This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
A boardroom table mounted on a slightly unstable platform on the other side of a large window looking onto the street and into the galley. A slick word game made out of Perspex pieces with vinyl lettering on top, a welcoming and engaging situation/scenario? Or is the only intent, to frame a particular action or behavior? Is it to make people more aware of the settings around them? Or the mechanism of the structure they potentially sit or stand on?
Fig 1. ï¿½Conversations over 217 daysï¿½ MA Show, University of Brighton, 2012
Fig 2. ï¿½Conversations over 217 daysï¿½ MA Show, University of Brighton, 2012
This describes my final piece for the MA Fine Art show at the University of Brighton. It may well mirror at first glance the location for some corporate office meeting. But it is in fact an art object, which represents the culmination of talks, discussions and proposal submissions over a 217-day period. I feel a certain degree of disappointment with the final piece, particularly when I compare it to the work I produced for the interim show in 2011. I will go on to discuss the reasons why I feel this un-resolve. One of the main questions I wish to explore is ï¿½Is it possible for the function of art to occur to its full extent and not be compromised by the establishment even though it may be in opposition to it?ï¿½
Graham. Dan (Feldman, Rider, Schubert, 2006: 58)
I will address this question by firstly critiquing my final show work, alongside the process and procedures that led up to it. I will then g o on to discuss the role ethics and aesthetics play in relational art practices, and how such things impact the ways in which the work is and should be critiqued. And also, how important and effective both these factors are in addressing the social.
A Critique of ï¿½Conversations over 217 daysï¿½ in context
Firstly I must separate the work I actually produced from what I intended to produce. The project was initially fuelled and underpinned by a social concern. Due to my intentions to have the work placed in the public domain, University guidelines state that the project needed to be approved by the faculty ethics committee before it could commence. Three proposals were submitted and rejected. And an appeal to the University ethics committee, upheld all three rejections. This interaction and refusal completely transformed the content of the project into something very much focused on ethics and institutional practice. But, nowhere in the final work was any comparison made between my initial intensions and the realization of what was permitted nor did it show the negotiation and compromises, which took place.
Fig 3. ï¿½Conversations over 217 daysï¿½ MA Show, University of Brighton, 2012
Fig 4. ï¿½Conversations over 217 days Timelineï¿½ MA Show, University of Brighton,
The project proposal as a whole raised a number of challenging issues and questions but unfortunately the piece did not convey them to the uniformed viewer/participant. Some of these questions include; what is the role and responsibility of the artist? If an artwork is ethically sound, does it make it better art? If a practice crosses over into non-art fields, does the artist then adopt the responsibilities and rules of those disciplines? If a work primarily exists out with the art sphere, what purpose does the institution/gallery have? Where is the art? Do the subjects in art works have rights to how they are represented and how the information/experience is used? What are the legal and moral obligations of an artist? What are the consequences of ethics being a consideration? Doesnï¿½t it limit the potential of the artistï¿½s creativity? Is it possible for a socially engaged or relational art practice to exist within an academic institution without being controlled compromised and dictated to? What are the differences between being an art practitioner in an academic institution and one within the institution of the art world?
Instead of addressing these questions and concerns, the actual work was more of a conceptual piece about what it represents rather than what it does. It was my own personal play on my experience, using metaphor and aesthetic considerations. Some may say it was a self -indulgent piece of therapy rather than the challenging piece of discourse it promised. However, all may depend on what criteria I am using to critique the work. Am I judging it in relation to relational art practices? And if so, why am I using that framework? I feel that my practice has always comfortably sat within this category or at least half inside. I produce objects or situations, which primarily have a social function and purpose, whilst also creating a space or situation for contemplation. The final piece lacked this primary social function. On the other hand, if viewed as a piece of institutional critique, maybe it was more successful? Or if evaluated using Claire Bishopï¿½s definition of relational art, it was unsuccessful.
