The Land

According to Nicolas Bourriaud, the political value of relational aesthetics lies in two very simple observations: social reality is the product of negotiation and democracy is a montage of forms.[1]. Democracy is a man made reality we live in, constructed by those in power. It’s a political agenda which promisers freedom, stability and endless opportunities, but can these processes exist under a Western capitalist society? A society, which is feed, fabricated information about their democratically elected leaders? A society, which is being chained down by a revolting relationship to consumerism, sedition laws and world leaders who believe fear is the best way to control humanity. All these factors and many more dictate our living standards. Democracy is not freedom.

How to Escape the Fabricated Reality our Government Paints

Set Up Your Own Micro Utopia
Art Collective
Co-Operative
Community Space


ARTIST COMMUNITY

A prime example of an artist community is in Chaing Mai, Thailand.
Rirkrit Tiravanija and Kamin Lertchaiprasert artist community The Land.



Tiravanija and Lertchaiprasert are the founders of The Land and they simply describe it as a means of trying to find new ways of being together and about learning by doing.[2] This is achieved by Tiravanija and Lertchaiprasert facilitating an open space for artists to engage with projects that display an emphasis on community, discussion and experimentation in fields of thought These art works then cross into our day-to-day living standards. The artists who participate within this project come from all over the world. The Land is a cultural collaboration, an open exchange takes place, no one is told what to think, what to buy, or who to vote for, but rather encouraged to experiment with different living standards and modes of thought. No dogma: Rules and regulations govern life on the land. Everything is figured out by trial and error. It’s never about illustrating or implementing some grand doctrine.[3] Our fabricated “reality” cannot and probably will never offer us such luxuries. This does not mean we cannot participate in it. Everybody has time to invest in something. It’s the choices people make with their time that is imperative to changing their immediate society. Participating in projects and facilitating space like what the Land is doing is intervening with the heavy structure of capitalism. Capitalism has a way of infiltrating our thought with the desire of money, which then dictates our life. If we are aware of this procedure we are able to resist it.

The Land is not only providing a micro utopia for people to inhabit thus critiquing contemporary political and social living standards. The Land is an artwork. It exists outside the “art institution” and “art market”. It cannot be purchased, but rather it’s aesthetic values lie within the experience it has to offer, the experience of taking part in a community where ethical human and environmental issues are at the core of its existence.


Collectives Contributing to The Land

The Danish collective Superflex developed and installed a system for the production and storage of biogas using nothing but buffalo manure, which is stored in large, lurid orange balloons that float on the water. The methane gas produced from the buffalo poo is used to fuel the stoves in the communal kitchen, which is sited in one of the centrally located houses. This sustainable and self-sufficient resource is a critique on the capitalist exploitation of nature for profit:

The Superflex project argues for ecology of production more suitable for local climates, waste fuel development of ‘clean’ and community based energy sources. Beyond capitalism and state communism the Superflex project provides a critique of the capitalist and imperialist exploitation of nature for production of profit, refocussing the politics of power as issues of diversity, decentralisation and autonomy in an almost too simple Biogas project of practical solutions.[4]



Superflex has also donated a similar work to a village in Tanzania and Cambodia.

The majority of the projects The Land harbours, display sustainable alternative energy resources and living standards. These alternatives assist the local demand and critique negative living standards. There are projects on The Land, which have been started and left before completion by the artist. For example, Philippe Parreno and Francois Roche collaboration called The Battery House. This project will eventually completely solve the electricity problem at the Land by converting buffalo power into free energy. There are also plans by American artist Arthur Meyer to construct a solar energy plant. Unfortunately this project has yet been realised due to a lack of funding. The fact that there are uncompleted projects on site is not a negative aspect, but rather something that further purports this project into the realm of art. Art is not merely a trade dedicated to producing forms; it is an activity whereby these forms come to articulate a project.[5] Discussion, thought and speculation can be just as valid as a finished product. It is when these factors are absent from a discourse when people should start to worry. These processes are most definitely absent from the discourse of capitalism:

Capitalism does not need any discourse at all- not in the areas of religion, ideology, philosophy, morals or politics…Formulating its judgment, capitalism does not use the medium of language which we discussing, criticizing and theorizing people use. Capitalism simply uses another medium, that is the medium of money.[6]

In June this year I intend on visiting The Land. I am looking forward to being able to write up my first hand experience, rather than regurgitating an opinion based on what I’ve read.

