Art and Press, Martin Gropius Bau, Berlin, Germany
2010Art of the 21st Century, Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane, Australia
Sanctuary, LA Art Core, Los Angeles, CA
The Last Newspaper, New Museum, New York, NY
And So On, And So On, and So On..., Harris Lieberman Gallery, New York, NY
Open Score Variations, CCS Bard Hessel Museum of Art, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY
One Room, One Work, 1301PE, Los Angeles, CA
2009Moral Imagination: Current positions in Contemporary Art in the face of Global Warming, Museum Morsbroich, Leverkusen, Germany
The House the Cat Built, Galería Salvador Diaz, Madrid, Spain
Desenhos: A-Z, Museu da Cidade, Lisbon, Portugal
Itʼs fine as long as you draw but donʼt film, Pilar Corrias Gallery, London, UK
Bródno Sculpture Park, Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, Poland
Tempo del postino II, Art Basel 2009, Switzerland
Compass In Hand: Selections from the Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection, Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY
1992009, DʼAmelio Terras, New York, NY
2008The Greenroom: Reconsidering the Documentary and Contemporary Art, CCS Bard Hessel Museum, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY
Out Now!, E-Flux, New York, NY
theanyspacewhatever, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY
Yokohama Triennale 2008, Japan
The New York Conversations, a project by Nico Dockx, Anton Vidokle, and Rirkrit Tiravanija, E-flux, New York, NY
Whoʼs Afraid of Jasper Johns?, conceived by Urs Fischer and Gavin Brown, Tony Shafrazi Gallery, New York, NY
The Puppet Show, Santa Monica Museum of Art, CA
Installations: Selection from the Guggenheim Collections, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain
Vertrautes Terrain: Aktuelle Kunst in und über Deutschland, ZKM Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany (cat.)
From Gerhard Richter to Rebecca Horn: Works from the Contemporary Art Collection of the Federal Republic of Germany, Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn, Germany
The Freak Show, Musée d'Art Contemporain de Lyon, France
Experiment Marathon Reykjavik, Reykjavik Art Museum, Iceland
Glasgow International Festival of Visual Art, Glasgow, UK
Inaugural Exhibition New Space, Kurimanzutto, Mexico City, Mexico
An Unruly History of the Readymade, Colección Jumez, Mexico City, Mexico
Servitude and Simulacre, Ce Soir, curated by Jordi Vidal, Paris, France
2007Art Beijing 2007, Tang Gallery, Beijing, China
Show Me Thai, Museum of Contemporary Art, Tokyo, Japan
Tomorrow, Artsonje Center, Seoul, South Korea
Anyang Public Art Project, Anyang, South Korea
Copenhagen Bar Project, Karriere Contemporary Art and Social Life, Copenhagen, Denmark
The Place and the Plate, The Jim Thompson Art Center, Bangkok, Thailand
The Lath Picture Show, Petzel Gallery, New York, NY
Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967, MCA, Chicago, IL
Just use it, Nordjyllands Kunstmuseum, Aalborg, Denmark
Soctiabank Nuit Blanche, Ontario College of Art and Design, Ontario, Canada
Lucelia Artist Award 2001-2006, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington DC
Lyon Biennale, France
Words Fail Me, curated by Matthew Higgs, Museum of Contemporary Art, Detroit, MI
SH Contemporary Art Fair, Shanghai, China
Il Tempo del Postino, Manchester International Festival, Manchester, UK
Get Lost: Artists Map Downtown New York, New Museum Project, New York, NY
New Economy, Artists Space, New York, NY
Someone Else With My Fingerprints, Galerie Chantal Crousel, Paris, France
Generation 1.5, Queens Museum of Art, New York, NY
The Shapes of Space, Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY
Words Fail Me, curated by Matthew Higgs, Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, MI
200625 x 25, Cereal Art Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
Open Ended (the art of engagement), Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN
All Hawaii Entrées/Lunar Reggae, Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin, Ireland
