rasheed aareen « fareed armaly « art workers’ coalition * michael asher gregory battcock » osvaldo mateo boglione » gregg bordowitz wieslaw borowski « aldo bortolotti » marcel broodthaers » bureau d'études « daniel buren + graciela carnevale « critical art en- semble « christopher d’arcangelo » mark dion » maria eichhorn eduardo favario « andrea fraser * renée green « groupe de recherche d’art visuel * group material » guerrilla art action group » guerrilla girls « hans haacke « institute for applied au- tonomy « allan kaprow « john knight « silvia kolbowski ¢ barbara kruger + steve lambert « laibach « louise lawler « julio le parc little warsaw » lea lublin « olivier mosset « christian philipp miller « nils norman « nsk « michel parmentier * adrian piper hanna ptaszkowska « mel ramsden « repohistory » martha rosler @®™ark » andreas siekmann + robert smithson « hito steyerl mariusz tchorek « rirkrit tiravaneja + niele toroni + mierle laderman ukeles + fred wilson » wochenklausur « the yes men institutional critique edited by alexander alberro and blake stimson‘The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England , institutional critique an anthology of artists’ writings | edited by alexander alberro and blake stimson© 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technofoay All nights reserved. No part of this book may be repreduced in any form by any electronic or mechanica: means (including ghetocapying, recording, or infarmatien storage and retrieval without permission in writing from the aublisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at speciai quantity discounts for business or sales promatioral use, For information, » @rnalt special_solest2mitpress. init edu or wile to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 85 Ilayward Street, Cambridye, MA 02142 This book was sel i> Coeclla Light and Trace Gothic by Graphic Composition, Ine, Bogart. Georgia, Printed and bound in the United S:ates of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Institutiinal eitique : an anthology of artists writings / edited by Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson. pom Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-0-262-D1316-1 hardcover - alk. paper) 1 Institutionat Critique (Art movement. 2. Arlists'wrtings. | Alberro, Alexander. IL Stimson, Bloke 6494 1565957 2008 Foe —e22 2009003613 10987654321 FINE ARTS N 6494 .1565 157 2008 Institutional critiquecontents LST OF IKLIS"RATIONS, PRErACE Alexander Alberto, Institutions, Critique, and Inslitutional Critique Blake Stimson, What Was Institutional Critique? I, FRAMING Wieslaw Borowski, Hanna Ptaszkowska, and Mariusz Tehorek, An Introduction to the General Theory of Place (1966) Daniel Buren, Olivier Mosset, Michel Parmentier, and Niele Torani, Statement (1967) Allan Kaprow, Where Art Thou, Sweet Musa? (/'m Hung Up at the Whitney) (1967) Allan Kaprow and Robert Smithson, What Is a Museum? A Dialogue (1967) Groupe de Recherche d'Art Visuel, New Commitment (1988) Julio Le Pare, Demystifying Art (1968) Eduardo Favario, Project for the Experimental Art Series (1968) Graciela Carnevaie, Project for the Experimental Art Series (1968) Osvaldo Mateo Boglione, Aldo Bortolotti, et al., We Must Always Resist the Lures af Complicity (1968) Marcel Broadthaers, A Conversation with Freddy de Vree, 1969 (1969) Guerrilla Art Action Group, A Call for the Immediate Resignation of All of the Rockefellers fram the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Modern Art (1989) Art Workers’ Coalition, Statement af Demands (1969) xl 20 a4 £0 82 aGregory Battcock, Art Workers’ Coalition Open Hearing Presentation (1969) 90 Martha Rosler, Lookers, Buyers, Dealers, and Makers: Thougitts on Audience (1979) 206 Jean Toche, Art Workers’ Coalition Open Hearing Statement (L969) 94 Group Material, Caution! Alternative Space! (1982) 236 Guerrilla Art Action Group, Communique (1969) 0g Group Material, Statement (1983) 238 Daniet Buren, The Function of the Museum (1970) 102 Adrian Piper, Sarme Thoughts on the Political Character of This