Close
The Situationist List
Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics
FM and...
It is very hard for me to really say for sure that there is a real difference between "constructed Situations" and "created situations", unless we are talking about traditional installation art, where the artist makes an environment then leaves it to be explored by viewers. This is a constructed situation that is an artifact. The difference that we are talking about involves the artist as director who plays a role in the work (although the artist doesn't have to be in the work if the work has a repeatable temporal form that can be set up by minor suggested rules or phrases) Perhaps the Relational side of Creating or Constructing a "direct" Situation is like an open social homeostasis-- a social body that is set like the parameters of a game? ...regardless, there are basic guide lines for starting a Situation in the "SI" archive...that offer advice on how to set up parameters for beginning a created situation...It seems to me that with out a game plan all
that would happen would be a big free for all. The SI, as I remember, also alluded to the necessity of one member of the group being responsible, as the instigator / director of creating a "situation" until the "Situation" took on a temporal life of its own. I think this is similar to Sehgal, in that he is the director, who sets the parameters where the "Constructed Situation" may also take on its own undetermined end each time, as long as there is a continuous flow of new participants--that can be engaged with out a predetermined effect / affect.
Just like Sehgal insists on no documentation of his constructed situations (out side of oral reports) the Situationist International also left no exact documentation (photographs, film, recordings or props) to actually prove they created situations. Of course we can all trust that they happened. Unlike the SI, Sehgal's legacy may suffer because, as we can see, he might have collaborators but he is not a collective as were the SI. He does not seem to have a manifesto or write about or comment on other things (political, that I am aware of) like Debord did with his book, "Society of the Spectacle". On the other hand I guess that if one is familiar with SI writings or Nicholas Bourriaud's theories in "Relational Aesthetic" or Jean Baudrillard's "the Hyper-realization of Simulation" and use them as Sehgal's unwritten manifesto for making art a direct experience--then Seghal has his silent background and history speaking for him. But then again, ultimately it
should be the case Sehgal's work or the SI's work or any like minded relational work should work even with out knowin squat about theory in general.....for ultimately if it is to be direct lived experience then it is not a good attitude to take a pre-existing contemplative re-presentation to the "Situation. I would have to say that that is what the SI wanted as well as Beuys, the Fluxus, etc.
In addition: The funny thing though, is that his work "is" for sale, as it says in the NY Times article. The difference being that there is no written contract or actual license of ownership or a receipt or anything to prove provinence. The actual sale is a verbal contract that is passed on as an oral contract in front of witnesses -- with a lawyer and notary public as the official witness. The rest is a description of how to re-set up and begin a particular "constructed situation" again.
And also: I agree that the Guggenheim is a strange place for creating or constructing a situation. The GUG is good for the spiral tours of things that work in that sort of forced viewing environment and even the rooms that the Guggenheim added seem a bit stale for Sehgal or others in this genre. GUG had a good Kandinsky show recently...that sort of presentation does well at the guggenheim.
AsBestUs
Richard Haden
________________________________
From: Free Mod <freemod-AT-free.fr>
To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 10:27:13 PM
Subject: Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics
Richard,
thanks for the post, I missed an exhibition in Milan about one year ego I guess.
As often happens with artists I barely know, I am paused in perplexity. Here are some of my reflections.
Even if the NYT article doesn't explicitly state the link to SI background the artist's reference to "constructed situations" appears obviously declared. I think that the emphasis is more on the "constructed" side of the artistic process (than on the situations as emerging, occurring possibilities) where people are simply carrying briefings and instructions and the artist still holds a leading role of director. On my opinion, I would prefer that an art form along the same lines as SI tradition had stressed the unruled and unpredictable sides of the creating situations (rather than constructing them).
Moreover, Sehgal work openly resist or refuses to obey to conventional contexts that inhere in artistic exhibition, like museums and galleries. And nowadays this attitude reads a naif way to escape to death going to Samarqand and just die there. Not to mention that his resistance seems really weak: it's quite bewildering that he shows in the Guggenheim... my god what an embarrassing... situation. In fact, I have to say, my first impression is that his work hasn't got that much of a stunning experience. Maybe 'cause I don't like museums and mainly I find the Guggenheim unendurable if not impossible.
Despite the open intention of Nicolas Bourriaud's "EsthétiqueRelationnelle" to go beyond the 60's art heritage, most of main artists works, like Carsten Holler, Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan, still are inscribed in that horizon.