The Exotic Journey Ends, Foksal Gallery Foundation, Warsaw, Poland; Kurimanzutto, Mexico City, Mexico
Emergency Biennale in Chechnya, Atklasanas Forums, Riga, Latvia
Sao Paulo Biennial, Brazil
Surprise, Surprise, Institute of Contemporary Art, London, UK
Sculptures in the Park, Villa Manin Centro d'Arte Contemporanea, Codroipo, Italy
Yes Bruce Nauman, Zwirner & Wirth, New York, NY
Satellite of Love, Witte de With, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Anstoss Berlin: Kunst macht Welt, Haus am Waldsee, Berlin, Germany
Not All Is Visible..., Astrup Fearnley Museum, Oslo, Norway
Into Me/Out of Me, PS1 Contemporary Art Center, New York, NY
The Large Piece of Turf: Contemporary Art in the Public Domain, curated by Raimer Stange and Florian Waldvogel for the City of Nuremberg and the German Football Assoc., Germany
Again for Tomorrow, Royal College of Art Galleries, London, UK
Infinite Painting, Villa Manin Centro d'Arte Contemporanea, Codroipo, Italy
Peace Tower, Whitney Biennial, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY
2005Thank You For the Music, Sprüth Magers Projekte, Munich, Germany
Looking at Words, Andrea Rosen Gallery, New York, NY
36 x 27 x 10, White Cube Berlin im ehemaligen Palast der Republik, Berlin, Germany
Fusion: Aspects of Asian Culture in the MUSAC Collection, MUSAC, Leon, Spain
Early Work, White Columns, New York, NY
Lichtkunst aus Kunstlicht, ZKM, Museum für Neue Kunst, Karlsruhe, Germany
Fantasia, The Second Guangzhou Triennial, Guangdong Museum of Art, Er-sha Island, Guangzhou, China
Nach Rokytnik: The EVN Collection, Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, Vienna, Austria
In the Middle of the Night: New Acquisitions since 1996, Kunsthalle Bielefeld, Germany
Räume und Schatten, Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, Germany
Post No Bills, White Columns, New York, NY
Universal Experience: Art, Life and the Tourist's Eye, Hayward Gallery, London, UK
Nur hier? (3), Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst, Leipzig, Germany
Drive: Cars in Contemporary Art, Galleria D'Arte Moderna, Bologna, Italy
La Biennale de Lyon, France (cat.)
Luna Park: Arte Fantastica, Villa Manin Centro d'Arte Contemporanea, Codroipo, Italy (cat.)
Universal Experience, MCA, Chicago, IL (cat.)
2004Small: The Object in Film, Video and Slide Installation, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY
70/90 Engagierte Kunst, Staatliches Museum für Kunst und Design in Nürnberg, Germany
The Encounters in the 21st Century: Polyphony – Emerging Resonances, 21st Century Museum of Modern Art, Kanazawa, Japan
Klütterkammer, ICA, London, UK
International 04, Liverpool Biennial, UK
e-flux video rental, e-flux, New York, NY
Dakar Biennial 2004, Dakar, Senegal
Qualsiasi (TV), Base, Firenze, Italy
Artists' Favourites, ICA Galleries, London, UK
In the Belly of Anachitect, with Gordon Matta-Clark, Pierre Huyghe and Pamela M. Lee, Portikus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (cat.)
2003Big Nothing, Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia, PA
Social Capital, Whitney Museum Of American Art Independent Study Program Exhibition, New York, NY (cat.)
The Fifth System: Public Art In The Age Of"Post-Planning", The 5th Shenzhen International Public Art Exhibition, Shenzhen, China
Installation Art 1969-2002, Museum for Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, CA
Utopia Station: Poster Project, Haus der Kunst, Munich, Germany
Loneliness in the City, with Franz Ackermann, Migros Museum, Zurich, Switzerland
M Art in (n), M Art in (n)c/o Martin Schibli, Helsingborg, Sweden
LKW Lebenskunstwerke: Kunst in der Stadt 4, Kunsthaus Bregenz, Austria (cat.)
Ein/räumen: Arbeiten im Museum, Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, Germany
Berühmte Künstler Helfen Koch und Kesslau, Koch und Kesslau, Berlin, Germany
M(odel)4∞, BüroFriedrich, Berlin, Germany
Das Unheimliche Heim, Kunstverein, Wolfsburg, Germany
Continental Shift, Ludwig Forum Aachen, Germany; Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Stadsgalerij Heerlen, The Netherlands; Musee d'Art Moderne, Liege, Belgium (cat.)
