Still cant comments so here is all.

First response:

Bourriard’s theory of relational aesthetics was theorizing about a new ways of behaving in a  perceptible reality. It is mainly about the ways the viewer perceives and assesses aesthetics, therefore such artists who work in the roam of social engagement, does not fall under the umbrella of relational aesthetics.

Fried on the other hand disliked the participation of the viewers in the gallery space, since once the viewer participates in the work, it moves away from the aspect of art through the theatrecal elements.

Smithson was challenging the idea of the non-sight, through cultural confinement. He was one of the artists who early one, challenged the gallery space, by where the arrangement of objects became the part of the working process. 

Carsten holler experience was a really interesting exhibition set up for me. I do appreciate craft over concept, so the well built structures were amusing, but i started to think more about the questioning of the gallery space, by bringing in carnival objects, where the viewer becomes one with the work through participation. I tend to agree more with Fried’s point of view where aesthetics are appreciated to the fullest without the viewer being own the picture.

In my work, I like to give an experience to the viewer, but still in the scenario of the traditional gallery space, where it is implied not to touch anything. I would have some wacky ideas how i could make my Looney tombs series interactive for sure.

Second Response:

 Group Material used The people’s choice to connect with the community in a way, where both artists and non-artists were brought in the frame as people who can be participatory in an art exhibition. This kind of tactic is successful in a way, that it brings people in who otherwise might be put off by the institutional aspect of an exhibition and brings people in to participate who otherwise wouldn't have. This show brought everyday objects in to the space where it started a dialogue from these objects with different histories. 

The downside of this tactic is that it goes and feeds the ‘everything is art’ narrative, which i really dislike. By promoting this and encouraging non-art people to bring everyday objects and making it an art exhibition doesn't help on the long run. If everything is art, nothing is art. Meritocracy will soon become an oppressor that needs to be abolished.

In my practice, I am working with different cultures, which brings people together to aesthetically enjoy the art, but todays ‘getting offended by everything’ climate takes away artistic liberties (which used to be granted to artists) if your art is dealing with a culture you don't belong to. 

I like to collaborate with experts in different fields that i don't know much about such as the ct scanning department or Egyptologists to evoke new ideas.

Third response

some of these artists work in this chapter has reminded me of the artists who made the Gian craft in the floor of the TATE. The disruption of the space and using its qualities are giving a new experience to the viewer. 

by changing the 100-day museum to 100-day event is taking away the observation on a quality/meritocracy level. 

I dont like these kind of word plays, where the art is being brought down on an equal level in the name of equality.  i don't think there is anything wrong with judging or transporting objects, which is what the name change is trying to eliminate.

A site-specific city wide exhibition has more of a carnival feel to it, and by moving out of the museum scene, people look at the work in a less distinguished manner. what i mean is, we project a sense of greatness to the white cube. In a way, it is a show, where the podium, Tv, or stage, is the gallery space. It has a sense of entitlement to take it seriously.

So, one thing i like about art being outside of the white cube, is that it stripes off the entitlement to take it seriously and you can judge a work on it own merit. People can argue, if it needs a frame and white walls for the work to look good, than it might not be good enough. But the judgement and the element of comparing is still there.

i really dislike the vision of Szeemann and Beuys, where the exhibition is transformed in to a space for conversion about social and political change. I absolutely despise the notion of making everything political. Politics divides people and if people are really aiming to get along and make more people engaged with art, maybe toning down politics could help.

Second Half of Responses:

Final essays 

The Epistemology article made me think of several other readings such as vibrant matter and the to have and to hold with the chapter about body preservation and antique sale.

The article talks in depth about the taxidermy bird and really creates a life to the bird in the mind of the reader. The vibrant matter reading from almost two years ago still haunts me and really gives a unique perspective to look at creatures that are lifeless. 

The tag made me think of the value attached to objects and how we perceive value in general. 

Charles Peale started the first American museum, combining a selection of his own interest from paintings to taxidermy. This has created a museum that had an objective of learning through experience, while playing with aesthetics of wonder. This was before the preconceived notion of the gallery space, so the museum was a wonderful place of exploration. Taxidermy started out as a educational tool, where anatomy was re-created to look at these animals close-up. That became something that was pushed forward by creating a surrounding to it, based on the original habitat of origin, therefore the spectator was given the opportunity to not just look at the animal, but help them imagine in their real environment. Peale’s concept was challenging the idea between the exploration of wonder and educational collection in my opinion.

Obscured Meanings: Squirming Into Truth's Cracks: Eve Andree Laramee by Linda Weintraub

This reading made me think a lot about Beltracchi the master forger.

There was a quote “viewers don’t expect art to be a factual depiction, but they do expect the creator of the fiction to be true.” Which was perfectly describes an interesting idea between painting a landscape and forging the painting of the landscape.

Beltracchi was painting in the style of the chosen artists and he copied his styles while selling them as new originals from dead artists, while fooling all the experts. The reading also talks about the curator as a entity.

205-233

The social engagement projects as a form of exhibition can be a little tricky because of how it breaks away from the pre conceived notion of the gallery space. 

It can be difficult to engage people, who has this older, capitalist mentality about the gallery and the objects present. The preconceived notion of a gallery with a huge amount of people is, go look at the work, see it, and eventually someone will buy it. There is a certain acceptable behavior in the space, while the engagement only applies aesthetically. 

I think Claire Doherty asking the question to make readers think about what separates/define art and object, while also wonders about the idea of the gallery space.

175-205

As much as I enjoy art as knowledge in Vidokle’s version of Manifesta 6, and expose people and engage them with the behind the scenes of the ‘concept generator’, I am not too much of a fan of trying to engage with the public that way. For me, I like the wondrous elements of art making, the wonder of how it was done. It is an experience, which I do not want to be reviewed. 

I am more of a fan of the art as objects rather than research. Research is something that is before the art making/art fully takes shape.