Bourriaud's _Relational Aesthetics_

Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics introduces, via a series of essays, how modern art reframes aesthetic theories. According to Bourriaud, the aesthetic experience of modern art is relational, emphasizing the relationships among people in particular spaces. At the heart of this book lies the hope for a better society, achieved through art that allows people to carry its critiques into everyday life.

I think Bourriaud is rather clear; he assumes that his audience has knowledge of art (modern art in particular), aesthetic theory, and a wide range of contemporary artists. He also seems to assume that his readers will recognize those artists he discusses -- yet I, for one, had only heard of Duchamp and Breton. It seems as if Bourriaud is trying to save modern art from its critics, especially when he discusses specific exhibits or reframes traditional concepts. I got the sense that he was trying, as well, to reanimate the Marxist understanding of aesthetics' utopian vision (though he seemed more in line with Adorno). At times Bourriaud is critical of the utopian vision, while at others he seems to endorse it.

This leads to one of my main questions regarding this book: I know that these essays were published in a magazine (journal?), and so they were not written to be collected, as far as I know. Therefore, I can understand some slippages or gray areas in the argument. But if it's the case that Bourriaud is actually ambiguous on whether art can promise a utopian vision, then how does he think it can happen? I saw a lot of influences of deCerteau in Bourriaud; so would Bourriaud's theory mesh Adorno and deCerteau?

I'm also confused about Bourriaud's discussion of Felix Guattari -- I'm not up on him as much as I'd like to be. It seemed that Bourriaud was lauding Guattari for introducing a theory of aesthetics that accounts for contemporary theory and allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

Which is yet another question: Does Bourriaud want us to have beauty at all? Put another way, can we have our cake and eat it? Or, has beauty gone by the wayside in favor of relational aesthetics' form?

I loved this book, surprisingly. I am trying to work out how it could be used to think about invention. (Anyone surprised? Didn't think so...)