 200 people to walk through Grand Central Station in New York City and suddenly at 2.30pm exactly freeze, i.e. stop entirely, to appear in a frozen state.

(Improv Everywhere, Frozen Grand Central, 2008, New York)

Jens Haaning is an artist who, much like Improv Everywhere brought a group of people with similar interests together in a public space for a set period of time. In 1994 Haaning broadcast funny stories in Turkish, through a loudspeaker in a Copenhagen Square, with this event, Bourriaud explains he produces a micro-community, one made up of immigrants brought together by collective laughter which upsets their exhile situation (Bourriaud 2002, p17). The common ground between artists such as Jens Haaning and Improv Everywhere is the fact that each shares a common goal- to form a social group for a designated purpose, to influence others. Here the social and physical contexts bear little impact on the overall successfulness of their mission. Suppose the immediate context, i.e. the physical context is removed, will the work still be as effective to the viewer in it's message or subject matter? Improv Everywhere have shown us that clearly it is possible to retain this 'freshness' in the impact of a work. This is a clear example that sometimes the content may outway the context; the bypassers were at awe- completely speechless and totally confused.

Tracy Emin, My Bed, Tate Turner Prize, 1999, London

Tracy Emin infamously exhibited 'My Bed' in the 1999 Turner Prize, sparking controversy the world over. Had she exhibited this piece within a different context- perhaps within the privacy of her own home, would it still receive the same reactions? The fact that Emin chose to exhibit this crude piece as a work of art within a typical gallery setting immediately forces the work into one of 'art'. Thomas McEvilley (1986) makes the interesting connection between the gallery space and the 'new voice' the viewers take on, to that of a hole church, even drawing parallels to ancient Egyptian tomb chambers. Brian O'Doherty featured McEvilley's writings in the introduction to his book Inside the White Cube: In classical modernist galleries , as in churches, one does not speak in a normal voice, one does not eat, drink, lie down, or sleep; one does not get ill, go mad, sing, dance or make love. (O' Doherty 1999, p10). As Thomas McEvilley puts it in O' Doherty's book, within the gallery space, we as viewers are forced to put on a false persona, regardless of our opinions of the art. Site specificity is also important to consider when thinking about a work of art and how context affects it. Miwon Kwon states site specificity used to imply something grounded, bound to the laws of physics (Kwon 2004, p11). He then reminds the reader of a rather biased claim, if you have to change a sculpture for a site, there is something wrong with the sculpture (Kwon 2004, p11). Robert Barry in a 1969 interview made it clear that his wire installations were all made to suit the place in which it was installed. They cannot be moved without being destroyed (Kwon 2004, p12). Similarly, Richard Serra in 1984 wrote about his 'Tilted Arc' sculpture, designed for one particular site... not to be relocated. To remove the work is to destroy the work (Kwon 2004, p12). This last sentence is particularly important in relation to the context of a work. With this in mind, how are we to look at other forms of sculpture- live, video and performance for example? Such forms of art, in theory, shall not be affected by varying contexts- don't need a fixed location; work that is essentially relational could well be set up in a multiple of locations, and it's viewing audience would still be left with a similar experience. A VHS and DVD will most likely play in any form of VHS or DVD player. In 1938 Marcel Duchamp exhibited '1200 Bags of Coal' at the International Exhibition of Surrealism, New York. This piece was one of the first works of art to remind the viewing and participating audience of the context of the gallery space, as well as the paintings that hung on the walls. Duchamp has done a clever thing, playing with perception. O' Doherty writes in Inside the White Cube Duchamp turned the exhibition topsy-turvy and stood you on your head... Above (below) are 1200 bags of fuel and below (above) is their consuming organ (O' Doherty 1999, p69). Four years later her stunned gallery-goers again with his 'Mile of String'.

Marcel Duchamp, 1200 Bags of Coal, International Exhbition of Surrealism, 1938, New York

Marcel Duchamp, Mile of String, First Papers of Surrealism, 1942, New York

How important exactly is context to a piece of art? This depends largely on the spectator. Most of the people who look at art now art not looking at art; they are looking at the idea of art they carry in their minds. (O' Doherty 1999, p82) The unartistic viewers will have pre-conceived opinions over what art should look like. They might base their opinions on hear-say or simply a lack of knowledge for the history of art and the relevance of previous art movements. O'Doherty points out that unfortunate truth, a view that so many people share nowadays. People more educated in the world of art, are better able to distinguish the subtle differences; drawing influences from past cultures and current issues. This has given so many artists the ground to push art in new directions. O' Doherty illustrates this point beautifully. we are hard on the art that preceeds us. We see not so much the art as an emblem for attitudes, contexts and myths unacceptable to us. Finding a code to reject this art allows us to invent our own (O' Doherty 1999, p81-82). Duchamp clearly recognised an area of art that hadn't yet been invented, developing it further all through his working life. (O' Doherty 1999, p69). He told us art is completed by the spectator (Hamilton & Bonk, l'infinitif, 1999). These artworks forced its spectators to participate in the event in order to understand the art better. Was this just a gesture, a 'project', or in fact a noteable turning point in way the artists are now engaging with their audience? Nicolas Bourriaud believes technology has influence the dehumanization of this society we now live in. The present-day social contexts restricts the possibilities of inter-human relations all the more, because it creates spaces planned to it's end... Just a few years ago,

the telephone wake-up call service employed human beings but now we are woken up by a synthesised voice... (Bourriaud 2002, p16) Society is rapidly changing and constantly being tested against technology, which invariably has brought about a general fear of human relations. Many artists recognised this fear and have used it as the driving force for their work. To name a few, Spartacus Chetwynd, Shezad Dawood and Rirkrit Tiravanija all address the issues of modern life and society as a whole. Karl Marx brought to the attention the idea of the interstice; as Bourriaud informs us a term used to describe trading communities that elude the capitalist economic context by being removed from the law of profit (Bourriaud 2002, p16). All works of art bear this label of interstice to some degree, as Bourriaud states the interstice is a space in human relations which fits more or less harmoniously and openly into the overall system.. (Bourriaud 2002, p16). In order to understand context more, we must look at it from a broader perspective. Context is everywhere. It is everything that surrounds us, not necessarily in terms of art, but in life itself. Context is the glue that holds society together- it sheds light on social and political matters; it puts art into perspective. Is context everything? Where does context stand in relation to the art, society, the audience? Most importantly is context still relevant, as the subject of art and life are continually blurred. If there's anything I've learnt from my investigations, it is to take a step back and look it things from the right frame of mind; within a suitable context.