This work retraces John Wojtowicz's famous bank robbery of August 22, 1972, an event that inspired the 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Al Pacino. With a setup that seemed made for TV — Wojtowicz committed the robbery to pay for his lover's gender-reassignment surgery — the resulting news coverage, the first-ever live television broadcast of a crime, even interrupted network transmission of Richard Nixon's speech at the Republican National Convention.
Huyghe's split-screen video projection combines footage from the feature film with commentary by Wojtowicz himself, who reenacts the crime and comments on the movie's veracity. It is contextualized by postrobbery newspaper clippings and a segment from a January 1978 episode of The Jeanne Parr Show, in which the host interviews Wojtowicz (in prison) and his lover. Through this work, Huyghe attempts to deconstruct the ways in which the news media and Hollywood have reshaped even the original participants' recollections of actual events.
Since I'm posting these works later than usual (I've been barfing like nobody's business due to the stomach flu, GACK!), I'm going to give you all until Tuesday at 3pm to post your responses. Please email me if you have any questions.
I saw this movie at fiday night freak show in 2001 and fell in love with it. The film is gritty, tense and real. The commentary of this article seemed a lot like the commentary from the inspriation behind Johnny Depp's character in "Blow". Retracing his steps and rehashing what had happened before and then became immortalized in Hollywood. This video could have been a footnote in Bourriaud's "Postproduction" section, speaking to the idea that everything we create is one of a thousand steps and transformations of an idea. The initial robbery happened, recorded and broadcast LIVE over television, then was reshot as a movie years later, only adding to its mythos, iconography and legend. By bringing in the original John Wojtowicz, the idea has come full circle once again, now using the television as a means to clarify what exactly had happened in the moments of the original robbery, defined and clarified by the original instigator of the whole fiasco. One of those interesting tidbits of human drama that has been givin the opportunity to fully flesh out the human drama in it's entirety.
ReplyDelete~field lehmann
The website created by Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher, Learning to Love You More, is a prime example of relational art. According to Nicolas Bourriaud relational art “…takes as its theoretical horizon the sphere of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of autonomous and private symbolic space…” (Bourriaud 160). The “art” in Learning to Love You More is the community interaction created by the individuals participating. The craft is in constructing a space and reason for creation.
ReplyDeleteThe website is accessible to anyone with access to a computer who can read English, opening the experience up to the public at large, and is not confined to private symbolic space. Someone who is completely unfamiliar with art history can have just as rich and engaging an experience with the site as an art historian. There are no “inside jokes” to decode or visual jargon to interpret.
The inspiration for Fletcher and July stems from a classroom model of engagement.
“Fletcher embraces the familiar classroom model of the show-and tell to bring people together…” (Davies 8) This classroom lineage also sets it apart from other contemporary art practices. There is no reaction to, or evolution from, some other form of art. Relational Aesthetics completely rethinks what art is. On the other hand, one could argue that this “rethinking of what art is” is exactly what ties it to contemporary art practice, as Bourriaud states “Whether fundamentalist believers in yesterday’s good taste like it or not contemporary art has taken up and does represent the heritage of the avant-gardes of the twentieth century whilst at the same time rejecting their dogmatism and their teleology.” (Bourriaud 166)
-Anna Helgeson
The web-based art project ‘Learning To Love You More’ by Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher is not only a collaborative art project between the artists and the participants, it also functions as what Nicholas Bourriaud would call ‘relational art.’ There are a few different ways to locate this piece within the context of Bourriaud’s thoughts on relational art, the most interesting of which pertaining to how this work is displayed or exhibited. In his 1998 text ‘Relational Aesthetics,’ Bourriaud states that, “What is collapsing before our very eyes is quite simply the pseudo-aristocratic conception of how artworks should be displayed…Contemporary art resembles a period of time that has to be experienced, or the opening of a dialogue that never ends” (Bourriaud 160). Bourriaud is referencing how this new wave of relational art is evolving from a growing urbanization where the “experience of proximity” dictates how we relate to one another as humans. This constant interaction with each other, this proximity and “state of encounter,” has also influenced how we make, view, and interpret art. ‘Learning To Love You More’ is located on the internet, and is essentially dependent upon the participation of the audience that comes across this page on the internet. In his article, ‘Two Versions of Engagement,’ Jon Davies describes Fletcher’s works as exploring “what it means to see something from someone else’s point of view” (Davies 9). In relation to “Learning To Love You More,” Fletcher and July enact this mode by inviting others to participate (and inevitably create) the work, giving an equal voice to each participant. Just as Bourriaud describes in his essay ‘Postproduction,’ this kind of relational artwork produces a “scrambling of boundaries between consumption and production.” (Bourriaud 19). In ‘Learning To Love You More,’ Fletcher and July invite their audience to both consume the assignments created by others and to produce and contribute their own assignments. Because this piece primarily exists and is exhibited online, anyone can conceivably come across the page and contribute to the assignments. This invitation to a broader audience contributes to the crumbling of the “pseudo-aristocratic” idea of how art should be created and exhibited. This piece challenges the notion of who can be an artist and contribute making a work of art. In addition, the communal aesthetic of the project further exemplifies this close proximity and constant interaction that most of us experience in our mediated lives, whether it is an interaction on Facebook, YouTube, or any other communal/social website.
