A Linguistic Elucidation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Although the description and understanding of contemporary art \u00adpractices seem a priori already to have been documented by \u00adaesthetics, art criticism, and art history, a linguistic approach to the problem is nonetheless relevant: linguistics affords us, on the one hand, a means to clarify a complex terminology (on the terms interaction and \u00adinteractivity); on the other hand, linguistics (particularly the program of what is called \u201cinteractional\u201d linguistics) can help us to rethink the \u201cmutual actions\u201d at play in contemporary art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Action, Interaction, and Interactivity: Terminological Particulars<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Without elaborating on etymological details, I will begin by defining \u00adbriefly the terms that concern us in order better to grasp the issues at hand. Interaction initially appeared in the vocabulary of the natural and life \u00adsciences before being introduced into the humanities and social \u00adsciences to describe the actions exercised by persons or groups upon one another; the term thereby comprises a vast and relatively indeterminate \u00adgrouping of phenomena. As for interactivity, it has a more restricted meaning that is linked directly to the development of new technologies, and it refers to the possibility of exchange between the user of a \u00adcomputer system and the machine through the intermediary of the screen. The use of these terms in \u201cartistic\u201d vocabulary necessarily \u00adproceeds \u00addifferently: with interactivity, it is a matter of recognizing the role of new \u00adtechnologies in both the production of artworks and, correlatively, in their reception; thus, a specific meaning is at play (i.e., some artworks are deemed interactive while others are not). The notion of interaction, however, situates itself at a higher level of generality to problematize the relation between the visitor^{1<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 1 <\/a> - I speak deliberately of the visitor and not of the spectator to demonstrate that I locate my argument at a \u201cconcrete\u201d level, that of situated interaction, which takes place in the act of visiting an exhibition space (and not at the more abstract level of aesthetic theory, for example).<\/span> and the work. Interaction can thus be included among those nomadic terms, re-contextualized to account for new phenomena\u2014or those perceived as such. \u201cInteractional\u201d^{2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 2 <\/a> - Notably, this expression is found in Nathalie Heinich, who speaks of \u201cinteractional apparatuses\u201d [dispositifs interactionnels<\/em>] regarding Joseph Beuys and the defenders of sociological art in France, in Le triple jeu de l\u2019art contemporain<\/em> (Paris: Minuit, 1998), 101.
<\/span> artworks, therefore, are those that elicit the participation, the intervention, of the visitor, whether they are interactive (I\u2019m thinking of installations by Indian artist Shilpa Gupta, such as Shadow 3<\/em>, presented at MAC VAL in October 2007, or Untitled<\/em>, exhibited at the last Lyon Biennale) or not (for example, Tino Sehgal\u2019s protocols, such as his Selling Out<\/em>, which consisted of a striptease performed by the \u201csecurity guards\u201d of the exhibition space when visitors would enter). In both cases, the work is set in motion by the visitor\u2019s presence; we are dealing here with a means to radicalize the (now) commonplace idea that the work is produced by the activity of the public who looks upon it, who comments on it, and so forth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I therefore privilege the idea of interaction as a result of its wider scope of application, yet mostly since it seems to reveal a pragmatic way to rethink the relation to the artwork. The term has a generic value, \u00adrecalling different types of activities: interacting with a work is at once to look at it, touch it, sense it, enter it, manipulate it, comment on it, critique it, and so on. Perhaps it is all of these at the same time. However, beyond this \u00adspecification of interactional activities, the foregrounding of action as a dimension of the work seems to be the determining aspect here: to address the work in describing what we do with it, in observing what it does to us and what we can potentially do to it, seems to be a radical means of moving away from a distanced contemplation in favour of an active, participative relation that is privileged by contemporary art practices. In this we situate ourselves within what would be, so to speak, a pragmatics of the aesthetic relation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Communication to Action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Integral to the relation to art one often finds the idea of a \u201cdialogue with artworks.\u201d To speak of interactivity, moreover, is to inscribe \u00adoneself in such a perspective, so long as the term qualifies precisely those \u00adcommunication frameworks that favour exchange: here we are fully within a conception of art as communication, which tends to turn art into a medium. Without developing further the concerns that such a conception^{3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 3 <\/a> - Such shortcomings stem principally from my theoretical framework, insofar as I regard verbal exchange as a situated activity rather than as an abstract concept. To formulate it naively, there is no dialogue with the artwork because it does not speak, and there is no exchange with the artist because he or she is not present. I employ the language paradigm metaphorically here, of course, but I would like to avoid \u00adhaving recourse to these expressions to describe the relations at play. <\/span> may eventually raise, it bears mentioning of course that \u00adcommunication is already a form of action (in conformity with the Austinian heritage according to which \u201csaying is doing\u201d). Nevertheless, it seems possible to go beyond such a framework with certain \u00adcontemporary art practices. Notably, this is the case with Paul Ardenne\u2019s notion of \u201cotherness\u201d [autrisme] that characterizes participatory art, which, \u201cin an open and often spectacular manner, seeks to implicate the spectator. If, in a manner analogous to classical art, it derives sustenance from transitivity, then it does not offer objects to look at but situations to compose or with which to compose.\u201d^{4<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 4 <\/a> - Paul Ardenne, Un art contextuel<\/em> (Paris: Flammarion, 2001), 181.<\/span> Sophie Calle\u2019s work Chambre avec vue <\/em>(2002) can be regarded in this light: visitors came not only to see Sophie Calle stretched out on a bed at the summit of the Eiffel Tower, but also to lie with her and to tell her a story \u201cso that she would not fall asleep. Maximum expected duration: 5 minutes. Extended time allowed if the story is exciting. No story, no visit.\u201d^{5<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 5 <\/a> - Sophie Calle, M\u2019as-tu vue?<\/em> (Paris: \u00c9ditions du Centre Pompidou, 2003), 209<\/span> The stakes are extreme here, of course, but for Ardenne it is a matter of measuring the distance taken with respect to traditional art practices: there is no continuum but a clear-cut rupture, which implies a redefinition of the stakes and \u00admodalities of the aesthetic relation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n