Situation (1983) 242 Daniel Buren, The Function oi the Studio (1971) uo : Adrian Piper, Power Relations within Existing Art Institutions (1983) 246 Hans Haacke, Provisional Remarks (1971) 120 Hans Haacke, Museums, Managers of Consciousness (1984+ 276 Lea Lublin, Project: inside/Quisde the Museum (1971) 130 Andrea Fraser, [n and Out of Place (1985) 202 Marcel Broodthaers, A Conversation with Freddy de Vree, 1971 (1971) 134 Rasheed Araeen, Why Third Text? (1987) 02, Marcel Broodthaers, Musée d'Art Moderne, apartement des Aigles (1972) 138 Silvia Kolbowski, Enlarged from the Calatogue: The Art of Precolumbian Gold, The Jan Mitchell Collection (1980) 310 Robert Smithson, Cultural Confinement (1972) 140 Mierle Laderman Ukeles, Manifesto for Maintenance Art 1969! Proposal for an UL. INSTITUTIONALIZING Exhibition “CARE” 1963) 144 Andrea Fraser, An Artist's Siaternent (1992) ale Michael Asher, September 21-October 12, 1974, Claire Copley Gallery, Inc.,. Los Angeles, California (1974) 190 Ivan Karp and Fred Wilson, Constructing the Spectacle of Culture im Museums (1992) 330 Hans Haacke, The Constituency (1976) 156 Fred Wilson, & Conversation with Martha Buskirk (1994) 350 Hans Haacke, The Agent (1977) 164 Hans Haacke, Symbolic Capital Managernent, or What to Do with the Goad, the True, and the Beautiful (1997) 366 IL. INSTITUTION OF ART Michael Asher and Stephan Pascher, The Museum as Muse—Asher Reflects (1998) 368 Mel Ramsden, On Practice (1976) 170 Mark Dion, Untitled (1999) 382Marla Eichhorn, Maria Eichhorn Public Limited Company (2002) Joha Knight with Benjamin H. D. Buchloh and Isabelle Graw, Who's Afraid of JK? (2005) Andrea Fraser, From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique (2005) IV, EXIT STRATEGIES Laibach, 1D items of the Covenant (1983) Critical Ar Ensemble, Tactical Media (1996) Gregg Bordowitz, Tactics |nside and Out (2004) Bureau d'Etudes, Resymbalizing Machines: Art after Oyvind Fahistrtim (2004) Wochenklausur, From the Object to the Concrete Intervention (2005) Institute for Applied Autonomy, Engaging Ambivelence: Interventions in Engineering Culture (2005) The Yes Men, Jude Finisterra Interviewed (2004) Hito Steyerl, The Institution of Critique (2006) 385 398 408 426 932, 40 452 962 am) 478 486illustrations on 02 1 12 13 La 1s 16 Hans Haacke, Dor Bovélkerung (2000) Stove Lambert, Eiima Goldman Insitute for Anarchist Stuaties (2005) Daniel Buren, Untied (1968) Eduardo Favario, Close Gallery Pievs (1968) Graciels Carnevale, Lock-Lip Action (1968) Guectva Art Action: Group, A Call far the Immediate Resignation of Atl the Rockefeters trant the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Mosier Art (1969) Guertite Art Action Group, Biooctatty 2¢ Moms (1969) Join Knight, Closed’ Grew Videu Project, 1970. as reconstructed for the: exibition “Reconsidering the Object in Art 1965-1975,” Museum of Cantamparary Ar. Los Angeles, 1995 51 B 7B 85 9 108 1,7 John Knight, Closed Circutt video Projet, 1970, as reconstructed for the exhibition “Reconsidering the Object in Art: 1985-1975," Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles, 1995 1 Hars Haack, MoMA Poll (1970) 1.9 Lea Lublin, fisine/Outsice the Museum (1971) 1.10 Les Lublin, #nsioe/Cutsice the Museurn (197 1) 1.11 Miele Laderman Ukeles, Hartford Wasi Washing Tracks/Maintenance: Outside (1973) Laz Michael Acher, Claire Copley Galery, Las Angeles, California, Septesniber 21— October 12, 1074¢1974) 2.1 Louise Lawler, Taree (1984) 2.2. Christopher OAreangelo, Thirty Days Work (1978) 2.3 Christopher D'Arcangelo, Pity Diys Work (1978) 2.4 Christopher D’Arcangelo, Fhity Days Work (1978) 2.8 Christopher D'Arcangele, Thaty Days Work (1978) 2.6 Christopher DIAtcangolo, Murty Days Work (1978) 2.7. Barbara Kruger, Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face (L981) 2.8 Michaal Asher, The Michael Asher Lobby (1983) 29 Guertila Girls, Hs Even Worse in Europe: (1986) 2410 Rarbara Kruger, Untitled (When | Hear the Word Culture | Take Out My Checkbook) (1585) 2a Barbera Krugel, / Shop Therefore | Am (4987) 2.12 Louise Lawler, Ley Castell Gift Cerificate (2883) 2.13 Louise Lawler, Bircoais (1883) 2.14 Louise Lawler, Living Room Comet, Arranged by Mr & Mrs. Tremaine Sr, MYC USB4) 2.15 Guertila , When Ravism and Sexism Are No Langer Fashionable, What Wa Four Art Caltegtioa Be Worth? (1989) 108 us 132 183 19 156 169 201 208 208 208 205 234 2a 25 289 290 21 301 308,2.16 Guerrila Gitis, How Mary Women ft Gre-Ferson Exhibitions at NYC Musecims ast Yesr?