ï¿½The interactivity of relational art is therefore superior to optical contemplation of an object, which is assumed to be passive and disengaged, because the work of art is a
ï¿½social formï¿½ capable of producing positive human relationships.ï¿½
Here Bishops statement implies that an artwork can only be one or the other. The artists I will discuss show this not to be the case. My piece for the final show represents the potential for both functions. It existed primarily as an object but potentially interacts with the viewer. A piece can be interactive and engaging whilst being silent enough to contemplate. Contemplation does not necessarily mean that a work is ï¿½passive and disengagedï¿½. From her words, it can be taken that Bishop is not keen on subtlety. And subtlety is a word, which I would use to describe Jorge Pardo, whose work has a clear social relevance and sets up scenarios for exchange, but does so through attention to design, beauty and everyday associations.
ï¿½Metaphor is a test case of the aesthetic because it has to do with the questioning of categories.ï¿½ (Armstrong, 2000: 37)
Metaphor is important in my work. It potentially enables and encourages new ways of seeing through different associations. Pardo successfully achieves the balance between social function, contemplation, interactivity, metaphor and aesthetics.
His installations, sculptures and furniture design use existing associations and formal aesthetic values such as shape, color, space, texture, material, form and function to subvert the familiar and encourage the viewer to view their environment in a different way.
Fig 5. Jorge Pardo, Pier, 1997
Pardoï¿½s ï¿½Pierï¿½ for example, which he did for Skulptur Projekte in Munster 1997, consisted of a 50 meter jetty which was made out of California Redwood, with a small pavilion at the end. It functioned as an actual pier for mooring boats. Attached to the wall of the pavilion was a cigarette machine, this encouraged people to stop, contemplate and look at the views, which Pardo set up through his design of the pavilion. Not only does his use of aesthetics and design enable a more subversive method of addressing the social but also he takes forward the Duchamp debate regarding the differences between art objects and the role context and the viewer have in defining that difference and status as ï¿½artï¿½.
Fig 6. Jorge Pardo, Pier, 1997
ï¿½ï¿½A work of art is thus inconsequential if it is not effacious, if it does not show itself to be useful (in other words, by procuring a certain degree of pleasure) to those viewing it.ï¿½ (Bourriaud, 2002:62)
Bourriaud is of the view that relational art practices should have a more practical and useful purpose rather than one of passive engagement and contemplation.
ï¿½Bourriaud insists that relational art practices have this utilitarian function rather than contemplative one.ï¿½ (Anthony Downey, 2007)
I think that Bouriaudï¿½s use of the word ï¿½usefulï¿½ is questionable, in fact the whole statement is. To say that a work of art is insignificant if it is not capable of producing an effective result which he defines as providing a certain degree of pleasure to the viewer. Is he saying that effective relational work must have a certain degree of beauty and that the piece is only successful if the viewer gains pleasure from it? This is a very limited and restricting criteria for critiquing this type of work. Relational practices are primarily about dialogue, communication and creating new social relationships and exchanges. So shouldnï¿½t the evaluation be based on the value of those exchanges? As well as the ability to orchestrate it through aesthetical considerations, which in fact does not always have to please the viewer. If pleasing the viewer aesthetically, in turn results in a questioning of a more critical nature isnï¿½t that more successful than the simplistic statement made by Bourriaud? In my work, I make decisions based on the aesthetics of an object or space but those decisions donï¿½t always result in a way that pleases the viewer, but in a way that the viewer can relate and read against their everyday life.
This is the problem I have in my piece, what is the use and purpose? My work evoked a specific contemplation rather than creating a new type of social space. I would like to reference the writing of Saint Simonian Olindes Rodrigues as his views on the social function of art coincide with mine, thus explaining my discontent with the lack of function, or the lack of ï¿½seriousï¿½ purpose out with the gallery.