Artworkers, curated by Melissa Feldman, Oriel Mostyn Gallery, Llandudno, Wales, UK
1999Project Row Houses: Street Life (Round 11), curated by Jerôme Sans, Houston, TX
Embedded Metaphor, curated by Nina Felshin, organized by ICI, New York, NY (traveling exhibition 1996-99)
Une histoire parmi d'autres, FRAC Nord-Pas de Calais, Dunkerque, France (cat.)
Peace, Migros Museum fur Gegenwartskunst, Zurich, Switzerland (cat.)
Moving Images: Film – Reflexion in der kunst, Galerie fur Zeitgenossische Kunst Leipzig, Germany (cat.)
Locally Interested, ICA and the National Gallery for Foreign Art, Sofia, Bulgaria
dAPPERTutto, 48, Esposizione Internazionale d'Arte, La Biennale di Venezia, Italy (cat.)
Go Away: Artists and Travel, Royal College of Art, London, UK (cat.)
A Piece of Furniture..., Galerie Anselm Dreher, Berlin, Germany
1st Fukuoka Triennale, Fukuoka Asian Art Musem, Fukuoka, Japan
Talk Show: Die Kunst der Kommunikation in den 90er Jahen, Von der Heydt-Museum Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany (cat.)
Photography Salon, Elizabeth Cherry Contemporary Art, Tucson, AZ
FROM/TO, International Film Festival Rotterdam and Witte de With, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Cities on the Move, Artspace 1% and Louisiana Museum of Madern Art, Copenhagen, Denmark
Moisdon, Stéphanie. "Rirkrit Tiravanija: Artiste Relationnel?" Beaux-Arts March 2005.
"News: Prizes." ARTnews January 2005: 54.
"News: Prizes and Competitions." Flash Art January-February 2005: 45.
O'Connell, Alex. "Art Notebook." The Times 28 July 2005.
"Review." London Evening Standard 15 July 2005.
Searle, Adrian. "Make Yourself at Home." The Guardian 12 July 2005.
Sheets, Hilarie M. "Underrated Overrated (Paul Ha)." ARTnews January 2005: 108.
Waltener, Shane. "Review." Modern Painters April 2005: 113.
Wecker, Frédéric and Benjamin Thorel. "Quand les usages deviennent forme de vie." Art21 no. 1 January-February 2005: 14-21.
Wilcox, T.J. "Personal Affects." Artforum April 2005: 165.
2004Bajo, Delia and Brainard Carey. "In Conversation." The Brooklyn Rail February 2004: 21-22.
Parreno, Philippe, Bruce Sterling and Rirkrit Tiravanija. A Retrospective (Tomorrow is another fine day). Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 2004.
Social Capital: Forms of Interaction. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 2004.
2003Bollen, Christopher. "Critics Picks." Artforum October 2003.
Cavallucci, Fabio. Work.Art in Progress April/June 2003: 10.
Culpan, Laura Jane. Work.Art in Progress April-June 2003: 22.
Floriani, Giorgia. Work.Art in Progress April/June 2003: 9.
Gopnik, Blake. "Rirkrit Tiravanija Wins Smithsonian's Lucelia Artist Award." The Washington Post Wednewday 9 April 2003.
Hermann, Matthias, Philippe Parreno, Rirkrit Tiravanija, and Andreas Spiegl. Rirkrit Tiravanija. Vienna: Secession, 2003.
"Quote." ArtReview July/August 2003: 49.
"Review." The New Yorker 10 November 2003: 27.
Tetsuya, Ozaki. Invitation June 2003: 59.
"The 80's." Artforum March 2003: 214.
2002Boers, Waling. "Interview." Public Affairs published by Kunsthaus Zurich 2002: 96-97.
"Canvas." ARTnews May 2002.
Curtis, Penelope. The Object Sculpture. Leeds: The Henry Moore Institute, 2002.
Dusini, Mathias. "Review: Secession, Vienna." Frieze November 2002: 110.