(1989) 2.17 Sivia Kolbowski, Enlarged from the Cataiggue (1990) 2.18 Silvia Kolbawshi, Enlarged froma the Catalogue (1990) 3.1 Chistian Philipp Miller, Kisiner Fahrer cturch dle ehemalige Kurforsticne Gemsiclegeterie Dilssetdort (1986) 3.2. Fareed Aimaly, Exchange Rates (1988) 3.3. Fred Wilson, Guarded Yew (1991) 34 Fred Wilson. Mining the Measeur (1992) 2.5. Fred Wilson, Mining the Museum (1992) 3.6 Fred Wilson, Mining the Museum (1992) 3.7 Free Wilson, Mining tne Museum (1992) 2.8 Rende Green, Bequest (1991) 3.9 Nils Norman, Meamunile Back ot the Museum (1999) 3:10 Barbara Krugsr, Uinklled (Why Are You Here?) (1990) 3411 Michael Asher, Raining ano Scufonure fim The Museurn of Modera An: Catalog of Geaccessions 1928 iraagh 1998 (1939) 3.12 Michael Asher, Painting andl Sculpture from The Museura of Modern Art: Catztog of Desccessions 1929 fhroygh 2998(1999) 3.13 Renée Green, Secret (1993) 3:18 Range Green, Secret (1993) 3.15 Renée Green, Secret (1993) 3.16 Rene Green, Secret (1993) 3.17 Chistian Philipp Miller, Green Borer (1993) 3.18 Little Warsaw, The Body of Nofertt 2003) 2.9 Lite Warsaw, [he Body of Neleritf(2003) alz a2, 316 317 321 26 367 sag, 308 34 365, cry 78 379 381 385 304 305, 3.20 Jobn Knighl, 87°(1999} 3.21 Guemila Girs, Welcar fo the Fernirust Bieri! {2008 3.22 Anureas Siekmann, Trokle Downs Public Space in the Ere of tis Privatization (2007) 3.23 Ard’eas Siekniane, Toke Dower: Public Space in the Eta of fs Peivitetion (2007) 4.1 NSK, Principtes of Organization enuf Action 2 (19862 2.2. Rirkrit Pravanesa, Linttiea (Free? (1992) 43 Rrkrit Travaneja, Untied! Pree) 1992) 4.4 @ark, promotional image (2908) 4.5 Bureau cludes, inituence Merworks (2002) 4.8 Boreas dCtudes, Mera Skis (2006) 4.7 RopoHistery, The Lower Manhattan Sign Project (1992-1393) Project {1997-1293 4.8 RepoHtistory, ine Lower Mentattan Si 4.9 Louse Lawler, Big (90023 406 ale 420 421 430 432 49 450-451 460-481 476 “7 483preface This anthology docurrents the historical developmen: of institutional critique as an artistic concern beginning in the 1960s and contimuing to the present ‘Ihe volume is organtzed into four roughly chronologic] thematic sections: “Framing” “Institution of Aut. “Instituliana’- izing “and “Fait Strategies” the entries selected constitute 2 oroad sampling spanning over four decades and representing a myriad of artistic positions, Included in our selection. are primary texts and illustrations of projects by some of the best-known artists associated with, Ingtitutional eritique and a nursber of less? snown, previously unpublished er untrans jated materials and artworks. Qu: rain task as editors has heen to sift through a wealth of material for the ny selection of texts and illustrations that would best offer 2 sense institutional eritique’s concerns and imporrance, And while the material gathered in the present volume is rich, itis by no means comprehensive, Needless to say, we are well aware that to put together an anthology of institu: onal sritique is te institutionalize instituttona: critique and therofore is fraught with elt contradictions frore the seginning ‘loa certain exler!, many of the er‘ticismns articulated in these writings and projects could be leveled a1 this very volunte, and we bear full respensi- bility for our selections an¢ organization. But our primary ambition has heen ta give as rich a sense as possible of the breacth and depth of institutional critique rather tian imposing a narrow gutline, We have felt it pacticwarly important to pion che volume as 8 guide, 3 resource, 3 base for furtha: work and roading, ay well as a self-contained book. We are grateful to the artists and