ï¿½We, the artists, will serve as the avant-garde, the power of the arts is the swiftest and most expeditious, when we wish to spread new ideas amongst menï¿½. we describe these ideas on marble or canvasï¿½. and it is that above all that our influence is most electric and triumphant.ï¿½ Rodrigues, Saint Simonian Olinde, 1825:40)
According to Saint Simonian in his essay ï¿½The artist, the scientist and the industrialist, 1825ï¿½, (Harrison, Wood, Gaiger1815-1900: 40) he believed that art was the most effective means to create social, political and economic change, and that a new society according to these rules would be a more rational and functional one. He viewed society as something, which could be studied scientifically, and called on artists to be critiqued according to their contribution to transforming social systems. This implied that he was of the view, that artists should always have a political agenda. A social structure controlled by scientists, industrialists and artists would enable a more ordered and equal society without oppressive elements such as the church and the bourgeois. Artists such as the ï¿½Artist Placement Groupï¿½, which formed in 1966, would later adopt this stance. (Eleey, Peter. ï¿½Context is Half the Work.ï¿½ Frieze Magazine. Issue 111. 2007). Along similar lines to Saint Simonian, they believed that artists and arts function should be something integral to societyï¿½s everyday structure, but they did not share his utopian vision of social change. They were not concerned with changing the capitalist system. Instead, they accepted existing systems whilst attempting to improve or subvert certain situations to open up dialogue and discourse. Their intension was to place artists within corporations and government agencies in order to create new relationships and discourse, which in turn would fuel social change. The group reflected a new role of the artist. Not one of superiority and distinct from every day life. They believed in the power of art in changing and influencing society but in a subversive and integrated way. ï¿½APG favored the notion that artists could have a positive effect on industry through both their inherent creativity and their relative ignorance of its conventions.ï¿½. (Eleey: 2007) This does raise the issue of aesthetics. Where does this lie within their work? The social was at the core of their practice and agenda. Action, process and outcome in terms of social effect were all key. But what about the gallery? Did it have a purpose for them? They opened up a functional art space outside of the art institution, but without that institution, what made their practice an art practice? It takes the institution to define and frame its position as art, like Duchampï¿½s ï¿½fountainï¿½. A massproduced object without the gallery would still be a mass produced object.
Fig 7. Duchamp, Marcel. Fountain, 1917
Similar to the collective nature of the APG, Duchamp was destroying the traditional concept of artist as maker and craftsman but did nothing to integrate art into life. They did in fact depend heavily upon the art institution both for funding and for framing their organization and projects as art. They received funding from the arts council in order to orchestrate a show at the Hayward gallery in 1971.
Fig 8. The Artist Placement Group, Art and Economies, 1971
This showed the groups activities up to that date. The show was called ï¿½Art and Economiesï¿½. The show however resulted in the arts council withdrawing their funding due to the perception that their priorities wrongly lay more with issues relating to ï¿½social engineering than with straight artï¿½ frieze .The lack of understanding and confusion regarding this type of art practice seems to be have been very prevalent during the 1970s but still exists now. One of the organizations which the Artist Placement Group placed themselves was the Ocean trading group. And ï¿½as an ocean trading official put it ï¿½ if we had wanted some kind of sociologist aboard, Iï¿½d have hired a sociologistï¿½ (Eleey: 2007) It can be forgiven to a certain degree this lack of knowledge concerning socially engaged art practices for those with no art education. It is not understandable however, this lack of knowledge within todays academic institutional art practices. This was evident in the feedback I received regarding my rejected project proposals.
ï¿½It was noted that the project was complex in that crossed disciplines and appeared to involve a significant social science element in the data collection stage. It was felt that the relationship between art and research was not always clear, and it would be helpful to have further clarification regarding the artistic aims of the project, the
extent to which the project was being presented to participants and the public as art or social science, and how the final artistic output would represent the data collected.ï¿½
When an art practice is primarily situated within a non-art field, must it follow the rules of that discipline? Or does its label as ï¿½artï¿½ make it exempt from such? Isnï¿½t that type of attitude regarding arts exclusivity quite an irresponsible and lazy one? Some may say that it is manipulating the freedom of artistic disciplines to suit whatever needs and agenda the artist has without answering to any other institution or values other than artistic ones.
This superiority and distinction from everyday life, contradicts the ï¿½relationalï¿½ and engaging aspects of these practices. And I worry thatï¿½s what my piece did. The only relevant discussion and critique was raised by people with a certain degree of education and awareness for contemporary art practices. So really, I created and orchestrated a situation for a select few.