Detterer, Gabriele, ed. "Rirkrit Tiravanija in an Interview with Rochelle Steiner (1995)." Art Recollection: Artist's Interviews and Statements in the Nineties. Ravenna: Danilo Montanari, 1997. 217-222.
Dobrynski, Judith. "A Popular Couple Charge into the Future of Art, but in Opposite Directions." The New York Times 2 September 1997: C11, C13.
Dziewior, Yilmaz. "Gastfreundlich." neue bilbende kunst February/March 1997: 8.
Stellwaag, Karin. "Kunsttest-die interessantesten Ausstellungen in April, Prinz." Kunst 1997: 60-61, 146-149.
Tiravanija, Rirkrit, "Rirkrit Tiravanija Talks with Peter Fischli and David Weiss." Artforum October 1997: 78.
Von Hantelmann, Dorothea. "Faust und Biberkopf." Zitty no. 23 1997: 86.
W., S. "A Cue from Kids" Art December 1997.
Winkelmann, Jan. "...und noch ein Essen." Blitz Review 1997.
1996Aukeman, Anastasia. "Small Budgets, Large Ambitions." ARTnews special 1996: 48-54.
Badrutt, Schoch Ursula. "Mobel schleppen und reden." St. Galler Tagblatt 28 November 1996.
Biehler, Matthias. "'Fast nichts' im Umspannwerk." Sudkurier 27 June 1996.
Blase, Christoph. "Die Beobachtung einer Teestube." FAZ no. 296 19. December 1996: 34.
Bloomberg, Katja. "Hauptsache, es schmeckt." FAZ 21 February 1996.
Brown, Gavin and Emma Dexter. Real Time. London: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1996.
Dziewor, Yilmaz. "Rirkrit Tiravanija." Artforum International September 1996: 14.
Hedinger, Johannes M. "Rirkrit Tiravanija." Saiten December 1996.
Kawai, Sumi. "Rirkrit Tiravanija." BT June 1996: 41-44.
"Kunsthalle als interaktives Studio." Voralberger Nachrichten 24 December 1996.
Marger, Mary Ann. "Not-so-sweet dreams." The New York Times 11 October 1996.
Maurer, Simon. "Jam un Minestrone, buddhistisch." Tagesanzeiger 27 November 1996: 81.
Mettler, Louis. "Tiravanija und Altenburgera 'Sozialskulpturen' in der Kunsthalle: Dinge ver-rucken, Raume schafen, begegnen." Die Ostschweiz 23 November 1996.
Duchamp and Joseph Beuys and Marcel Broodthaers, all these figures are not like statues of Lenin or Saddam that need to be toppled, but are instead more like living spirits that [Rirkrit Tiravanija] communes with.
- Doryun Chong, curator
In the recent Walker exhibition OPEN-ENDED (the art of engagement), curator Doryun Chong faced a challenge: how to present the Walker's history of artist residencies and do it while engaging community in new ways. With a panel of Walker staff members from all departments, he set out to open up the gallery "literally and metaphorically" and who better to help than Thai artist Rirkrit Tiravanija, who was a resident artist here in the mid-90s? Tiravanija recreated and modified Viennese architect Friedrich Kiesler's Raumbhne, a spiral stage - or space stage - that illustrated his idea of correalism, a "theory of the endless and multidimensional correlation between the human being, the arts and the space." Tiravanija's "demo station" was a launchpad for a variety of activities during the run of the exhibition, from karaoke battles and a teen fashion show to performances and music events. Chong recently discussed Tiravanija's art and the stage that became the locus of activity in this unusual and free-form show.
Tiravanija's untitled (demo station no. 5), during "a moment of stasis, in between moments of complete chaos."
PS: Rirkrit once told me, "I often work against ways of being museologized, or being dead in a sense." That's a good starting point for discussing the installation in OPEN-ENDED. For a guy who doesn't want to be museologized, going to an art museum is an interesting choice. The premise of this show seems to resonate with his work, which is to have work activated or "completed" by its users. How did this work?
