The Radicant- p11-77

In the introduction, Bourriaud says, "For thirty years, the global cultural landscape has been shaped, on the one hand, by the pressure of the overproduction of objects and information, and, on the other, by the rampant standardization of cultures and languages." He goes on throughout the rest of the book to explain why, of course, this is not good. I am often overwhelmed at the lack of foresight created by greed. The homogenization of culture, product, and produce is often marketed as equality, but ends in the potato famine. Do people really not remember why the potato famine happened? Or do corporations pay so much to lobbyists that it is accidentally forgotten? I realize this is more a rant than a comment, but diversity is essential in a sustainable environment- whether it be cultural or botanical.

On page 27, Bourriaud says that, "the dissolution of postmodernism entails first of all inventing a theoretical tool with which to combat everything in postmodern thought that in practice supports the trend toward standardization inherent in globalization... It is a matter of opening up an aesthetic and intellectual region in which contemporary works might be judged according to the same criteria..." That is a lovely notion, but is it at all feasible? Perhaps he will answer this question at the end of the book. I am curious whether his suggestions on how to achieve this will be open ended, theoretical musings, or whether he plans to create a rubric on which to judge/evaluate artworks.


The term "aesthetic courtesy" refers to the unwillingness to pass judgement, as to avoid upsetting others. Bourriaud suggest that this only perpetuates the separation of non-Western artists, that we are treating them as guests rather than equals. This "quandary" made me think about Affirmative Action, and I wondered where he would stand on the matter. Are the two types of discrimination (as an artist, as a human being) really all that different?

I am unsure if I am understanding Bourraiud's views on the documentary correctly. On page 31 he says, "the increasing artistic legitimacy of the documentary genre indicate above all that this type of object is no longer commercially viable outside the art circuit, and also that the simple need for news of the world is today more often satisfied in art galleries than in movie theatres." Perhaps this is a cultural difference? I disagree that documentaries belong only in galleries, and that they aren't commercially viable (michael moore.)

Bourriaud seems to be championing things that can't be categorized. On page 54 he states, "Nothing could be more alien to it than a mode of thought based on disciplines, on the specificity of a medium- a sedentary notion if ever there was one, and one that amounts to cultivating one's field." I think making this generalization is very dismissive of the history of art. Just as people shouldn't be forced to work with certain materials, they also shouldn't be forced to not work with certain materials, or to work with multiple mediums just to be considered valid.