Superflex are the shit! Get in contact with them www.superflex.net

To find out more about The Land visit www.thelandfoundation.org













[1] Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics.( Les Presses du reel, 2002) p.48
[2]Birnbaum, Daniel. “The Lay of the Land: an experiment in art and community in Thailand,” Vol. 43. Pt.10, 2005. p.271
c
[4] Tsoutas, Nicholas, ArtSpace catalogue. Superflex: Biogas in Africa. Artspace Visual Arts Centre Ltd, 1999



[5] Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics.( Les Presses du reel, 2002) p.44
[6] Groys, Boris

SquatSpace Redfern/ Waterloo Tour of Beauty

SquatSpace’s Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty was organised in response to the NSW Governments commercial redevelopment plan for the Redfern-Waterloo area. This urban planning scheme displayed no regard for the current indigenous residents, and low income, public housing tenants. This particular plan is significantly different from previous urban redevelopment plans, because of the NSW state governments claim that the land is too important to be subjected to normal planning laws.[1] Therefore this commercial redevelopment plan can sell off local assets and override existing heritage regulations. In response to this unjust act SquatSpace conducted the Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty. A tour around the area that saw “tourists” transported by mini bus to each spot under threat including The Block, community centres, and public housing towers. Here they were greeted by a “local”, who spoke briefly about the place and his/her connection to it, and what the redevelopment plans would mean for him/her. They then answered questions and facilitated discussion before moving onto the next site.
Lucas Ihlein, a member of the SquatSpace collective, describes the tour as belonging to a long tradition of art, which attempts to connect aesthetic participation with rhetoric of participatory democracy.[2] Democracy is a key concept in understanding the intentions of a work like the Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty. Democracy retains the capacity to continually question power and existing social orders,[3] I see SquatSpace as questioning the lack of democratic practice that exists amongst the Redfern/ Waterloo community members and NSW government. Realising the lack of discussion, compromise and consideration that took place In coming up with the redevelopment plans for the community, they then created their own democratic process with the Tour of Beauty.
The democratic process facilitated by this tour allowed residence’s to express how the redevelopment plan would affect them, their position in the community and the community as a whole. One could be critical of the intentions of Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty, by bringing to attention that the Redfern-Waterloo community has displayed negative living standards in the past, so then why challenge this particular redevelopment plan as it seems to be a positive step for the community at large? The answer to this would be because SqautSpace are critiquing the democratic process of such a plan and conflict, division, and Instability does not ruin the democratic public sphere; they are conditions of its existence.[4] This plan is disrupting the organic unity of such an urban space and conflict is not something that befalls an originally, or potentially, harmonious urban space. Urban space is the product of conflict.[5] SquatSpace’s Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty highlights this conflict through the deployment of this democratic process. Ilene describes the collective’s involvement as being site specific DJs, mixing the conversation “live” to create an affecting (and sometimes overwhelming) experience for the “tourists”.[6]
SquatSpace’s involvement with the tour complies with Laclau and Mouffe argument that a fully functioning democratic society Is not one In which all antagonisms have disappeared, but one In which new political frontiers are constantly being drawn and brought Into debate.[7] There is a problem within the Redfern/ Waterloo community, but the fact of the matter is our government does not seem to want to talk about it. Instead they demolish the community centres, houses and playgrounds with no consultation with the residents. What do these redevelopment plans mean for their lives, and their position within the community? How can such life altering plans take place without any kind of acknowledgement or regard for the residence this will directly affect? We are living under a "democratic" Australian government aren’t we? Or does democracy only apply to some areas In Australia? Those belonging to the low socio-political demographic of Australia, should not be discriminated against when it comes to the democratic process. Venture 20 minutes across the Harbor Bridge to the North Shore, and residences have to go through a grueling process to erect a tree or fence. One in which encompasses all parties’ consent that will be directly affected by such an action, why? Incase it blocks somebody's ocean view? Or obscures somebody's afternoon sun? Why then didn't such a process take place amongst the Redfern/ Waterloo residence and council? Surely the demolition of somebody's home requires some sort of consultation, consideration or debate with those involved.
The fact of the matter is, the price of real estate in Sydney is increasing by the day, and the land these Redfern/ Waterloo residents are sitting on is now worth a mint. Somebody wants to start making some money, therefore no form of consultation or debate took place between the Redfern/ Waterloo community and the NSW state government, and there probably never will be. Hence SqautSpace’s Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty facilitated an expanded art practice, between art and its participants in which displayed a turn from transcendence to a kind of ‘thinking immanence’.[8] The tour complied with the rules and regulations enforced by our “system” on the day, but completely undermined their proposition. It brought to light the injustice of our supposedly “democratic” government, and in deploying this democratic process the Redfern-Waterloo Tour of Beauty created a micro utopia:

Instead of a “utopian” agenda, today’s artists seek only to find provisional solutions in the here and now; instead of trying to change their environment, artists today are simply “learning to inhabit the world in a better way”; instead of looking forward to a future utopia, this art sets up functioning “micro utopias” in the present. [9]