ReplyDelete-Kate Brandt
As much as I do feel that Fletcher and July’s Learning to Love You More is a pretty good example of relational art, there seems to be aspects of it that are antithetical to how Bourriaud defines relational aesthetics. (I could also just be driving myself crazy after having read this article over and over for our presentation). I’m not sure if he ever alludes to artwork outside of an exhibitional space, but the website, as exhibition, itself does not necessarily compress relational space as he suggests it should. I consume it in private, absent of a live commentary. He also states that our daily functions are becoming mechanized, in a way in which we don’t have as much direct face-to-face communication with others anymore. The internet, and consequently the site, exists in a similar fashion. It is true that a direct connection with the viewer is established, making them feel as though they are a “neighbour,” and also giving them the agency to contribute to and construct the work. Yet, there is something about the internet and it’s absence of physicality and façade of truth, that makes me weary of making a connection between my body and digital information on a screen which represents something. It is also immediate, yet, I have submitted assignments in the past and I haven’t even seen them on the site, so does it only work for some people? This also seems to contradict Bourriaud’s idealistic notion of an absence of any sort of discrimination and elimination of marginality. The main point though that I have difficulty with is his statement, “The basis of today’s experience of art is the co-presence of spectators before the artwork” (167). For this website, there is no co-presence for me; I can visualize and try to tell myself that others are looking at the site at the exact moment that I am, but they don’t interact with it in real-time in a way that transforms it for me. Yes, it was ever-changing and evolving, but I have not physically seen the change take place. Fletcher and July were maybe trying to evade the internet scrim with their installation of pieces from the site, but I feel it did not fulfill some aspects of relational aesthetics as well. It seemed similar to modern art to me, in the fact that the presence of other spectators does not alter my viewing of it; things were “placed on a pedestal” and it gave the sense of “being guided through.” I am only judging off of a short youtube video though, so I could possibly be entirely wrong. In sum, I can’t bring myself to push it entirely into relational aesthetics based on its context of the “everyday” and its focus on the voice of the people.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, the website does not simply “represent” humanity in concept, but can actually be labeled as it. Davies states that Fletcher has described his work as “a kind of reportage meant to foster a friendly interest and curiosity in what others think and care about” (9). This is what interests me most about the site, and I enjoy the fact that the assignments are presented as exactly what they are. Bourriaud states in his Postproduction introduction, “the artwork functions as a temporary terminal of a network of interconnected elements…the artwork is no longer an end point but a simple moment in an infinite chain of contributions” (10). If I choose to view Learning to Love You More in this sense, in that it is made up of viewer’s contributions and the changing interpretations of viewers’ based on what moment in time they happened to view it, I can fit it well into relational aesthetics. But is the recognition of, and visual proof of, multiple contributing factors and people any different than it not existing? Does that knowledge in itself make an artwork relational? Or, if I knew that a particular sculpture on a pedestal was actually constructed in pieces by multiple people who contributed their own and differing ideas, would it then be relational?
Laura Bennett
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJon Davies describes Harrell Fletcher’s and Miranda July’s Learning to Love You More website based collaborative project as “how people see and interpret the world around them”-which he compares with Tiravanija’s work as “universal” and emphasizing “sameness.” Jon Davies is clearly pro-Fletcher in his articles comparing Fletcher and Tiravanija.
ReplyDeleteThough Learning to Love You More breaks into the collaborative sphere in an introverted complex. Works submitted on the website (Learning to Love You More) are a collaboration through Fletcher and Miranda and those submitting assignment but the project lacks the interaction of a group project. Whereas Tiravanija provides space for his audience to experience situations of participation and social construct-though experiencing a conversation between Tiravanija and the curator of a museum may not feel like a two-way communication experience each participate gains from the situation. The “sameness” Davies speaks about in Tirvanija’s works is best described in his Thai cooking piece-where he turned a gallery into a kitchen and invited people to dinner.