publishers of the texts and illustrations for granting us permission 20 reproduce their materia, ‘or clerical assistance, we are indebted to Matt Ericano and Rebecca Amfeld, For recornmendations af specific texts and illustra- Uons and the overall scope of the project, we ate obliged te Nora M. Alcer, Ika Meta Bauer, Sabine Breitweiser, Ron Clark, Andrea Giunca, isabelle Gravy lames Meyer, Andrzcj Praywara and Stenber. Wright. Finally, we would like to thank Roget Conover 4: the MIT Pres whose consistent patience and guisianice throughout every step of Ihis projectmade the rea‘ization of this volume possiile.institutional critiqueinstitutions, critique, and institutional critique alexander alberro ‘The field is a network of abjective relations (of domination or subordination, of complementarity ‘ot antagonism, etc.) between positions. . . . All positions depend, in their very existence, and ‘occupants, on the actual and potential situation in im the determinations they impose on the the structure of the field. —Picire Bourdieu, The Rules of Art In actuality, as we all know, things as they are and as they have been, in the arts as ina hundred other areas, ate stultifying, oppressive, and discouraging to all those, women among them, who did not have the good fortune to be born white, preferably middle class and, above all, male. ‘The fault lies not in our stars . .. but in our institutions and our education. —Linda Nochlin, "Why Have There Bean No Great Women Artists?” Ar. . .always was, and is, a force of protest of the humane against the pressure of domineering institutions. . no less than it reflects their substance. —Theedor W. Adome, "Theses upen Art and Religion Today Our task is to link up the theoretical critique of modern society with the critique of it in acts. By detourning the very propositions of the spectacle, we can directly reveal the implications of present and future revolts. | propose that we pursue . . . the promotion of guerrilla tactics in the mass media—an important form of contestation, not only at the urban guerilla stage, but even before it. —René Viénel, “The Situationists and the New Forms of Action against Politics and Art” Like the institutions of the tniversity and the fibrary or public archive. the art institution was advanced by Enlightenment philosophy as dualistic. The aesthetis, discursively realized in salons ond museums through tke process of cellique, was counled with a protn‘se: the production of public exchange, of « public sph *e, pt a public subject, It also functioned as a form of self-imagining, as an integral element in the constitution of bourgeois identity ‘The arnstic practices that in the lato 7960s and 1970s came to be referred to as institutional critique revisited that radical promise of the European Enlighlonment, and they did so precisely by confronting the institution of art with the claim that it was not sufficient!y committed to, let alone realizing ot fulfiling, the pursutl of publionesa that had brought itinto being in the fitst place, They juxtaposed in a number of ways the immanent normative (ideal) self-understanding of the urt insdtution with the {material} actuality of ‘the social relations that currently formed it, That juxtaposition sought at once to foreground the tension between (he theoretical self-understancing of the institucion of art and its ac- tual practice of operation, and to sumtaon the need for 8 resolution of that tension or anti {radiction indeed, one of the central characteristics of institutional crigue in its moment of formation was that hoth an analytical and a political position were built inta the critical interpeetive strategy—that if one prodlematized and critically assessed the soundness of the claims advanced {often tacitly) by astinstitutions, then one would be ina better positon. to inslantiate a nonzepressive ar® context ‘Thar gesture of negation, of negating the ostablishied conventions of art, was sncd- emist atits core, It posited that the aesthetic cxists in the critical exchange. in the rebate, ‘witht the context