This micro utopia saw locals stepping outside the proposed constraints of their society, and thus being able to convey their perspectives to an engaged audience. In theory this seems like a productive mode for social change, but in fact there is one major fault. Who follows the actions of such a collective as SquatSpace, and thus would be informed of this tour? The organisers describe it as a form of participatory democracy, but who are these participants? Left wing, culturally engaged “arty types” hardly constitute a party of social equality. I hate to generalise but there is definite a common ground in which all these “tourists” would of stood on. This brings me to Laclau and Mouffe’s theory on hegemony. According to Laclau and Mouffe Hegemony supposes an incomplete and open character of the social, this can only take place in a field dominated by articulatory practices.[10] There is a definite open social agenda between the locals and tourists, but what about the lack of diversity in the community, which is engaging with this tour? All involved would have similar views on the subject and engage with the tour on a similar level. This is an issue Claire Bishop raises in her paper Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. Bishop states that events displaying Relational Aesthetics art practice produce a community whose members identify with each other, because they have something in common.[11] If we want some sort of social change, it is not going to happen preaching to a community about an issue in which all who are involved can identify with on a similar level. Maybe that’s the whole point of Relational Aesthetics? Social change will not occur, so why not just do what we know will work. Set up situations in which allow us to hang out with people we know we will find interesting and have something in common with. I don’t think this is good enough, and I am certainly not content with leaving these ideas to purely exist within “micro utopias”. Finding provisional solutions within the present and learning to inhabit the world in a better way is constructive, but essentially the same “gallery going” people are learning this lesson. Why can’t we strive to spread these ways of living to people who would not otherwise partake in such events? People who through no fault of their own are ignorant to such issues that these collectives are talking about. Connecting people through the act of making art is wonderful, but we are essentially connecting and educating similar minded people who will probably again chat with each other at the next art opening that comes around. If we continue to express such ideas and concerns to likeminded people, doesn’t it then render this whole process redundant?
[1] Ihlein, Lucas. If you See Something Say Something. P.9
[2] Ihlein, Lucas. If you See Something Say Something. P.9
[3] Deutsche. Publice Space and Democracy. Evictions p.274
[4] Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” October p.65
[5] Deutsche, Rosalyn. “Public Space and Democracy”. Evictions p278
[6] Ihlein, Lucas. If you See Something Say Something. P.9
[7] Bishop, Claire. Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics p.66
[8] O’Sullivan, Simon. Art Encounters Deleuze and Guattari. p. 14
[9] Bishop, Clare. Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics p.54
[10] Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal. Hegemony & Socialist Strategy. p. 134
[11] Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” October. p.67

Chess Club & Relational Aesthetics

One of the most important factors when discussing relational aesthetics is its ability to shift our understanding of the work of art. Relational aesthetics forces us to redefine our aesthetic experience as durational rather than immediate. It’s moving away from the autonomous art object and focussing on the promotion of relations amongst people as an aesthetic experience. Relational aesthetics can also be seen as intervening with the current political landscape, thus setting up brief utopias, in which we are able to inhabit. These “relational” art works strive to promote a discourse which does not exist within the constraints of our current, capitalist dominated society. Whether you view it as an art form or not, relational aesthetics is prominent within contemporary art, and its forcing people to blur the distinction between art and life. This is why I chose to create an installation out of Chess Club. The installation promotes ideas concerning the creation of community, utilising space, and initiating discussion.
Lucy Lippard believes that the rapacious growth and transformation of capitalism has subsumed the distinctions of local differences and cultures, and that the particularity of places are continually being homogenised, genericised, and commodified to better accommodate the expansion of capitalism via abstraction of space.[1] This abstraction of space, can be seen in commercial overdevelopment, where community spaces, parks, venues and Artist Run Initiates are constantly being replaced with shopping complexes and apartment blocks, which repress our freedom and cultural landscape. This point brings me to the theory of the “production of space”. The premise of the term “production of space” according to Marxist analysis is that space is not a neutral container or void within which social interactions take place, but rather an ideological product and instrument in itself.[2] The destruction of such community spaces due to overdevelopment takes with it so much more than just the actual physical space. Anyone who has spent time in an artist run space can empathise. The artists living, working and socialising out of these spaces start a creative institution where people can interact, exchange ideas and be inspired. These spaces become creative hubs, and this idea of space as an instrument is imperative to artists working within relational aesthetics. It is creating this space and being involved in the activity that happens within the space, which is the most exciting thing about art practice and being an artist today. Although, It’s even a battle for collectives trying to utilise space in the creative and cultural hub of Sydney’s Newtown. An example of this can be recognised in the short life of The Northwood Garage.
The Northwood Garage was an open space used by various Sydney based collectives. In its short lifespan of 6 months, it nurtured Sydney’s underground arts community, becoming an open space for Chess Club, Creative Dissent, OutSkirts, Bodega, and Figureeight. Unfourtunately, the Northwood Street neighbourhood never understood the work of these collectives, and petitions were signed to evict those residing in the Northwood Garage, and the community was evicted after a few short months.
The Northwood Garage nurtured the birth of a network and community of people, which have since collaborated together and strive to enrich the cultural landscape of Sydney. We will never be defeated by some silly bureaucratic petition, and to those neighbours on Northwood St, if you don’t like art and culture, move away from the heart of Newtown.