According to art historian, Stephen Wright,
ï¿½The art associated with relational aesthetics is intellectually and aesthetically meager, as it foists services on people they never asked for and draws them into frivolous interaction. The efforts made by the participants, albeit often small are not reimbursed and therefore societyï¿½s class based power relations are reproduced.ï¿½ (Wright, 2007)
I do not agree that relational art is ï¿½intellectually and aesthetically meagerï¿½ There are numerous artists who are engaging in everyday social and political issues and situations that positively affect many diverse groups of people. Superflexï¿½s Biogas for example is a project, which potentially provides a basic need for people in third world countries. ï¿½The House the cat builtï¿½ by Rirkrit Tirivanija dealt with issues of sustainability and orchestrated discussions and seminars on the subject.
Fig 9. Tirivanija, Rirkrit. The House the Cat Built, 2008
Isnï¿½t it true that relational practices reflect a new aesthetic, one based on dialogue and communication? So shouldnï¿½t a workï¿½s aesthetics be judged on the wealth of exchange, social purpose and relevance, as well as the visual factors they present within the gallery?
I feel that my ï¿½art production formï¿½ was actually more successful in terms of its critique of the institution than the boardroom table. It asks questions, and reflects on the process of being involved in a social but institutional art practice, and the requirements, rules, limitations, restrictions and in turn, the contradictions which arise. The wealth of information that the form demands and the implications of such instigate dialogue and potential interaction. So for me, the work was strong and achieved what I intended.
Fig 10. Neild, Tracy MA show University of Brighton, 2012
In terms of the Interim show, it was the process of viewers being actively involved; contributing and responding to the work and the issues raised which gave the work strength. The fact that their voice could be a visible voice and physically leave a mark on the work was a positive and engaging factor in the piece. This raises an interesting question of how the success of this type of art works/projects is evaluated? Who decides whether or not the outcome is successful? Is it on the level of engagement with the viewer or the social outcome and function? Or is it the artistï¿½s intensions? Although there was not any particular social outcome, the work had the potential to inform and challenge ethics committee members if they actually viewed the piece, which in turn could affect or change current guidance policies. The text piece reflected actual statements which were made to me, but how I placed them drew attention to the lack of information and awareness of committee members and their very questionable attitudes to contemporary art practices as well as their attitude to the social concerns I was attempting to address.
Fig 11. Neild, Tracy Interim Show, 2011
Some of the issues which the project raised, and which the final piece failed to address will now be discussed. Firstly, the issue of ethics. Ethics is an issue that only ever arose for me within my art practice because it was something, which I was forced to address because of the academic policies in place within the University.
According to Karen Hansen
ï¿½Art may be employed, say to educate the young or to enhance a communities sense of cohesion, to break down or to build up common prejudices, and so on; and when we focus on these sorts of functions, on how well or how poorly they are performed, or whether they should be performed at all, our concerns may be primarily moral. When art is considered as art, however, and not in terms of any of its functions, why should it not be understood to ascend to a dimension that it is alone? (Jerrold, 1998: 216)
This was one of the many issues that arose from my project submission to the ethics committee. My proposal was being judged based on non-art social science criteria by practitioners in unrelated fields so how can their judgment be valid? They have the power to validate artworks and projects according to rules we as artists do not choose to follow. Is it correct that artists must consider issues of morality if it has no relevance to the content of the work? Doesnï¿½t that add a new and potentially opposing/different dimension to the work as a whole?
ï¿½The reason behind an action which is deemed unethical is ethically irrelevantï¿½ethical assessment has no place in the assessment of art.ï¿½
(Jerrold, 1998: 216)
I agree with this statement to a point, but if an artwork potentially endangers participants, how can this be disregarded? Is it possible to separate aesthetics and ethics? So, if a work is unethical, can it then be judged only on aesthetic grounds or has ethics become an aesthetic consideration? And does the morality of a work reflect negatively on the values and perceived personal responsibilities of the artist?
The work of Superflex, the Copenhagen artist collective, since 1995, (Bode. M: 1999) appear to have achieved equilibrium between social function, ethics and aesthetics. They launched a prototype of their ï¿½Biogasï¿½ project in Tanzania in 1997. (Superflex: 1999) It was a project, which was designed to provide affordable accessible energy sources to parts of Africa where this does not yet exist.