Both artists work emphasizes relational aesthetics by, as Nicolas Bourriaud defines it, “art that takes as its theoretical horizon the sphere of human interactions and its social context.” Bourriaud spoke a lot about social interstice. I imagine he meant that with relational artists the gap between the subject of the work and the artist is very narrow from the audience. This intention or practice is the very reason why relational artists received their name (genre). The separation between the constructed space the artist sets up and the space found in everyday life is the free space provided by the artists that encourages the audience to practice a different mode of social intercourse than that mode enforced on us.
“Contemporary art resembles a period of time that has to be experienced, or the opening of a dialogue that never ends” (Bourriaud, p.160). In Relational Aesthetics, author Nicolas Bourriaud goes to explain the relationships between the art and the viewer and also goes into the construction of the piece. This relates to the piece Third Memory in how Huyghe reenacts John Wojtowicz’s bank robbery of August 22, 1972. Huyghe seems to be working off of a script and he plays the part of the bank robber, and which technically he is. He is going off of what he knows while coinciding it with the 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon. He has created a situation where he plays out the robbery in what truly happened versus what the media had created. “The notion of situation reintroduces the unities of time, place and action in a theatre that does not necessarily involve a relationship with the Other. Now, artistic practice always involved a relationship with the other; at the same time, it constitutes a relationship with the world” (Bourriaud, p. 168). Huyghe is working with the audience to reconnect them with the actual event. He has taken the “drama” or “suspense” out of the movie while placing people in a situation where he almost forces them to play the part. It is like Bruce Nauman where he does not necessarily force the viewer to participate but without their participation, the piece cannot become a whole. Huyghe would not be able to relate the situation to the actual crime or to the movie. It is always interesting to watch performances like this because the viewer and participants will never be able to reenact a certain situation exactly because who knows what is actually true and what is just an assumption from stories and the media.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing Harrel Fletcher and Miranda July's website Learning to Love you More, I feel like this is a great project representing relational space and it is definitely a piece of collaboration. I found the website very interesting because of these points. Stated in Two Versions of Engagement, "...his projects involve and reference the lives and interests of specific individuals" (Davies 8). Since it is a project that invovled group participation outside of the people that Fletcher or July new personally it creates more interest to the viewer. Also since each person that is participating is creating a different version of each assignment you get multiple different points of view relating to those individuals lives. Bourriaud States in his article Relational Aesthetics, "It is born of the observation of the present and of a reflection on the destiny of artistic activity" (Bourriaud 165). I feel that this relates because there is multiple points to the website. One, you have the viewers that just view the assignments(artwork) and don't ever participate in creating the assignments(artwork). You also have the viewers that view others works and also participate, and you also have the people that just participated in completly the assignments. Then finally you have the website creators who put all the completed assignments together to actually create the art piece. In my other class we are discussing a lot on authorship on collaborative pieces. I think this is a prime example of where you have multiple authors that are pushing the artistic boundaries by creating something completely new.
ReplyDeleteLearning to love you more .com is an interesting site in the way that it brings together a worldwide community that can connect and develop interesting ideas and concepts based on basic assignments. In the article relational aesthetics by Nicolas Bourraud he writes that "art is a site that promotes social exchanges and we have yet to discover its boundaries." This is very relevant in the web site learning to love you more.com by Fletcher and July in the way that all of these exchanges or assignments are creating social connections witin the participators of the individual assignments and the outcome may never be the same thing twice. Bourraud goes on to say in this same article that "relational artists ahve no link to the past" this would be true in the web site becasue of the fact that these two artists work in the present with simple assignments that are then conducted by the public. The public may look to the past for what they should develop but the main idea about the website is mainly in the present. The public that takes these assignments and develops them I feel are more on the end of postproduction. They are taking a preexisting idea and just putting their take or spin on it. In the article postproduction by Nicolas Bourriaud he says that "A contemporary work of art does not postion itself as the termination point in the creative process instead it is a site for navigation." This website is a work of art that activates the viewer to think and be engaged and carry on from the original thought.
