|
hal foster: ... i'm not sure what the link currently is between art and architecture ...
looking glass spectacle: what about relational aesthetics? i mean it seems-
foster: [gesturing around the table] explain what you mean by 'relational aesthetics.'
spectacle: well, of course like all categories, it's debatable... but i mean ... a group of artists ... for whom social interaction is their primary medium. for example rirkrit tirrrrr ... ฤกษ์ฤทธิ์ ตีระวนิช ... [turns to art history phd] is that how you pronounce it?
brantley: i think it's rir-KRIT Tira-van-ija...
spectacle: ...who is most famous for serving thai food to gallery goers... and the 'art' is in the mix of social situations that arises from that. but it's almost like they're just doing architecture.
foster: how's that?
spectacle: ... well. first off... the only actual object that results is ... architectural. the whole space is defined by the elements in it... the counter separates the cook from the people eating... and the way the counter... and the fridge, and the stove, and the tables are all layed out organizes the way people interact in the space... it's as if they just brought a program to an architect... and said let's turn this gallery into a kitchen.
matt: the problem is identical to typical reuse projects.
foster: hmmm...
spectacle: and then on the other side you have architects who engage in practices ... where no building is produced. as diller and scofidio often do. as coop himmelblau often do. ... so are these just cases of architects producing art ... or... is there something left of architecture when there is no building?
matt: bernard tschumi describes architecture as "building + supplement," so it would make sense... that you could produce a... supplement.
spectacle: ...and beyond tiravanija... the show at the guggenheim last year entitled anyspacewhatever was composed entirely of architecture... installations... but installations are like... architecture drained of its function.
______
spectacle: thomas mical wrote that the goal of architecture is (and there is an implied 'should be' here, but he writes is...) to give form to our transgressive desires. you wrote some 25 years ago (and i'm paraphrasing here) that to remain vital, any neo-avant garde must make a shift from transgression to resistance. first off, do you think this is any less true today? and secondly, is it even possible for architecture to give form to our transgressive desires?
[discussion in which the question of whether it is even possible to have a contemporary avant-garde is raised and it is mentioned that bataille's thoughts on transgression were that it ultimately reinforces what it seeks cross]
spectacle: i don't think it's possible any longer... to employ strategies that may have worked a hundred years ago... close to a hundred and twenty years ago now... and then again for a few years in the late sixties and early seventies...
foster: why?
spectacle: ... uh ... because of ... the conditions of late capitalist society ... (stares into space like a moron for close to 30 seconds) ... any attempt at either transgression or resistance is repackaged and sold back to us.
foster: that seems like a fatalist attitude.
spectacle: ... maybe... do you think it's possible for architecture to give form to our transgressive desires?
[extended discussion]
foster: ...so, no.
______
spectacle: do you think matthew barney has succeeded in recoding our contemporary myths... ?
foster: i'm not that interested in the results... but i find his approach interesting.
spectacle: ... or has he simply created an art world equivalent to the hollywood blockbuster: very expensive to produce and not very meaningful?
foster: ... he does work... with mythology... he's definitely smarter than a lot of his critics.
__________________
|