Fig 12. Superflex Biogas, 1997
Much of their energy sources consists of fossil fuels such as firewood which not only posed inhalation risks to communities and a physical strain on the individual carrying the wood, but also an environmental problem potentially affecting many more people and parts of the world. They have considered the financial reality of how these communities will afford such a product as well as how to convey to them accessibly to these communities, explaining the benefits and reasons for Biogas to exist. They did this by employing someone to create caricatures and making comic strips of the process and environmental problems. Superflex then work within the institution to initiate discourse surrounding the issues underpinning the project and the issues raised.
Fig 13. Superflex Biogas, 1997
Their working processes are brought into question with regards to the implications on the art world and how their work is perceived as art objects. Their existence as a company poses potential contradictions as working as an artist. A companies agenda is to make profit, the agenda of a socially engaged artist is to raise awareness and potentially influence some form of social change. The groups are never patronizing or exploitative as some artists mistakenly and intentionally are. They do not present the people in their work as products or as individuals being used to make some political point, like the work of Santiago Sierra for example. One such work, which reflects the potential exploitative nature of such participatory practices, is Sierras ï¿½Line Tattooed on Four Peopleï¿½.
Fig 14. Sierra, Santiago Line Tattooed on Four People, 2000
This work was produced in 2000 and consisted of four Spanish prostitutes having a 30 cm line tattooed on their backs in payment of the amount needed for a hit of heroin each. (Downey, 2009). Isnï¿½t this work centered on exploiting a vulnerable group of people in order to prove a point? What thought has been given by the artist on the consequences his actions will have on these individuals? Has any thought been given to how these persons will feel if they get rehabilitated, they will always have that physical reminder of how desperate they were at that time and how someone in a position of power abused that desperation and need. With regards to the issue of informed consent, is someone who has a heroin addiction in any position to give informed consent?
Back to Superflex, equally as important as the social function and the ethical nature of the work, is the aesthetics. The Biogas project started with a vision of an orange balloon floating to Africa. (Superflex: 1999).
ï¿½ï¿½The units would function as quasi-public sculpture. In their design efforts, the members of Superflex focused on factors that would translate into a status symbol and an agreeable shape, soft and round, a bright cheerful color, a kinetic function that signals when it is time to refill the unit.ï¿½ (Superflex, 1999)
Beauty is an integral consideration in not only the social function of the work but in its position within the gallery too. Their work could be seemed a success just based on the dialogue raised, (AfterAll: 1999) not necessarily how it functions in its proposed location. So their practice exists on many levels and can be critiqued using a varied range of criteria. Similarly to the other artists discussed, Superflex cross over into other non-art disciplines, and the question raised is what differentiates their work from that of a product designer.
ï¿½The difference is not that great. We are also interested in the aesthetic value, something that actually is rather rare in this type of product. It would be theoretically possible for a designer to carry out a project such as this, but the difference is partly that we are able to and interested in posing questions, things not normally associated with a designers intensions.ï¿½ (Superflex, 1999)
So although Superflex are primarily artists, they take on other knowledge and responsibilities depending upon what fields their projects cross into. Does that make them ï¿½betterï¿½ artists? Their work ï¿½better artï¿½ There is no doubt that it makes them more responsible in what they do and the answer to any questions posed by any practitioner in any field. So, going back to my initial project, which was refused by the ethics committee. Because there was a perceived ï¿½riskï¿½ to both the participant and myself, maybe the fact that I did not consider these safety and ethical factors makes me an irresponsible artist? Are there certain responsibilities which we as artists must accept when working with and within the public domain, whether its within an institutional art practice or not?
ï¿½You have not declared to the potential participants your own interests in the subject matter in terms of your art work. This means that they cannot give informed consent.ï¿½
The Ethics of Aesthetics
ï¿½Given the practical character of morality, it follows that ethical assessment plays no role in aesthetic attitude and therefore no role in aesthetic evaluation.ï¿½
As mentioned on the above quote, is it correct that an artwork be judged based entirely on aesthetic factors? And if this is the case, shouldnï¿½t ethics be an aesthetic consideration in certain works? If so, when does this happen? Is it when ethics is part of the content of the work? Or if the methodologies involved in creating the work is unethical or else the actual interaction? Can dialogue and communication be deemed an aesthetic consideration? With dialogue, ethics inevitably follows. According to Grant Kester, discourse becomes an aesthetic because it is detached from ï¿½mechanisms of political change primarily becomes symbolicï¿½ variant, issue 9. He believes that dialogical art practices are evaluated using the wrong analytical tools.