DC: When I expressed the objectives of this show to Rirkrit, it was natural to him. After my long spiel [about residencies and audience engagement], he simply said, "So what you're trying to do is create a community in your gallery?" The way the Walker has been interpreting civic engagement is: we need to go out and meet with all kinds of neighborhoods and work with people. Rirkrit simply inverted that idea and said that, well, what you want is communities to form inside the gallery and you want to create some kind of catalyst in the space.
He didn't pull something completely new out of the hat to provide that catalyst. He immediately saw that what he was interested in at the moment could also serve the function we wanted, and that was Friedrich Kiesler's Raumbhne. He wanted to re-embody it or re-enact it. He started with this very particular historical architecture, an icon of both modernist architecture and modernist theater, but he wasn't fixated on the idea of recreation. Obviously, it's been scaled down, and the materials are different. And when I proposed to him that another project within the exhibition - Spencer Nakasako's video booth - be incorporated into the space, he had no qualms about it whatsoever. He was actually intrigued by it. He has a very loose - in a very positive sense- interpretation of it, and maybe that's one way he skirts being museologized. That work isn't meant to be a precious piece of art.
PS: The materials seem to play into that: it's plywood 2 x 4's, not marble.
DC: Or steel. The original Kiesler stage, its main scaffolding and trusses were made out of steel. We made changes to fit the space and the budget and to build in Spencer's project. He was completely open to all those suggestions, and he was perfectly happy with it.
A scene from the un-Prom fashion show
PS: That openness matches Rirkrit's definition of art as simply a "space for possibilities." When I spoke to him about The Land (the sustainability community/art experiment he co-founded in 1998 outside of Chiang Mai), he used the metaphor of a table: that the land is an empty table top that people bring various projects to. They bring things to it, use the top, leave things there or take them away, but it's basically an empty table. It seems like a fitting way to talk about his work in general, because even though this particular piece looks like a table, he creates structures, literal and metaphorical, for people to operate on.
DC: Another metaphor that lends itself is not just an empty table, but a messy table! That's the sense you get at the land. Of course, it's a "utopian" community and whatnot, but when you go there, things are now pretty decrepit in this subtropical climate. And some of the projects are specifically about that. Structures like Francois Roche's Hybrid Muscle, which is on one hand architecture that generates power using water buffaloes that live on the premise, but on the other hand, the materials are now rotting and falling apart, just like organic beings. I think that's an important notion in Roche's theory of architecture, architecture that is not about permanence and monumentality, but growth and degeneration.
PS: It also fits Rirkrit's idea of utopia as "being able to exist in chaos, to live within a chaotic structure." He says, "Chaos is, for me, is life, is change, is moving. We're always living within it." In that way, this stage, with its fashion shows and activist displays, was pretty chaotic.
DC: Right. Some events were very quiet and orderly: one artist, Abinadi Meza, did a sound performance on top of the stage, and his response to the architecture's circular structure. And Matt Bakkom's project of teaching people how to play Anagram was a very simple and elegant response to the space and how people can experience it. Some of them were obviously much more dynamic and really challenged the space: Gulgun Kayim's Skewed Visions project, and the fashion show where models ran up and down the round ramp with the band on top of the stage.
His stage, when there's nothing happening in it, looks impressive and beautiful and structured and ordered. But that's a moment of stasis, in between moments of complete chaos. And I was really nervous each time as these large events were happening or about to happen. I kept trying to have control over the crowd and people's behavior, but then realized I can't really control them. When people get together, somehow they create a structure within that. Structure is always built into chaos and vice versa. Through the realization of this project as part of the larger exhibition, it taught me something about curatorial practice. It's not about complete control, but sometimes it's about letting go of the control and impart your faith and confidence in people, your audience. Still, because of habit and inertia, every time we held an event I would think, "What would Rirkrit think about the craziness happening on stage?" In the end I realized he doesn't really mind.
Karaoke battle, with replica amp and inflatable guitars
PS: I'm never sure what Rirkrit's intent is, but I think the result is that he subverts some of our sacred cows of the art world. When I spoke to him about this idea, he said: in a culture where everyone rigidly holds onto everything so much, letting go is subversive.