Relational Art has its theoretical and practical point of departure in the whole of human relations and their social context, this is not that new thing Bourriaud had preferred to show. I don't see why this could not be said for Joseph Beuys work. Just to mention one of the greatest continental artists. I appreciate Bourriaud's work and engagement, as well as lePalaisde Tokyo, I just don't see that gap with the previous artistic traditions. Internet ? C'mon, it's too late to talk about it as a revolutionary thing or a new human endeavor. I recall that in Apuleio's Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass) there a story describing an untouchable and immaterial media that pervades everything and every living beings' communication and interaction... something like the (inter)net. That was a philosophical and poetic "innovation" in relational aesthetics. Artists as Beecroft and Cattelan, and to certain extent Holler too, are less innovative and less relational than
Beuys. They are also less relational then situationists. Maybe more fashionable donc less revolutionary.
I need to sleep now, it's 4.20 am here....
One last thing, what's your name doing at the beginning of some pasted paragraphs?
>
> Richard HadenTinoSehgal is a contemporary...
> Richard HadenIn addition to the references I made above to the Situationist and Relational Aesthetics...
Best,
FM
Ilgiorno 29/gen/2010, alle ore 00.07, richard haden ha scritto:
> I added more information below this original post... scroll down.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com>
> To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 5:43:57 PM
> Subject: SI inspired: "Making Art out of an encounter"
>
>
> “Making Art out of an encounter”
>
> TinoSehgal is an artist currently showing at the Guggenheim Museum. There is a lot of press about his work, but so far I have yet to read any of these seemingly smart art writers mention the obvious influences by the “Situationist” on Sehgal’s work and ideas. I brought the matter up with the art critic, Jerry Saltz who has had an ongoing discussion about this artist on his facebook blog. Apparently Saltz is going to do a review in the New York magazine soon about Sehgals performances / relational work at the GUG. It will be interesting if he mentions the Situationist after having been clued in to the most basic reference that any decent art writer worth his salt art should already know. But like any other kind of historical referencing, many writers like to link an artist to other more sellable art commodity. The below paragraphs are what I posted on Saltz’s FB site.
>
>
> Also included just below is a good link to an article about Sehgal that illustrates what I think you all will find good about his work. Even though there is no mention of the “Situationist” original ideas regarding creating situations (the obvious link between the SI and Sehgal) there is , never the less mention of other important past happenings. (you can also do a search of this artist online for yourself just in case the NY Times article is not available to you on line--or if you don’t want to register with the Times)
> If you do a search, you will see how the SI project still lives on.
>
> www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17seghal-t.html
>
>
> Richard HadenTinoSehgal is a contemporary version of a 60's "Situationist". He recuperates the Creating of Situations as his work. If you have read any of the Situationist archives you can see his influence. His work also relates to relational Aesthetics which was also partly inspired by the early Situationist activities. I like what I read about Sehgal's work but as you can "imagine" one has to be engaged with the created situation since it is not an archival document like traditional exhibitions or performances. Much of this kind of work also comes from a Heideggarian idea of reacting to environmental moods or ambiances...and the possibility of manipulating social moods as do artist like Jorge Pardo and other relationist practices...
>
> He has used security guards in the past as part of his game like creations...i think it is harder than one might think to pull off the creation of a situation, whether it be a ludic game or just an institutional like intervention. I can imagine a Duane Hanson sleeping guard as the silent critic for a failed situation. Here is a link to the meaning of creating Situations:
>
> www.bopsecrets.org/
>
> SI/1.situations.htm
> Tue at 2:29pm ·
>
> Richard HadenIn addition to the references I made above to the Situationist and Relational Aesthetics, I notice that no one [in Saltz's blog] alludes to the point that this kind of work is not so much about empty space as many view a museum space without objects, it is about the temporalization of temporality or simply put the creation of temporal forms. Bourriaud gives an example of this historical trend, by talking about the collapsing idea of an aristocratical concept of an arranged exhibition of artifacts as associated with territorial acquisition of art works... Instead what we have now are created environments (situations) to live through instead of merely walking through. ... whether physical entities (art works) or not, that are included is less an issue. Rather the issue combines in a relational way a better ontological platform grounded in temporality-- temporal space-- that when experienced is more reflexive, interactive or merely where we are
> more the subject of the work. This is very anti market in the traditional sense. The creation of inter-sujective relationships is the same as creating "Situations" in a relational aesthetics sense.
>
> Tue at 3:58pm ·
>
> Sehgal'swiki page: TinoSehgal (born 1976) is a British-German artist based in Berlin. His works, which he calls "constructed situations",[1] involve one or more people carrying out instructions conceived by the artist..
