In his essay “Relational Aesthetics,” Nicolas Bourriaud writes,
“… the artwork represents, in my view, a social interstice. The term interstice was used by Karl Marx to describe trading communities that escaped the framework of the capitalist economy: barter, selling at a loss, autarkic forms of production, and so on. An interstice is a space in social relations which, although it fits more or less harmoniously and openly into the overall system, suggests possibilities for exchanges other than those that prevail within the system. Exhibitions of contemporary art occupy precisely the same position within the field of the trade in representations. They create free spaces and periods of time whose rhythms are not the same as those that organize everyday life, and they encourage an inter-human intercourse which is different to the “zones of communication” that are forced upon us…”
In your own words, please explain the passage above and, specifically, what Nicolas Bourriaud means when he categorizes an artwork as a ‘social interstice.’
Then, by comparing and contrasting these two works through a close visual analysis, please elaborate what model of “human intercourse” they produce and how it may be both different from or in keeping with the “zones of communication that are forced upon us”.
Finally, do you think that art spaces might create “free spaces” and “periods of time” that stand in contrast to the dominant models? Why or why not?