DC: For me, subversiveness is a problematic term because it's one of those kinds of words we use habitually. I think that's just the legacy of modernism. Impressionists were the first generation of modernists. Before them, the Realists, like Courbet, were completely subversive. In a sense, Modernism is a history of successive subversions: Impressionists followed by Fauvists and then Dada and Fluxus. It's also a kind of a patricidal, Oedipal kind of struggle, that you always have to subvert what comes before you. As this history of subversion accumulates like geological strata, at which point can you not subvert any more? At which point do you come back to the original point? I like to think that Rirkrit's work is completely aware of all the subversions that have happened and tries, perhaps, to swim in it. There's an incredible amount of respect and admiration in it, but it's on a very personal and intimate level. Duchamp and Joseph Beuys and Marcel Broodthaers, all these figures are, in a sense for him, not like statues of Lenin or Saddam that need to be toppled, but are instead more like living spirits that he communes with.
PS: So, maybe subversion isn't the word, but his work does seem to have the effect of giving us a little pinch - "Well, why can't we cook in the galleries? Why can't we have plywood in the gallery? Yeah we can!" It's a tweak rather than a toppling.
DC: On the one hand it really kind of awakens you, but on the other, it's a gentle reminder that all these actions have already happened. It's a reminder of history, of our shared heritage and tradition.
Gulgun Kayim's Skewed Visions project
PS: There's that Buddhist idea that you can never step in the same stream twice, that it's a flow. He said that about his work; he could revisit his earlier projects today and they'd be totally different. In one interview, he touched on this idea that there are a lot of great ideas out there that need to be explored. Maybe we don't need new ideas all the time. Maybe we need to bring back Kiesler's stage. With the land, maybe we need to see which ideas are good ideas, and rather than just coming up with new ideas, perhaps we need to test and develop.
DC: Just as the history of the avant-garde is a succession of subversions, we can't forget that what drove that history was originality and authorship. We're still so caught up in that idea. "Where's the originality? Oh, that's been done!" That's the most dismissive comment you can make, right? But just to calmly realize that there are no more new ideas, but not in a pessimistic or self-defeatist kind of way, but that all the good ideas are already there, just as the bad ideas are all there.
PS: As a culture, how did we get so entranced with "the new"? Is it just a product of a consumerist mindset ? We don't seem to ask what "new" means to me, but it's marketed as inherently better.
DC: That's what capitalism does, but in a larger sense, that's what modernity does. By definition, modernity is the new. It's always relational. I don't want romanticize Rirkrit's Buddhist background, but there is a different understanding of time as nonlinear. It's circular, it's karmic, and nothing is new in a sense. It regenerates itself, but it's already been there.
PS: Critics often speak of Rirkrit's work in terms of the concept of "relational aesthetics" (the relationships that are sparked by the art) or the work's of "use-value" - both ideas that predate Rirkrit's work.
DC: Perhaps that idea of art for use, art that has functional purposes, needs reinforcement and needs to be returned to periodically. From Duchamp's readymades to Beuys' conception of art as conversations and teaching, there have been various iterations of the idea of art forming relations throughout history. But maybe it disintegrates a bit or becomes precious. It turns into objects and becomes "museumized." Each generation of artists needs to reinvent that idea with a slightly different terminology. And, in a sense, the museum's role is to preserve those lessons. We're still an object- and image-based society, and that's what a museum is, ultimately. All of these radical notions and practices become objectified and archived and collected. So each generation has to reinvent that a bit. It's not an antagonistic relationship. It's a complementary relationship that the museum and artists have. In a sense, again, there are no new ideas. There's one idea and multiple iterations of it. And in the process, museums evolve and artists' practice evolves. But when I say evolution, I don't really like to think of it like we continue to reach higher and higher to this final utopian point. It's a more circular process.
Ami Barak
Conversation with Rirkrit Tiravanija
Ami Barak: Rikrit, when your name crops up in the contemporary art world, it's in connection with food. You've made yourself known by preparing food for other people, the visitors to the ARC Gallery in New York for instance, or the Biennale in Venice or in a museum like the Whitney Museum and by allowing these to share the special privilege of being at a banquet, a feast. What are the limits of the work of art for you? Where does it begin and where does it end - if there are such things as a beginning and an end?