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_Sehgal
>
> The Guggenheim's page: www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/upcoming/tino-sehgal
>
>
> AsBestUs
>
> Richard Haden----
> Message sent by the Situationist list.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
> to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
>
>
----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
It is very hard for me to really say for sure that there is a real difference between "constructed Situations" and "created situations", unless we are talking about traditional installation art, where the artist makes an environment then leaves it to be explored by viewers. This is a constructed situation that is an artifact. The difference that we are talking about involves the artist as director who plays a role in the work (although the artist doesn't have to be in the work if the work has a repeatable temporal form that can be set up by minor suggested rules or phrases) Perhaps the Relational side of Creating or Constructing a "direct" Situation is like an open social homeostasis-- a social body that is set like the parameters of a game? ...regardless, there are basic guide lines for starting a Situation in the "SI" archive...that offer advice on how to set up parameters for beginning a created situation...It seems to me that with out a game plan all
that would happen would be a big free for all. The SI, as I remember, also alluded to the necessity of one member of the group being responsible, as the instigator / director of creating a "situation" until the "Situation" took on a temporal life of its own. I think this is similar to Sehgal, in that he is the director, who sets the parameters where the "Constructed Situation" may also take on its own undetermined end each time, as long as there is a continuous flow of new participants--that can be engaged with out a predetermined effect / affect.
Just like Sehgal insists on no documentation of his constructed situations (out side of oral reports) the Situationist International also left no exact documentation (photographs, film, recordings or props) to actually prove they created situations. Of course we can all trust that they happened. Unlike the SI, Sehgal's legacy may suffer because, as we can see, he might have collaborators but he is not a collective as were the SI. He does not seem to have a manifesto or write about or comment on other things (political, that I am aware of) like Debord did with his book, "Society of the Spectacle". On the other hand I guess that if one is familiar with SI writings or Nicholas Bourriaud's theories in "Relational Aesthetic" or Jean Baudrillard's "the Hyper-realization of Simulation" and use them as Sehgal's unwritten manifesto for making art a direct experience--then Seghal has his silent background and history speaking for him. But then again, ultimately it
should be the case Sehgal's work or the SI's work or any like minded relational work should work even with out knowin squat about theory in general.....for ultimately if it is to be direct lived experience then it is not a good attitude to take a pre-existing contemplative re-presentation to the "Situation. I would have to say that that is what the SI wanted as well as Beuys, the Fluxus, etc.
In addition: The funny thing though, is that his work "is" for sale, as it says in the NY Times article. The difference being that there is no written contract or actual license of ownership or a receipt or anything to prove provinence. The actual sale is a verbal contract that is passed on as an oral contract in front of witnesses -- with a lawyer and notary public as the official witness. The rest is a description of how to re-set up and begin a particular "constructed situation" again.
And also: I agree that the Guggenheim is a strange place for creating or constructing a situation. The GUG is good for the spiral tours of things that work in that sort of forced viewing environment and even the rooms that the Guggenheim added seem a bit stale for Sehgal or others in this genre. GUG had a good Kandinsky show recently...that sort of presentation does well at the guggenheim.
AsBestUs
Richard Haden
________________________________
From: Free Mod <freemod-AT-free.fr>
To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 10:27:13 PM
Subject: Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics
Richard,
thanks for the post, I missed an exhibition in Milan about one year ego I guess.
As often happens with artists I barely know, I am paused in perplexity. Here are some of my reflections.
Even if the NYT article doesn't explicitly state the link to SI background the artist's reference to "constructed situations" appears obviously declared. I think that the emphasis is more on the "constructed" side of the artistic process (than on the situations as emerging, occurring possibilities) where people are simply carrying briefings and instructions and the artist still holds a leading role of director. On my opinion, I would prefer that an art form along the same lines as SI tradition had stressed the unruled and unpredictable sides of the creating situations (rather than constructing them).
Moreover, Sehgal work openly resist or refuses to obey to conventional contexts that inhere in artistic exhibition, like museums and galleries. And nowadays this attitude reads a naif way to escape to death going to Samarqand and just die there. Not to mention that his resistance seems really weak: it's quite bewildering that he shows in the Guggenheim... my god what an embarrassing... situation. In fact, I have to say, my first impression is that his work hasn't got that much of a stunning experience. Maybe 'cause I don't like museums and mainly I find the Guggenheim unendurable if not impossible.
Despite the open intention of Nicolas Bourriaud's "EsthétiqueRelationnelle" to go beyond the 60's art heritage, most of main artists works, like Carsten Holler, Vanessa Beecroft, Maurizio Cattelan, still are inscribed in that horizon.
Relational Art has its theoretical and practical point of departure in the whole of human relations and their social context, this is not that new thing Bourriaud had preferred to show. I don't see why this could not be said for Joseph Beuys work. Just to mention one of the greatest continental artists. I appreciate Bourriaud's work and engagement, as well as lePalaisde Tokyo, I just don't see that gap with the previous artistic traditions. Internet ? C'mon, it's too late to talk about it as a revolutionary thing or a new human endeavor. I recall that in Apuleio's Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass) there a story describing an untouchable and immaterial media that pervades everything and every living beings' communication and interaction... something like the (inter)net. That was a philosophical and poetic "innovation" in relational aesthetics. Artists as Beecroft and Cattelan, and to certain extent Holler too, are less innovative and less relational than
Beuys. They are also less relational then situationists. Maybe more fashionable donc less revolutionary.