Unlike other types of art practices, these interactions cannot be critiqued using ï¿½pleasure based methodologiesï¿½ (Kester: Variant Issue 9) There seems to be a tendency for works to be classed as unsuccessful if the viewer does not gain any sensory pleasure.
George Dickie believed that an essential part of any work is the artists ï¿½moral visionï¿½ (Levison, 1998: 189) and that anything which is essential in a work must be classed as an aesthetic characteristic and consideration. An interesting question is whether or not, this issue of ethics as an aesthetic, determines whether or not it is ï¿½good artï¿½. According to David Pole, if there is any immorality in a work, then this should be viewed as a ï¿½defectï¿½ (Levison, 1998: 191) this appears to be the case within institutional art practices too. When I attended the Ethics governance meeting, I felt that my abilities as an artist were being brought into question because my methods were not ethical. So this in turn made me a ï¿½defectiveï¿½ artist who did not hold the appropriate skills to pass a project through their system, which is essential in order to successfully function within the fine art academic structure. And as an artist within that system, I am expected to hold the appropriate skills to enable myself to work within those rules, learn the appropriate language, terminologies and processes.
According to the Greek philosopher Socrates, aesthetic experience could include beauty in thought and speech (Bychkov. O. V, Sheppard. A, 2010: xvii) this coincides with Kesters view that Discourse should be considered an aesthetic consideration in critique. He also viewed aesthetics as directly linked to ethics and that ï¿½the idea of harmony as a universal principle leads directly to improved moralsï¿½.
Ranciere is of the view that everything material can be aesthetic. (Ranciere, 2005:13) If one agrees with that, then the question of what is classed ï¿½materialï¿½ must be asked. Must it be a visible, tangible object? Or can it be the material generated from dialogue?
Going back to my initial quotation by Dan Graham:
ï¿½Is it possible for the function of art to occur to its full extent and not be compromised by the establishment even though it may be in opposition to it?ï¿½ (Feldman, Rider, Schubert, 2006: 58)
Reflecting on the processes and compromises, which I have been forced to go through and make with regards to my project and consequently my final piece. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to work within the academic institution without creativity and freedom being severely stunted. And the rules and perception of ï¿½good practiceï¿½ are severely disparate between the academic institution and the art world institution, as reflected in the work of Santiago sierra for example. However this process has forced me to confront the issue of ethics, not only within my own practice but also, within socially engaged art practices as a whole. As artists, what are our responsibilities to the people who participate in our work? And whether we accept that responsibility or not, should this decision impact whether our work is classed as ï¿½goodï¿½ art or ï¿½badï¿½ art? This led onto the question of whether or not ethics should be an integral factor, which is critiqued as part of the work as a whole? Looking at the writings of Claire Bishop, Grant Kester and the philosophy of aesthetics and ethics by people such as Jacques Ranciere, it seems clear that relational practices are primarily centered on engagement and social relationships, which should be critiqued using a specific set of tools. The issue of aesthetics needs to be widened and altered to include that of communication and dialogue rather than only the beauty of tangible objects. The quality, depth, and beauty of communication need to be judged, as this is the new aesthetic.
ï¿½It is not what you see that is important but what takes place between people.ï¿½
Should ethics be a mandatory consideration in the production of artwork? Can someone who is not educated in the arts make a valid judgment on a piece of art within this institutional framework? To critique a piece of work, must it not be viewed in its entirety, its agenda, effect, aesthetics and ethics and position in relation to contemporary and historical movements? So is it possible to judge the ethics of a piece of work in isolation from any of these factors? Especially if it is agreed that it cannot be separated from aesthetics because it is an aesthetic.
ï¿½Relational Art represents a branch of artistic practice that is largely concerned with producing and reflecting upon the interrelations between people and the extent to which such relations or communicative acts need to be considered as aesthetics form.ï¿½ (Downey, 2009)
Does this mean that those on ethics committees need to re-train in the fine arts in order to have the necessary skills to evaluate the ethical nature of a piece? So maybe the way forward in institutional academic practice is for artists to have a more ï¿½trainedï¿½ knowledge of their responsibility to individuals and society as a whole but at the same time, those who are evaluating these practices must have a ï¿½trainedï¿½ knowledge on art practices, historical and contemporary and understand the philosophy of aesthetics and where ethics lies within this aesthetic, specifically in relation to socially engaged works.