of the art world. It was also didlectical: ‘ss aim was to intervene critically in the standing order of things. with an expectation that these interventions would produce actual change in the relations of power and lead to genuine reconciliation. Besides nega- tion, it also sought the possibilily of a moment of synthesis. Institutional critique, at lease tuoHiNySU) pue ‘andRUD “suonmansuLin its initial years of development, held out for the ideal institution of art; itheld on to the old promise, and did not zest on the moment of negation as if that was in ‘tself the truth So when, for instance, arlis's such es Fduaedo Favario or Denie: Buren in the late 19¢0s Closed the go'lery for che duration of their exhibition, or when Julic Le Pare and Rnze Mari withdrew from the Documenta 4 exhibition and called for noncompticity with the Gominan: cultural i and yet held cn toit at the sume tite” That kind of critical dislogue is the modernist mo- + of rhe actempted production of publicness many other early stitutions, they dialecticaliy négated that winich was the vebvcle of their voice rent, the Enlighteament momer:, the emer: ‘within the established institutions of the pubtic sphere, and instances of inst!tutioral critique. Wo get 8 glienpse of it in the 1968 tract "We Musi Always cis eviderti city’ with which Osvaldo Mateo Boglione and the other authors Resist the Lures of Cor Rosecio, Argentina, 20 organize into a7 artists’ coalition ‘helped :0 galvanize their peers tha: would protest against the questionable values and practices of iccal museumsé It is, theve in Roberl Smoithson’s cal: in 1972 for an “ievesligation of the apparatus the artist ‘3 tareaded through, and in Michael Asher’s integration of the bureaucratic and operational activities of the Claire Copley Callery in Lov Angeles in the fall of 1974 We also see it in @ we of whica are feo! usec in tis voiuene} chat provocatively iarge number of art projects (6 linked previously uneennected spheres of public experience together in unexpected knots, in unexpected combinations of trajectories, Leaversing their separatences, breaking their isolations, and pointing vo the (act that there is ¢ radical cisjuncture between the ideal presentation—and even the sclf-urersianding of the museum as an sittonorous space of neutral cultural experience—and the actuality of what Pierre Bourdieu in The Rules af Are refers to.as the" objective relations” chat structure i. Thase works thus calleg nat only fara crilicai reassessmen!.of the purportedly autonomous and neutral art museum, But slso for poblfe cultural institutions nat aporate tree v® political and ideological interes:s, in a man- ner that furclions precisely according to the structural logic that is a: she core of historical institadonal critique. FRAMING ingly made in the lete J960s be-we0n “he managers of the instizution “Tae pavalle! inceea! artané thase who have assur nize and gradual.y challenge the voles of museum directors, cura nder sspons¢biity for coatiauing the estublished ccitura rompted artists ts tors, trustees, ans the like. One of she most power‘ul early crisiques fram. Us pers ‘was carried cut by the Reig’an arl'st Marcel 3ioodthaers, who in 1368 created his frst fe tional musesen, Department of Lagles, Museum of Modern Art ‘Ihe artist recounts in “A wersation with Freddy ce Vroe, 1963" (1966) “hat the ‘dea came to aire as a cizect resuls of the highly charged political events of 1968, he upheava’ of this period had promoled a sroup of artists, gallery owners, and collaciors to jolt together to analyze the relations be- snd society. Bro: haets recalis that while setting un shipping crates for the group to sit or during a scheduled meeting in his studio, he was suuck by the sirnilarity of tig process to that of inscalling actwarks for an exhioition, and concludes: chat "the museum was hom. not vin e conc Ps, bur by way of czcumstance; the conrep! came caret This dis covery lei him to favert the structure of the searyrnace: "Marcel Duchamp once said, “Yhis is 4 work of art’ all T was saying was, “This