Relational Aesthetics经典读后感有感

《Relational Aesthetics》是一本由Nicolas Bourriaud著作，Les Presse Du Reel,Franc出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：USD 17.00，页数：125，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《Relational Aesthetics》读后感(一)：建立于丑陋之上的美

关系美学激发了我对当代艺术的兴趣，这是一股充满正义的风，叩开了我内心中对抽象、对美学、对艺术史的抵触。

时常听到身边的朋友吐槽抽象是一种高高在上的姿态。当代艺术家们的作品和行为常常脱离了当下的追求物质价值的体系。试问，一根香蕉被粘在墙上为什么可以瞬间增值？我们尝试通过艺术家的创作经历，香蕉与胶带之间精准的刻度等论述去强调作品背后的技术性。

也许，我们该承认，抽象是难懂的，有些高价作品是没有技术含量的。喜欢当代艺术，不代表你喜欢每一件摆在博物馆里的垃圾，有的的确就是垃圾。但这不会剥夺我们对于一件作品的喜爱。也许，当代艺术家的许多作品之所以有价值，是因为ta们提供了一个场域，一个足够让我们在精装打扮后可以静下心来去看看那些生活中被忽视的物与人的机会。

美不再是一种局限于文献库，需要用天花烂坠般的文字修饰的概念。美是一种感觉，是一种行为，是一段关系。我们发起了一个公益机构，在社区中教流动儿童摄影。在课堂上，我看到了美的多样性，听到了美的嘈杂声，嗅到了美的油烟味，感受到了一段段我不去主动就从来不会建立的关系。

我最仰慕的一位喜剧演员 Hannah Gadsby 曾经在一个段子中提到：走入博物馆，我们会意识到，女人出现的时间比衣服都还早呢。从一幅幅画中，我们是不是认定了文艺复兴时代的女人们确实都不喜欢穿衣服。

纵观艺术史，我们对美的高调定义让我们的历史变得单一、有压迫感。也许艺术史从来就不是我们在当下的体系中架构的以时间为基本单位的学科。历史充斥着谎言、权利、欺凌、金钱的丑陋，同时也恰恰是这些丑陋建造了我们对于美的定义，这是一件多么讽刺的事情。

而我们正在用一件件艺术品，尝试去修饰这些丑陋，并告诉我们的孩子们，这是几千年来我们人类可以建造至美与文明。

是时候，让当代的孩子审视当代的艺术了。

《Relational Aesthetics》读后感(二)：Art is a state of encounter

RA是艺术理论必读吧

中文版翻译得云里雾里的

每一个作品源自关系美学的艺术家，都保有着一个属于他自己的形式世界、问题意识与轨迹。艺术家通过美学互动连接个体，进行社会交流。将亲密的私生活放到公众视角中，接受外界的想象，将私人回忆转化成清晰形式， 并在形式发展上变得越来越极简，以几何化来解决时空问题。观者的在场被视为完成作品的一部分。艺术家没有预设立场，用开放的姿态同观者协商，让每个人的用意去主导。

但是英文版我也只看了选章（11页），主要阐述了现当代艺术和艺术作品的社会性意义与政治性关系

我比较喜欢下面这段，

本书可以结合Claire Bishop的《对抗主义和关系美学（Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics）》一同阅读， 关系美学中最根本的推论之一就是——艺术不应该享有特权或独立的领域，而应该而应与“生活”融为一体。而Bishop认为当艺术已经过于融入人们的日常生活了——作为一种休闲，娱乐和商业方式存在时，像希尔施霍恩的艺术家开始重申艺术活动的自主权。

《Relational Aesthetics》读后感(三)：Book Review

Text: Echo He

Nicolas Bourriaud'sRelational Aestheticswas published in France in 1998 and translated to English in 2002. The book formulates a theoretical framework for a roster of contemporary artists such as Rirkrit Tiravanija, Liam Gillick and Philippe Parreno. Many of those artists came in contact with each other in France during early-to-middle 1990s, when Bourriaud was based there as a curator. This book, along with his 2002 publicationPostproduction[ Nicolas Bourriaud, Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay (New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2005).],which draws attention to appropriation, sampling, deejaying and hacking, has generated thrilling comments in the art world. Dave Beech used to comment in an article published inArt Monthlythat "Not since the early years of Postmodernism's theoretical reign has the art community been so intimidated, enthralled or annoyed by a theory than it is today by Nicolas Bourriaud's writing on relational aesthetics and postproduction."[ Dave Beech."The Art of the Encounter."Art Monthly278 (July/August 2004): 46.]

In"The Work of Art as Social Interstice", the opening chapter of Relational Aesthetic,Bourriaud considers the work of art as social interstice. As he states:" The possibility of a relational art is testimony to the radical upheaval in aesthetic, cultural and political objectives brought by modern art."He defines relational art as an art form whose theoretical horizon is related to the sphere of human interactions and its social context.Further, he criticizes the conception of art as a finite and concrete gesture and considers it as a factor in sociability and a gesture for open dialogue.The artist, thus becomes a host of certain space and time which is different from "zone of communication" that are forced upon people in modern society [ Nicolas Bourriaud, "The Work of Art as Social Interstice." Excerpt from Relational Aesthetic. (Dijon, France:les presses du réel, 2002), 7.]

Bourriaud thinks that the general mechanization in contemporary society is reducing people's relational space. Art becomes an alternative solution to create free spaces and periods of time when people can experience inter-human relations. To buttress his statements, heelaborates upon some very interesting examples, such as Jens Haaning'sTurkish Jokesin 1994, when he uses a loudspeaker to broadcast jokes told in Turkish on a square in Copenhagen. The performance produced a micro-community of Turkish immigrants brought together by the collective sense of humor.[ Jans Hanning's Turkish Joke (1994) was executed in the Turkish area of central Oslo, where a tape-recording of jokes, told by Turks in Their native language, was played. The recording was broadcasted through a loudspeaker attached to a light pole. ] Indeed, every artist related to relational aesthetics has his/her own ways of expression or trajectory. But Bourriaud suggests that they have one thing in common: their practices are based on the same practical and theoretical horizon: the sphere of inter-human relationships. He further elevates relational art as some revolutionary movement that "is neither a 'revival' of some movement nor the return of a style, [but] is born of the observation of the present and of a reflection on the destiny of artistic activity."[ Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetic, p.11.]

Bourriaud's discussion about relational aesthetic is of particular relevance to my thesis because it is useful to identify some of the distinguishing features of non-material art that take the sphere of human interactions as theoretical horizon. Meanwhile, it shed special lights on why collectors want to collect some non-material or ephemeral art.When collecting relational art, the collector does not merely acquire precious art objects, but the rights to a system (network) and a long-term obligation to preserve the work to the artist's instruction.

Though Bourriaud argues that "the constitution of convivial relations has been an historical constant since the 1960s," he fails to suggest the influence of 1960s and 1970s artists on today's artists. By suggesting that "Relational art...its basic hypothesis - the sphere of human relations as site for the artwork - is without precedent in the history of art",[ Ibid, p.11.] he clearly overstates the issue and underestimates the impact of Conceptualism, Minimalism and process-art on today's relational artists.

Source: Bourriaud, Nicolas."The Work of Art as Social Interstice." In Relational Aesthetics,trans. Mathieu Copeland, Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods. Dijon, France:les presses du réel, 2002, p. 6-13.