Adorno, T. (2007) Aesthetics and Politics. London: Verso
Armstrong. I. (2000) The Radical Aesthetic. London: Blackwell Publishers
Atkins. R, Frieling. R, Groys. B, Manovich. L (2008) The Art of Participation 1950 to Now. San Fransisco: Sfmoma
Bechtler. C. (2007) Again the Metaphor Problem and Other Engaged Critical Discources About Art. New York: Springer Wien
Billing. J, Lind. M, Nilsson,L (2007) Taking the Matter into Common Hands. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited
Bishop, C. (2008) Double Agent. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts
Bode, M. (1999) Three Public Projects. Sweden: Blekinge Museum
Bosanquet. B. (1892) History of Aesthetic. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
Bourriaud. N. (2002) Postproduction. New York: Lukas & Sternberg
Bourriaud. N.(2002) Relational Aesthetics. Les Presses Du Reel
Broekman. P V M, Ratnam. N, Stallabrass. J. (2000) Locus +. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited
Bychkov. O. V (2010) Greek and roman Aesthetics: Cambridge University Press
Doherty. C. (2004) From Studio to Situation. London: Black Dog Publishing Feldman. P, Rider. A, Schubert. K. (2006) About Carl Andre: Critical Texts Since 1965ï¿½. London: Ridinghouse
Felshin, N. (1995) The spirit of art as Activism. United States: Bay press Seattle
Gaut. B, Lopes. D M. (2001) The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. Great Britain: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group
Gauthier, M. (2002) Art and Language: Too Dark to Read Motifs Retrospectives 2002-ï¿½?1965
Guggenheim museum Exhibition. (2009) The any space whatever. New York: Guggenheim museum
Gillick. L. (2002) The Wood Way. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery PJ Print
Gillick. L, Renton. A. (1991) Technique Anglaise. London: Thames and Hudson One-ï¿½?Off Press
Harrison. C, Wood. P. (1992) Art in Theory 1900-ï¿½?1990. London: Blackwell Publishers
Levison, Jerrold. (1998) Aesthetics and Ethics. United States: Cambridge University Press
McCorquodale. D, Siderfin. N, Stallabrass. J. (1998) Occuptional Hazard: Critical
Writing on Recent British Art. Lomdon: Black Dog Publishing Limited
Nielsen. P. (2009) The Model. Barcelona: Museu dï¿½ Art Contemporani de Barcelona (MACBA)
Pardo, J. (2000) Jorge Pardo, New York: Hatje Cantz
Ranciere, Jacques. (2005) The politics of Aesthetics. London: Continuum
Ratcliff, C. (2000) Out of the Box. Canada: Allworth Press
Rodrigues, Saint Simonian O. (1825) Art in Theory 1815-1900, The Scientist and the Industrialistï¿½.London: Blackwell
Schavemaker. M. Rakier,M. (2007) Right About Now: Art and Theory Since the 1990s. Netherlands: Valiz Publishers
Spaziergang. E L. (2010) Liam Gillick. Germany: Snoeck
Superflex. (1999) Superflex. Liverpool: Artspace and the Authors
Willats, S. (2000) Art and Social Function. Hong Kongï¿½ Ellipsis
Willats. S (2011) The Artist as an Instigator of Changes in Social Cognition and
Behaviourï¿½ Occasional Papers
Wright, S. (2007) Taking the matter into common hands. London: Black dog
AfterAll. (1999) A Journal, Context and Enquiry. London: Central Saint Matins College of Art and Design
AfterAll. (2000) A Journal, Context and Enquiry. London: Central Saint Matins College of Art and Design
Buren, D Bulloch, A Huyghe, P. (200) Parkett
Riley, B Gillick, L Morris, S Richie, M. (2001) Parkett
Brecher, Bob.( 06 December 2011) REGC12-ï¿½?13 [email, from Brecher, B.] [online] Available e-ï¿½?mail: B.Brecher@brighton.ac.uk
Minutes taken from appeal meeting of the University Research Ethics and Governance Committee. (2012) REGC12-16. [personal communication-letter] 04/01/2012.