is a museum.” By creating a Sctional maseum shat rendered all that cir ‘ated within °t pert of the avt institution, Broodthaers implic:tly critiqued the logic af rmzseums, asking not only stow musesing come ioly being bul also who determines their modus operandi and how their collections are arnassed: Sornewhar to “he model of Ure museum fct'on was his surpris: I sranspor'ed and reinata'led several th times over, leading Broodthaors to comment, in words thal. rec of Julio Ue Parc in "Demysiiiying Ari” (1968), that"t present every art production wil be aasorbed au‘ckly into he commercial cyclo “ha: ‘ransfoum2 not only zhe rreaning. of this art? As an Instiaution, che muscur is enultifaceted and can be eriliqued from a namber of different slardpoints. Broodtizaers focuses on she reugeur's {rame—a frame that overde termines whac ite compasses, a (rome that is inheren:ly ileatagical and made of a mytiad of cultural, socia!, and pelitical slomenis At tae same sime th + Biood:haars developed this immanent cntique of muscums, which used ‘hat instizution’s intemal contradictions to crbdeize it in its own terms, a cumber of arlists in Suenos Aires, Rasario, 2ans, W. SHH, aad elsowls se launened whal could he termed a sreser'ptive ‘ique of the museum as stitution, These modes of cxiticism stood outside the objects they criticised, asserting norms against Zacts- -offering judgments from a particular point of view (or crizeriologi- «ai position). The eriticiam 1eok various forms, inc!sdlirg aeycatting exkibitions, oxganiz- ‘ing pubtie meetings and sii ion disseminating pampaiota, producing false identifi cards to enable free ev demonstra lions uy into museums, and performing actions andl that sough: to radically tansiorn the dorainant art situtions. For example, in New York anbiiH9 jeuopnansuy pue ‘anbyus ‘suornmyasuyimportant protests were coordinated in [he late 1960s by the Art Workers’ Coalition (AWC) the Guerilla Art Action Group (GAAC] aguinst the Muscum of Modern Art (MoMA) in stitution, particular. According to the AWC, if the museurn truly is a democratic public then the composition of the heard of trustees should reflect the general populaion and not an chte minority As Jean Toche of GAAG notes in his statement to the AWC Open Hearing in 1959, reform is not enough: there has to be “effective participation ia the ramming af these institutions in the samme mantier as, today, scudents are fighting far the control of the schoals and universities” While in the United $1tes, where muscums tend to rely heavily on private funds. artists targeted individuel shareholders and corporate patrons, for Eoropean artists ‘working within a context of predominantly state-funced museums, the crnque of institut tions quickly become a critique of national policy anc of the ideological meanings with ‘which the institutions imoued art Daniel Buren’s “the Function of the Museum” (1970) analyzes the process by which the museum nataralizes what is in fact historical, ang er.dows the cbjects it exhibits vith economic and mystical value. The sovereign status of museutns, Buren writes, is sup- ported by the way artis inslalled and exhibited. Art is hung on walls, carefully framed 60 that only the ircage is displayed, “Ihe non-visibility or (Geliberate} non-indication/revela tion of the wurious supports of any work," including its stretcher, frame, verso, pedigree and price, is deliberate: it ie“: cateful camouflage undertaker. by the prevalent bourgeois ideology" to conceal the social and politica consequences resulting from the museurn's machinations, Mierle Laderman Ukeles's Manifesto for Maintenance Art 1969!” also focuses on the hidden orders of the museurn, but moze specifically fram the perspective of labor. Ukeles emphasizes the indispensable labor of installing and maintaining the site of an art exhibition, such as pafating and washing walls, sweeping and polisiiing floors, cleaning. windows and vitrines—labor [hal is often gendered and/or raced, and always carefully kept out of sight Singe the late £960s [lens Haacke has also