I need to sleep now, it's 4.20 am here....
One last thing, what's your name doing at the beginning of some pasted paragraphs?
>
> Richard HadenTinoSehgal is a contemporary...
> Richard HadenIn addition to the references I made above to the Situationist and Relational Aesthetics...
Best,
FM
Ilgiorno 29/gen/2010, alle ore 00.07, richard haden ha scritto:
> I added more information below this original post... scroll down.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com>
> To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 5:43:57 PM
> Subject: SI inspired: "Making Art out of an encounter"
>
>
> “Making Art out of an encounter”
>
> TinoSehgal is an artist currently showing at the Guggenheim Museum. There is a lot of press about his work, but so far I have yet to read any of these seemingly smart art writers mention the obvious influences by the “Situationist” on Sehgal’s work and ideas. I brought the matter up with the art critic, Jerry Saltz who has had an ongoing discussion about this artist on his facebook blog. Apparently Saltz is going to do a review in the New York magazine soon about Sehgals performances / relational work at the GUG. It will be interesting if he mentions the Situationist after having been clued in to the most basic reference that any decent art writer worth his salt art should already know. But like any other kind of historical referencing, many writers like to link an artist to other more sellable art commodity. The below paragraphs are what I posted on Saltz’s FB site.
>
>
> Also included just below is a good link to an article about Sehgal that illustrates what I think you all will find good about his work. Even though there is no mention of the “Situationist” original ideas regarding creating situations (the obvious link between the SI and Sehgal) there is , never the less mention of other important past happenings. (you can also do a search of this artist online for yourself just in case the NY Times article is not available to you on line--or if you don’t want to register with the Times)
> If you do a search, you will see how the SI project still lives on.
>
> www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17seghal-t.html
>
>
> Richard HadenTinoSehgal is a contemporary version of a 60's "Situationist". He recuperates the Creating of Situations as his work. If you have read any of the Situationist archives you can see his influence. His work also relates to relational Aesthetics which was also partly inspired by the early Situationist activities. I like what I read about Sehgal's work but as you can "imagine" one has to be engaged with the created situation since it is not an archival document like traditional exhibitions or performances. Much of this kind of work also comes from a Heideggarian idea of reacting to environmental moods or ambiances...and the possibility of manipulating social moods as do artist like Jorge Pardo and other relationist practices...
>
> He has used security guards in the past as part of his game like creations...i think it is harder than one might think to pull off the creation of a situation, whether it be a ludic game or just an institutional like intervention. I can imagine a Duane Hanson sleeping guard as the silent critic for a failed situation. Here is a link to the meaning of creating Situations:
>
> www.bopsecrets.org/
>
> SI/1.situations.htm
> Tue at 2:29pm ·
>
> Richard HadenIn addition to the references I made above to the Situationist and Relational Aesthetics, I notice that no one [in Saltz's blog] alludes to the point that this kind of work is not so much about empty space as many view a museum space without objects, it is about the temporalization of temporality or simply put the creation of temporal forms. Bourriaud gives an example of this historical trend, by talking about the collapsing idea of an aristocratical concept of an arranged exhibition of artifacts as associated with territorial acquisition of art works... Instead what we have now are created environments (situations) to live through instead of merely walking through. ... whether physical entities (art works) or not, that are included is less an issue. Rather the issue combines in a relational way a better ontological platform grounded in temporality-- temporal space-- that when experienced is more reflexive, interactive or merely where we are
> more the subject of the work. This is very anti market in the traditional sense. The creation of inter-sujective relationships is the same as creating "Situations" in a relational aesthetics sense.
>
> Tue at 3:58pm ·
>
> Sehgal'swiki page: TinoSehgal (born 1976) is a British-German artist based in Berlin. His works, which he calls "constructed situations",[1] involve one or more people carrying out instructions conceived by the artist..
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_Sehgal
>
> The Guggenheim's page: www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/upcoming/tino-sehgal
>
>
> AsBestUs
>
> Richard Haden----
> Message sent by the Situationist list.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
> to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
>
>
----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
Previous message in thread
Thread
SI inspired: "Making Art out of an encounter" / richard haden / 28 Jan 2010
Re: SI inspired: "Making Art out of an encounter" / richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com> / 28 Jan 2010
Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics / Free Mod <freemod-AT-free.fr> / 29 Jan 2010
Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics / richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com> / 29 Jan 2010
• Re: SI inspired ? Sehgal and Relational Aesthetics / richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com> / 29 Jan 2010
List Archives