Eleey. Peter (2007) Context is Half the Work. Frieze Magazine: Issue 111
Bishop. Claire (2007) Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics
[Accessed: 25/08/2012] Downey, Anthony (2007) ï¿½Towards a Politics of (Relational) Aestheticsï¿½, Third
Text, 21:3, 267-ï¿½? 275
[Accessed on 27/ 08/2012]
Kester, Grant ( ) Dialogical Aesthetics: A Critical framework for Littoral Art. Variant, Issue 9
[Accessed on 27/ 08/2012]
Kester, Grant (2009) ï¿½Lessons in Futility: Francis Alys and the Legacy of My 68ï¿½,
Third Text, 23: 4
www.grantkester.net/resources/third+ text.pdf [
Accessed on 27/ 08/2012]
Superflex (2011) Supergas Introduction.
[Accessed on 27/08/2012]
Tirivanija, R. (2009) the House the Cat Built
[Accessed on 27/08/2012]
Fig 1. Neild, T (2012) Conversations over 217 Days [photograph]
Fig 2. Neild, T (2012) Conversations over 217 Days [photograph]
Fig 3. Neild, T (2012) Conversations over 217 Days [photograph]
Fig 4. Neild, T (2012) Conversations over 217 Days Timeline [photograph]
Fig 5. Pardo, Jorge (1997) The Pier [photograph] At:
5 &dur=6254&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=115&ty =76&sig=1147596485220823
82 (Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 6. Pardo, Jorge (1997) The Pier [photograph] At:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=601&tbm=is ch&tbnid=FVOIs7V7j1qmwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.schwarzaufweiss.de/deu tschland/muenster-ï¿½reisefuehrer/aasee.htm&docid=BNAp_R74myKp9M&imgurl=http://www.schwa rzaufweiss.de/deutschland/muenster-ï¿½?
reisefuehrer/images/muensteraasee005.jpg&w=400&h=300&ei=Kyg2UMKwMv KY0QXSxIHoCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=113&vpy=93&dur=34&hovh=194 &hov w=259&tx=125&ty=107&sig=114759648522082317331&page=1&tbnh=124&t bnw=165&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:111
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 7. Duchamp, M (1917) Fountain [photograph] At:
sculpture&docid=C1YdySe89jnGGM&imgurl=http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumb lr_m09fqjgyIL1qbo39mo1_1280.jpg&w=840&h=998&ei=jyk2UMmSM4SZ0QXoi YHoAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=206&vpy=159&dur=2198&hovh=245&hovw=2
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 8. Artist Placement Group (1971-ï¿½?72) Art and Economics [photograph] At:
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 9. Tirivanija, R (2009) The House The Cat Built [photograph] At:
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 10. Neild, T (2012) Final Show University of Brighton [photograph]
Fig 11. Neild, T (2011) Interim Show [photograph]
Fig 12. Superflex (2002) Biogas Lamp [photograph] At:
9 t4M:&imgrefurl=http://greenmuseum.org/c/ecovention/biogas.html&docid=U 2ZlKsbbhsN3VM&imgurl=http://greenmuseum.org/c/ecovention/sect5/superfl ex_biogas.jpg&w=240&h=180&ei=FDI2UJDIOI6o0AWQhoCgBw&zoom=1&iact= hc&vpx=349&vpy=171&dur=3025&hovh=144&hovw=192&tx=120&ty=90&sig= 114759648522082317331&page=1 &tbnh=128&tbnw=182&start=0&ndsp=18& ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:76 (Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 13. Superflex (1997) Biogas Gallery Installation [photograph] At:
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)
Fig 14. Sierra, S (2000) Line Tattooed on four people [photograph] At:
t11852&docid=gdtJRbn3jaD9yM&imgurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/ work/T/T11/T11852_10.jpg&w=1536&h=1013&ei=Ozc2UMiTBKSf0QWR3YDg Bw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=105&vpy=204&dur=1367&hovh=182&hovw=277&t x=158&ty=86&sig=114759648522082317331&page=1&tbnh=109&tbnw=167& start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:76
(Accessed on 23/08/2012)