My experience with The Northwood Garage and the collectives I met through my time there, inspired me to create an installation about this particular community of people, and thus show the importance of providing such a space for communities to foster. I did this by transforming the gallery into Chess Club, which takes place once a month in various venues across the inner west.





It started out at New Q 22 Enmore Rd, a community space outside of the anarchist bookstore Black Rose. It then moved to The Northwood Garage, and when the Northwood kids were evicted it was held at the feminist, poltically active community space The Nunnery. We had a brief stint at The Abercrombie Hotel, one of the last remaining pubs in the inner west interested in letting Joe Nobody put on events. Chess Club’s home is now at 12 Hutchinson St. An old warehouse which a few Northwood kids now call home, and the future of this space looks very bright.



The aesthetic values an old warehouse has to offer, is of importance, as in my experience it is the preferred space for the majority of artist run initiatives. It is this reason that I wanted to recreate this warehouse space in the gallery. People could then hang out and play each other in chess, these actions then becoming a main aesthetic factor within the overall artwork. It is not the actual Chess Club, that is of importance, but rather the community it fosters. It is these communal actions which are a reaction to our current social and political climate. Conversation becomes an integral part of the work itself. It is reframed as an active, generative process that can help us speak and imagine beyond limits of fixed identities, official discourse, and the perceived inevitability of partisan political conflict.[3] It is an art work that creates dialogue and interaction, opening up space for people to communicate.
It is an artist’s role to portray multiple perspectives of the world, or better yet, to create a new world through their art making process. Under the theory of relational aesthetics these temporary worlds are described as micro utopias.
Instead of a “utopian” agenda, today’s artists seek only to find provisional solutions in the here and now. Instead of trying to change their environment, artists today are simply “learning to inhabit the world in a better way”, instead of looking forward to a future utopia, this art sets up functioning “micro utopias” in the present. [4] To me this is what Chess Club sets out to do. This is why I thought it was important to highlight the club through the gallery space. Chess Club is not something that exists within reality. It interprets reality to its standards. Sometimes societies procedures can seem too restrictive and confined, but these procedures are open to interpretation. It is these interpretations which are our own and which we should illuminate. According to Michael De Certeau we are forced to comply with a strict set of rules enforced by society and culture, there is room for interpretation of these constraints. Within the dominant cultural economy in order to adapt it to their own interests and their own rules. We must determine the procedures, bases, effects, and possibilities of this collective activity.[5]
The first point of departure is determining what you want orchestrated out of society. What you want to illuminate or hide. No matter what it is you want to achieve there is room for it, and people who can help you along the way. All we really have is each other, and the whole premise of this installation lies within opening up a space for people to interact in.
Jean-Luc Nancy believes that we are not individuals at all, but rather ”singularities” bound together at a prediscursive level at which the negation of others is impossible because we do not yet function as autonomous, self identical subjects.[6]We are always/already linked to others by virtue of an “original or ontological sociality” that precedes our very identity as thinking beings.[7] What unites artists and arts collectives working together as seen in Chess Club is a series of provocative assumptions about the relationship between art and the broader social and political world and about the kinds of knowledge that aesthetic experience is capable of producing. [8] Chess Club is one way of achieving this, and displaying it within a gallery context was a sufficient way to highlight this point. Although hard to describe and even harder to accept as a form of art by the sceptics, one thing is for certain, and that is art work coined under the term relational aesthetics, this including events such as Chess Club are resisting a lifestyle and political climate which does not suit their needs. When everything has been said and done, all we really have is each other. We identify ourselves through interacting with others and sufficient productive space and attention towards these ideas is important for it to continue

Friendship has maximum mobility and is invulnerable to upheavals. Friendships which are based on the absolute equality of relationships gives the horizontal primacy over the vertical, and are therefore constant in situations of chaos, when hierarchies and authorities are breaking down.[9]

[1] Kwon, Miwon. From Studio to Situation. p.32
[2] Ibid
[3] Kester, Grant H. Conversation Pieces: community and communication in modern art. California: University of California Press, 2004p.8
[4]Bishop, Clare. “The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents, ” Artforum Vol.44. Pt.6 Feb 2006 p.54
[5] De Certeau, Michael , The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of
[6] Kester, Grant H. Conversation Pieces: community and communication in modern art. California: University of California Press, 2004
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid


The Chess Club installation took place at the Mori Gallery from 9th April - 30th April 2008

Chess Club continues to run starting 7pm on the First Thursday of Each Month @ 12 Hutchinson St, St.Peters.