preduced works and written texts that probe the beoadth of the Feld of art and cat] into question the many unspoien and yet fundamental tenets of the art world. In “Provisional Remarks” (1971), he cates that he "was lowed years of no deubt pushed i (his direction by the general political awakening thet f absolute apathy after World War IL” Describing his projects of the late 1960: and eariy 19705, as “reol-tirse social systems] operat ng in an art content,” Haacke claims that they func- tion as snares to caplure the concealed machinations and assumptions of museuins—as “double-agents” that enter inlo the institution of art to show that much of what it presents as natura is actuaily historical and socially constricted. His immanent critique of the operating logic of museums and galleries the art jon expanded to reflect on the pay public layed in maintaining the status quo, and on the instrumentaiization of the institu: tfon of art by political and economic interests. As Haacke writes in “The Agent” (19773, "the corporate state, Uke governments, has a nalural allergy to questions such as ‘what?’ and "for whom?" Hts indluence is capable of coulescing a whole range ‘om! wuencies, including museum diree:era, curatwes, critics, artists, and dealers, who together form a block to sup: port ony art that is neutral, unproblemacic, and unthreatening jeuogmansut sem seum ee24 conceptual ary or finaliy che self-refiexive, sheot-yourseif-in-the-faot critical!y of insliti tonal critique. But that resistance to betng folded into rearket.or politizal obligacions does not mean thar it did nol take on an instilutional sole as azt, thereby providing 2 very specific, sal of constraints thet cid indeed shape Auman intevaction. This, of course, was Buzger’s concer, and he cerisied 1960s art “or merely paying at stepping outside ‘ts own institation. y: calling ft “‘neo-avant ee,"he cast il wilh institutionalized art as a whole, variousiy as “ihe objecliSealion. of the velf-uncersianding of the bourgeois class’ or *aestheticiar." In other words, art institutionalized was art for its ows sake and, as such, was a mirror im- age of the bourgeo'sia’s own sense cf itself rising up arc toring it over the culture at large 35 a universal and Iranalucenl ruling subject for its own sake, no longer in need of divine sanction or authorization by milisazy might. Its principle was housed in lhe “ism* part of the terms “acstaeticisns, in the Secoming insttulional or becoming sel!-ewthorized of that which had once defined ‘sel! vack during its own zevolutionary epoch in the eighteenth sor century: precisely by its distance Gorm institutional being, by its distance fram any of idersity, by its twanscendence of institutionalily os such in the heady ether of individual bod'ly experience hecante univers ms aning ena purpose transformation from the protopolitica’, extrainst!utiona, untversul purpose of the revalubonery bourgeoisie to the post pei: ical, institutio alized loss of that purpose for the Tater bourgeois culling das thut is, trom the self-expression of che capitalist class ‘nthe sighlaenth ceutury to its tactical self-abnegation in che twentialh more or less ssunmarizes the history of modem att, oul chis Talier-day conditios became narticularly acute by the end of the 19608 As biirger would put iz in a later publication, “The stugular zerm ‘instéiution of art’ highlights the hegemony of one concept'on of art,” a he: emery that We to be Gemonstrated, he insisted, by one particularly signincant factor: “the sxrugele sth al. against committed art’ The original soorgeois institution of ert, aggage of fs transformation from » genuine universalism to @ counterfeit or false ong, would carry on Nhough: ail the exper:ments with new and different media that characterized che art of the 1960s. The great ‘rony and preet suprise, for our purposes, ‘s that, contrary to Burger and the period anti-inslitulionalisin that his study grew cutof, that institution wauld come te be nos powertslly defended, ar iculateé, and rerewed by the art cevelopmext that presumed