Rikrit Tiravanija: Well, I never really think about that kind of relationship or privilege in terms of a confined narrative. I like to see it more as a kind of ongoing process. So, people recognize or define me through certain things that I have done involving the use of food, or certain events that featured food. But I think that that's just one small example of where my actual interests lie. And I always think that the work itself is really a lot more important than the food or even my own person within the framework of the work. I think that it's important that it involves other people and that it can foster relationships. I mean, the situation can be defined through the context of art. But it's all very open and fluid for me. I mean, I don't define the relationship in terms of art and life, us and them. I don't see it in this kind of black and white way. I would like to redefine how one looks at the way art and the way life could be - and I could introduce other things into that relationship... you know, let's say from other social and political situations that I am involved in. I would say I definitively am interested in blurring the line, in terms of how art is perceived, you know, in terms of how one approaches what is deemed to be art and the possibility of treating it in another way.
AB: Godard used to say that a film is not merely what can be seen on the screen but also - what is perhaps more important - what actually went on during the shooting - the sum total of the relationships and dynamics that were channelled into the film.
When I consider your way of working, I have the feeling that you wouldn't reject this principle outright.
RT: No, I wouldn't reject it. I mean - as I was saying - the whole is an open relationship between the viewer and the work of art. So the whole process that takes place between the moment when I open my eyes and when something actually takes shape - well, whatever I do is also part of the narrative. I mean, whether it's internalised or whether it's happening or not, whether it's ... it always relates to something I'm interested in - perhaps even in representing that kind of relationship within the context of art. I think that you are involved or at least I think that what I do involves both sides of the camera simultaneously. You are looking at a scene which has already been played out, but in this case you are also playing a role in the scene. It is as if everything were totally involved. I think it's an ambivalent kind of relationship and I have to guide the process of creating art, or one's relationship to what art could be. This is an ambiguous area. You are a part of it and you're in it or you're trying to distance yourself from it. So, I'd like all this to happen spontaneously and I think that I'm creating a number of fixed objects in space. But that stimulates a certain kind of correlation between usage and time, in other words, conditions that go to create a narrative. This narrative can be conscious for the person involved, or it can be entirely unconscious. I think that there are people who look and there are people who are looked at. And this can fluctuate. I also like my position to be rather ambiguous as far as the idea of authorship is concerned, so that the idea of a maker, of someone who made the situation is undermined. I think that we have arrived at a new stage when it comes to what it means to produce art. I don't actually go around thinking about that all of the time. Of course, I am confined by the individual context or situation - for instance, my relationship to the galleries, museums and institutions I work with. But I think it's a kind of open picture, you know. I don't see it as a way of defining my interests and establishing why I do the things I do. I mean, there's a time for personal matters and a time for external things. And this all depends on where you think you are.
AB: Another aspect of your work is the idea of travel, or a certain predilection for nomadism. Why is geography so important to you and how do cultural references surface in your work? How do you manage to present these voyages without them being transformed into relics?
RT: Well, I think the way of avoiding letting things become transfixed as relics is to keep moving, isn't it? So, I keep moving. And I think that's part of this idea of nomadism. I mean, at this point in time we are finding ourselves in a situation where we just have to keep moving... We are able to move in many ways, not just physically, but in other ways. I find myself in a position where my relationship to the things I do is defined by this kind of movement or this kind of ambiguity - perhaps a place without a centre, not a position that is fixed but that is defined by a certain cultural relationship, right? I am still defined by myself, which goes to say that I am not really defined. This is part of how it came about. I mean this kind of ambiguity. I was never really in a position to have anything defined for me, from childhood onwards. I mean it in that sense. So, it's more than just work, it's a fact of life. I think that's how it worked out. But, of course, I am still trying to define myself within this mobility and movement on the basis of certain relationships I have to what's around me and based on what I think is, perhaps, a sort of spiritual connection to the world. Now is a time where we are able to move and find different places and assume different positions and this opens up possibilities for other things, you know. I am not actually interested in working on anything that has to be defined in terms of its place of origin, where it was made or where the idea arose. I'm more interested in the flexibility of being able to look at the predicament and situation you're in and then redefine yourself within that context and to go on to communicate that to other people in these places.
