Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...

artificial hells
a critique of art as commodity; if the group ascribed any political agency to
art, it was to be found within perception, and specifi cally in empowering
the viewer to rely on his or her own sensory faculties and interpretation.
However, as the ’60s progressed, the emphasis on perception was increasingly
perceived as only the fi rst step towards increased agency:
The second [step] might be, for example, to produce, no longer only the
works, but ensembles which would play the part of social incitement, at
the same time as liberating the spectator from the obsession with possession.
These ‘multipliable’ ensembles could take the form of centres of
activation, games rooms, which would be set up and used according to
the place and the character of the spectators. From then on, participation
would become collective and temporary. The public could express its needs
otherwise than through possession and individual enjoyment. 54
As if sensing the momentum towards 1968, GRAV were at pains to stress
that their work was political in its implications, emphasising social and
collective participation as an antidote to individualism. Yet this line of
thinking was never attached to an overt political project, despite Le Parc’s
participation in the occupations of May ’68. It is telling, for example, that
Groupe Recherche d’Art Visuel, A Day in the Street, 1966.
Participants in Montparnasse.
90