ReplyDeleteAlex Ninneman
Miranda July’s “Learning to Love You More” is a great example of what Nicolas Bourriaud refers to as ‘relational art’; it combines the performative realm of art with common social interaction. This project embraces a public, easily accessible, and seemingly democratic media through the Internet. In his essay, ‘Relational Aesthetics, ’ Bourriaud states, “We can…no longer regard contemporary works as a space we have to walk through…Contemporary art resembles a period of time that has be experienced, or the opening of a dialogue that never ends.” July’s work is about the experience of the viewer, and the duration of said experience. ‘Learning to Love You More’ has been an ongoing experience since 2002, in which July & Harrell give tasks to willing participants, and then document their experience through writing, photographs or other visual imagery. I can’t help but think back to the work of Bruce Nauman with this piece; by dictating the task of each participant, July maintains control over her work, although I found there to be more room for fun and creativity in her participation-dependent situations.
ReplyDelete-- kari borchert.
The idea of “relational art” is a hard concept for me to grasp, but as we have discussed the definition of art varies for the individual. As Bourriaud states “What is collapsing before our very eyes is quite simply the pseudo-aristocratic conception of how artworks should be displayed, which was bound up with the feelings of having acquired a territory.” (160) The concept of art being the interaction opposed to a physical space or object is exemplified with “Learning to Love You More” by Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. With the site there is no physical object to own or specific place to go to experience it, instead it is available to anyone to view from almost anywhere. The importance of the website is the interaction among the visitors and those that wish to post their “assignments”. Bourriaud mentions social interactions and the interference of technology, and with the site the “assignments” there is a range of interactions. Most people may only read and view the contents but for those that follow the “assignments” there is an entirely new level of involvement and the interactions with the people they choose to include in their assignment, which I find may be its own piece of “relational art”. What is art without the interaction? As mentioned by Davies “Tiravanija’s work is about creating a space for the public to simply be in a largely unstructured way, to socialize in the basic sense of the word.” (8) Tiravanija is working with the idea of “relational art” in a different manner but in a way that the interaction is more evident for those involved but still there is no art object to acquire but only life to experience.
ReplyDelete“Learning to Love You More” is a space for a relational art. Bourriaud says, “Every artist whose work derives from relational aesthetics has his or her own world of forms, his or her problematic and his or her trajectory: there are no stylistic, thematic or iconographic links between them. What they do have in common is much more determinant, namely the fact that they operate with the same practical and theoretical horizon: the sphere of interhuman relationships.” This website creates a space for humans to connect relationally. It is a simple space for people to take a step back from their own relationships, and view them in a different light. For example, assignment 37 is, “Write down a recent argument.” There are many things going on. A person is willing to share a personal argument, which makes them more vulnerable. Other people read them, which can affect how they react in similar arguments. This piece of relational art is really all about perspective. It allows people to participate from all angles, and if they are open to personal growth, they will learn a lot from taking part in this experiment.
ReplyDeleteJosiah Werning
“Learning to Love You More” is a space for a relational art. Bourriaud says, “Every artist whose work derives from relational aesthetics has his or her own world of forms, his or her problematic and his or her trajectory: there are no stylistic, thematic or iconographic links between them. What they do have in common is much more determinant, namely the fact that they operate with the same practical and theoretical horizon: the sphere of interhuman relationships.” This website creates a space for humans to connect relationally. It is a simple space for people to take a step back from their own relationships, and view them in a different light. For example, assignment 37 is, “Write down a recent argument.” There are many things going on. A person is willing to share a personal argument, which makes them more vulnerable. Other people read them, which can affect how they react in similar arguments. This piece of relational art is really all about perspective. It allows people to participate from all angles, and if they are open to personal growth, they will learn a lot from taking part in this experiment.
