In the reading "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics" Claire Bishop writes about the trend of relational art and the 1990's concept of relational aesthetics. She heavily sites Nicolas Bourriaud, coiner of the phrases and then begins to break down the meaning behind the terms. She gives descriptions of the works of Rirkrit Tiravanija and Liam Gillick. In these descriptions she displays how the works function as literal relations but do not function about relations. They set up actual relations but never comment on the relations being created. She then writes that democracy is a constantly shifting antagonism between parties. It is a push and pull that leaves everyone free to disagree. She then goes on to explain her interpretation of the works of Santiago Sierra and Thomas Hirschhorn. Explaining that these artists do not create artificial relations or endeavor to create small microtopias, but rather comment on realtions as they are found in the world we live in.
I found the reading very interesting. She had many good points on the differences in the artists. I didn't particularly find one more valid than the other, just different. My work is not very similar to either style of relational art. Both sought the external which is a common enough practice, while my work starts with the internal.