AB: So, do you think that artists should devote themselves nowadays to areas that were ignored by art in the past? Wouldn't that make art even more complex than it already is? Isn't there an obvious need to widen the circle of the "happy few"?
RT: Ha, ha!
AB: So doesn't it make sense to devote oneself to areas that were ignored in the past? Would it make art even more complex than it already is?
RT: I think it should be complex. It should be invested with more and more levels of meaning and opened up. I think there's a lot of things being done with respect to the idea of producing art, making art. I mean, it's... a wide field. And sometimes I realise that I'm just in one little corner after doing whatever I had to do and realising I am just a little part of the whole. But I think it's more interesting to open things up and redefine the situations one's in. I mean, I think that's where art could keep on going in terms of... that is if there is a need of some way of carrying on. Again, I'm not interested in devoting my time to making fixed things. So, I'm defined by what I do. But these things just happen and you try to hopefully redefine the situation you find yourself in and, you know, even enjoy doing it.
AB: So your work is characterised by listening, perceiving, conviviality, sharing social relationships and less specialised communication, or is this being a little too generous? Doesn't it deprive the spectator of any effort in approaching your art?
RT: Well, I am trying to deprive them of the usual approach by setting up a different situation. I don't think that I'm interested in everything just because it's new. I mean, I don't think what I'm interested in is actually all that new. If that's the way art functions, then it tries to redefine the way we approach our surroundings and the social situation we find ourselves in. I want people to leave thinking that they must reposition themselves in relation to what is being dealt with. There's a motive to do something or they go away not realising anything. And that's their relationship to it, you know. So, you hope for the best, for something to happen. Not that I'm trying to define what actually should happen - that would be rather difficult. But I think it's the situation we're in. We have to open things up and not keep them locked up. I'm not interested in creating some sort of didactic approach to viewing - after all, viewing should also bring pleasure.
AB: All your installations look like improvisations. But when one views your work, it is easy to realise that the whole process requires incredible precision so that everything falls perfectly into place and functions correctly. Does disorder in art really need such elaborate planning?
RT: What was the last part, please?
AB: Does disorder - well, disorder is perhaps not the best word... Does what looks like improvisation need such elaborate planning?
R.T.:
Well, I am susceptible to disorder. But my relationship to it is, in a sense, always kind of precise, no matter how right or wrong, it's always right, you know. I approach it with an open mind. So, things just fall where they want to and happen the way they do. You establish a frame of reference, or make some relationship within a certain frame of reference, but it's open and not closed... Perhaps precision is necessary to establish that open framework. And once you can get to the point that things fall into place, it's always working. I think one is always speculating on whether certain things will work or not. But, of course, you learn as you go on and you realise that certain things will happen if you put others in their right places. Naturally, there are surprises, but that's part of the enjoyment and you eventually even begin to surprise yourself. I mean, I am interested in being precise in conceptual terms. But I'm not really interested in achieving some kind of formalistic perfection. And although things sometimes look as if they are, from a formal point of view, hard and precise, I think that this is the outcome of a certain kind of spontaneity and openness.
AB: And one last question: How do you picture the near future, the turn of the century, indeed, of the millennium?
RT: Ha, ha! Well, I'm kind of interested in not really defining time and space. What I mean is, things have to be able to change, so you can't define them in terms of when, where and how. That struck me coming here from New York and thinking about what is going on within the art scene and how art is received, or how it is perceived, or produced. You know, I think something has to change and I hope it changes before the end of the millennium. Or at least, they should start thinking about what has to change, because I for one don't see how they can go on as they are at the moment. There are, after all, different kinds of relationships involved and different reasons why these things are being dealt with in the way they are. In the final analysis, I don't think it really has anything to do with art, right? So, that, I think, should be reconsidered. I think that we really can't define ourselves now because we're going to be too old by the year 2000. I mean, for a while we were defined by the idea that we wouldn't live until that time. You know, we were certain that something big, bigger, was going to happen. And now we're not being defined at all, because it's all quite open in fact. Actually, I think that we have to realize that that's a good position to be in and to keep on going, rather than fall into a sort of apathy. It's just another day.