ReplyDeleteJosiah Werning
In the Bourriaud reading, he talks about relational aesthetics in a way that is dependent on “human interactions and the social context rather than the assertion of an autonomous and private symbolic space” (160). So with that in mind looking at the site, it is not a relational space as to how Bourriaud would describe it. When I was looking at the site I was alone and there was no human interaction to be found, it was just me. In today’s society, and with technology booming, we don’t have to have as much direct interaction with others as we may have had in the past. Some could argue that there is in fact a relationship between the website and the person, but making this connection is dependent on so many other elements and who the person is and what the intentions are of that person with the site. As stated by Bourriaud, “The basis of today’s experience of art is the co-presence of spectators before the artwork” (167). While thinking about what he is saying, I was trying to digest this statement while looking at the site and I found it very difficult to think about exactly what he was saying and how to comprehend it. Thinking about the co-presence of spectators on a website is something that I don’t do often, unless it is an interactive gaming or networking site (ie poker, facebook, twitter) and because of which wouldn’t, in my mind, make that site art due to the intention of the site.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to its approach, Fletcher and July’s Learning to Love You More is unlike any work that I am familiar with. The artists deliver an artistic concept to potential participants who, if they choose, create or become involved with their individual work and these works are then collected and presented together. It’s an intriguing representation of individuality in that participants proceed with the assignments in a highly personalized manner. One issue that could be raised regarding this work is whether or not it belongs explicitly to the artists who own and run the website. Considering this, I think that Fletcher and July are challenging the idea of commodifying artworks in a manner similar to the conceptual artists of the 1960s. This project is in conversation with the contemporary issues of “notions of originality... and even of creation... [which] are slowly blurred in this new cultural landscape marked by the twin figures of the DJ and the programmer, both of whom have the task of selecting cultural objects and inserting them into new contexts.” (Bourriaud, 6)
ReplyDeleteThe project Learning to Love You More is an example of how Fletcher’s “...projects involve and reference the lives and interests of specific individuals.” (Davies, 8) In this collection of works performed or created by others, it is interesting to see inside the otherwise private lives of those we probably don’t know unfold through photographs under their beds (assignment #50) or their visual reproduction of movie scenes that made them cry (assignment #32). These events or situations can be interpreted as insignificant but in the context of the project as a whole, it provides viewers with a window into the lives of others. These insignificant moments provide a glimpse of the individuals’ personal interests. It especially fascinating to see what people choose to share. Participants in this project chose which assignments they would complete, deciding on what they want to reveal, which I think may also enable them to manipulate the impression that they might make on others.
“Situationist theory overlooks the fact that, whilst the spectacle’s primary targets are forms of human relations..., the only way we can analyze and resist it is by producing new modes of human relations.” (Bourriaud, 168) I am interested in how this idea of producing new modes of human relations relates to Fletcher and July’s Assignment #3 of Learning to Love You More. The collection and exhibition of videos that have been privately made seem to reflect this notion of “new modes of human relations”. With the geographical separation of families, the internet provides a platform for families to interact with each other through emails and share experiences through videos. This is especially evident on YouTube where people often post videos of their children in an effort to share the child’s growth with distant family members. If grandparents can’t experience a child’s first words or dancing abilities in person, they can witness these online and maintain a sense of connection.
-amber parsons
Harrell Fletcher’s and Miranda July’s Learning to Love you More project is a website in which participants interact with the artists to produce various work. The two artists post directions for various themes, which individuals may participate and send in their own work. Fletcher and July then tie the pieces together on the website which the participants can then view along with anyone else who desires to view the pieces. This is what other classmates, and Bourriad of course, define as “relational art.”
ReplyDeleteAn important comparison between the piece and Bourriad’s article is when Bourriad briefly discusses community. When referencing Haaning’s Turkish Jokes, he says, “…community is formed in relation to and inside the work. An exhibition is a privileged place where instant communities can be established.” (Bourriad, 162) This can be applied to Learning to Love you More as the website itself is a sort of community. While the site is not completely exclusive as Bourriad definition suggests, the community is formed simply because there are participants in the project and the website exists to promote and display it.
Also of importance is the difference in the relational work between Rirkrit Tiravanija and Fletcher. Davies describes this simply as Tiravanija’s work is “…a kind of laboratory space to is set up to be activated by visitors…” (Davies, 9) as opposed to Fletcher’s work which “…the key social interaction is beforehand, between the artist and specific collaborators.” (Davies, 9) This is interesting as it defines various types of relational work and various forms of participation.
Bourriad’s essay juxtaposed with Learning to Love you More explores interesting views into what is relational art. Specifically, it explores community how it affects art and also variations in participation in art.
-Rebecca Margis
In the website “Learning to Love You More” is an excellent form of relational art, it’s interactive, appealing to the user and information heavy. Aesthetically beautiful, this website is a space that gives humans a chance to relate to each other concerning different topics and ideas to each other, as well as interact together. As Bourriad states “Every artist whose work derives from relational aesthetics has his or own world of forms, his or her problematic and his or her trajectory: there are no stylistic, thematic or iconographic links between them. What they do have in theoretical horizon: the sphere of inter-human relationships.”
ReplyDeleteThe idea of relational art is an interesting topic, but as we spoke about in class art is really in the eye of the beholder. So this website may not be seen as art to all people that view it. This work relates to the work of Bruce Nauman in the sense that it is very participatory heavy, if either of the two art works didn’t have an audience that was willing to help complete the piece it worked work the way the artist had intended the piece to.
-Kelsey Gunnlaugsson