An analysis of Marie-Ange Guilleminot’s Le Paravent in relation to Nicolas Bourriaud's ideas.
This piece was originally written for Honors Interdisciplinary Arts (HON 205) at DePaul University as an academic paper exploring relational art.
Art is often thought of as something we look at: a painting hanging on a wall, a sculpture in a gallery, or an installation displayed in a museum. But what happens when an artwork is not meant to be looked at at all? What if, instead, it is something we participate in, experience physically, or share with another person? French artist Marie-Ange Guilleminot explores these questions in Le Paravent (1997), an artwork that uses a wooden screen, chairs, professional reflexologists, and visitors to turn a service into an artistic experience. The piece also connects to the ideas of French art critic Nicolas Bourriaud, who explored how relationships and social interactions can become the central focus of contemporary art.
When I first saw Marie-Ange Guilleminot’s Le Paravent, I was immediately interested by the fact that the artwork was not something to be purely looked at, but rather something to experience. Upon reading its description, I then had to Google “What is a reflexology treatment?” Reflexology is a practice that involves applying pressure to specific areas of the feet, often as a form of relaxation. Once I’d done that, the idea of creating an artwork around it seemed incredibly odd to me. For example, if a friend of mine said they’d just gone to an art exhibit and then explained how they sat in a chair while a professional gave them a foot massage, I would say, “Well, how is that art?” But the longer I thought about it, the more I realized that this piece perfectly demonstrates Bourriaud’s idea of a “radical upheaval” because it moves art away from being something an audience looks at and instead makes human interaction part of the artwork (Bourriaud 3).
To understand why this is significant, it helps to understand the idea of relational art. In his writing on what he calls “relational aesthetics,” Bourriaud considers how contemporary art can create situations for people to interact with one another. Rather than treating an artwork as a finished object that exists independently of its audience, this approach places greater importance on the relationships, encounters, and experiences that happen around it. In other words, the artwork does not necessarily have to be a physical object that people admire. It can also be a situation that people enter and help bring to life. In the artwork, there is a physical structure, chairs, professional reflexologists, and visitors. The wooden screen is especially important because it separates the visitor receiving the foot rub from the reflexologist providing it. The visitor can experience the service physically without being able to see whoever gives it to them. The chairs in the piece are functional. Visitors don’t come to look at them; they come to sit and experience them. The professional reflexologists are there performing the service that makes up part of the artwork, while the visitors activate the artwork through their participation. They choose to participate or not participate, they sit down, they receive the treatment, and they become part of the situation created by the artwork. Without the visitors, the art wouldn’t function in the same way. A painting, for example, can sit on a wall whether anyone is standing in front of it or not. Le Paravent depends on people participating in it.
The screen also changes the social experience of the service. Because the visitors cannot see the reflexologists, the experience could feel more private and relaxing since they are able to focus on the physical sensation rather than another person’s presence. At the same time, not being able to see what is happening could make some people feel uncomfortable because they lose some sense of control over the situation. This makes the screen more than just a physical object because it changes the way the participants experience the art. It also introduces an interesting contradiction: the artwork depends on human interaction, yet the screen partially conceals the people involved in that interaction. The participants are connected through the service even though they cannot fully see one another. This suggests that social interaction does not always have to involve a direct conversation or even eye contact. Sometimes, an experience itself can connect people.
This concept directly connects to what Bourriaud’s essay argues. In his words, “The possibility of a relational art points to a radical upheaval of the aesthetic, cultural and political goals introduced by modern art” (Bourriaud 3). In traditional art, the artist creates artwork and the audience observes it, perhaps commenting or evoking ideas in themselves. In Le Paravent, or the type of art Bourriaud is in favor of, the artist creates a situation, participants enter the situation, and the artwork becomes one of social interaction. The artwork is the experience created between all of the elements of the physical piece and the visitors combined. Guilleminot takes something that normally belongs outside the traditional art world (i.e., a service involving physical interaction between people) and makes it the art. The fact that the work is essentially a service is part of what makes it a relational artwork, and this is why Bourriaud describes it as an “upheaval”—it is a major disruption to modern art. Rather than asking viewers to interpret an object from a distance, Guilleminot invites them to become part of the work itself. The meaning of the piece develops through what the participants do and experience, not just through what the artist has physically constructed.
Bourriaud expands on this idea when he writes, “The work tries to catch my gaze, the way the new-born child ‘asks for’ its mother’s gaze” (Bourriaud 11). What I believe he means in this quote is that the piece of art is begging to be viewed and experienced rather than just created. It needs to be nurtured by those around it, not just made and forgotten about. This kind of art creates a situation where people have to interact with one another in order for the art to exist, which connects to the idea that the audience helps activate the artwork through their participation. I also think this quote raises a question about the relationship between an artwork and its audience. If an artwork depends on people to activate it, what happens when nobody participates? In the case of Le Paravent, the physical structure could still exist, but the experience that gives the piece its meaning would be missing. The work needs more than someone looking at it; it needs someone willing to enter the situation it creates.
So, is reflexology itself art, or is the situation surrounding it the art? Well, if I went to a reflexologist outside of a museum, I would likely think of the experience as relaxing. However, when Guilleminot places that interaction and calls it art, the meaning changes. The service is still a service, but placing it within an artwork changes the way we think about the interaction and the relationships between the people involved. Now, reflexology is art, not only because it is being presented as art, but because the situation and participation surrounding it become part of the artwork. This distinction is important because it suggests that the same action can have different meanings depending on its context. A reflexology treatment does not automatically become an artwork every time someone receives one. In Le Paravent, the service is deliberately organized and presented as an artistic experience, encouraging participants to think differently about an activity they might otherwise consider ordinary.
So, at first, Le Paravent seemed more like an odd service than artwork. But, after considering Bourriaud’s idea of relational art, I began to understand that the lack of traditional art is exactly what makes this work interesting. The social aspect of it, the “radical upheaval,” is bigger than just a painting or sculpture—it feeds off the people who participate in it. The screen, the reflexologists, and the visitors all work together to create an experience that could not exist in the same way without the people involved. Ultimately, Le Paravent challenges the assumption that art has to be an object that an audience observes. It suggests that art can also be an encounter, a service, or a shared experience that gains meaning through participation. So, at least to Bourriaud, true artwork isn’t really something you look at, but something you experience with other people.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. From Relational Aesthetics: Relational Form. 1998. PDF.
Carter, Jeff. Relational Art: Services. Powerpoint. Accessed 10/01/2026. Lecture presentation.
Guilleminot, Marie-Ange. Le Paravent. 1997.
Leave a Reply