to the greatest degrse af inst‘tulional yelf-retlexivicy—chat is, what we have come to call institutional critique IC we had to puta lael om che anomely at issue here, we cuight sav that the genre of institu: tional critique as it tok form at the end of the 2960s was more colicted than most about Groucho anc. that 2 the period's emerging tenda remained tiee co—or found parpase in retumting to—the older, residual tendaxce Karl. The principle of institutionally itself was always et the hearl ef the oeurgec’e concept ef madern art, teking tis Teall, Best, from the ie fe-—and, later, frem the great ais. great historic figures of he bourgooisic—the vavious allegaties of liberty and equalt Citizen, the parliament, the museum, and the pablie toric figures ofsocta.iern the labdeer, the factory, thesov'et, the sarty, Ihe internacional, the maasses, The? dream: of becoming social, becoming institutional, of becoming gavernmentai in its Taeper (pre-Foucauldian, pre-teadance Groucho? sense, ultimately. was also always the dream of becoming human, of self-realizaticn: "When Ihe ‘aborer co-operates systenati- cally sith others’—thet is, when he becomes part of an assembly line, a soviet, a party, » class, an inst cutlon—as the original tendance Kar! famously had it, “he strips off the ferters cf his tna'viduol’ty, and develops the capabi ‘ties of his species ‘This great human potential, realized >y “he ighly developed social forms and pre- cesses of capitalism, slways had an avi. underside as well in Marx's view, and that travosty coule nes be separated for the histor‘cal develop:nentof their promise: “fthen, on the one capitalist raode of production is a histonical-y necessary condition for tre tray- hang, formation of the Iabor process into a socal process, 90, ot che other hang, ths sacia? form of the labor process is a method employed by capita’ for the mare pratable exploitation of Inher, by increasing its srecuctive power’ Taat exp.citacion was achieved by technclegieal acd managerial means. of course, out also through the reduction of alienation or ideology ot commodity fetishism 7 the insticution of art Thal is, by creating the illusion that the complex social systems and processes that capitalism had enabied were, i: fact, the social ity of things rather than people and thete‘ore heyone: the centre! of thase they resresered Fven ap it came ta einbody that al’enation in the principle of act for its own sake.reodem art also promiscc ax. alternative to chat alicnation, an alternative way to experience socially fs a petson rather than a thing, and in 30 doing a manner of redeeming the compromised promise of copita ‘et modernity: Ic was never a Susly satisfactory or successf! redemption, and —L-keJabor—was always alroady complicit or coextensive wich its ewn exploitation, bul anda jeuopmpsuy sem seu voswins 2-4 st268 it didiike labor—provide a reminder of the Entigrenment dream of what humanity eauld bbe In this way aesthetics and politics, the bourgeois concept of modern azt and socialism, have al an self-realization in ys heen inseparable, aad it is teat inseperability, thet hy becoming social, tha? would became the root justitcation for Uke anise praclice of !ns tutional etiticue the comedy of institutional belanging, es Nistzsche called it—cf being a married philosopher, for example, ar a riovement astist, or an ivory ‘ower av: historian, or a con cemed ci-izi and its cunning postmodem antidate of always sidestepping ‘nstitutional Jallon in order to fresh air. of incessantly displacing oneself ftom sociel forms as they begin to congeol anc cohere inte “lhe madhouses and haspitals of cul-ure "il be farailise sp many seaders of this volume. Ido not meas to downplay tae tremendous importance hak such ideals have had in defining a cvidcal fanction for art and cnticality more broadly since 1968 (rsleed, | lake Ircrnanuel Wal‘ecstein <0 be largely right in-his assessment cf recent b's- sony. “The conclusion that the world's populations drew from the performance of the clas- sical entisystemic movements in power was negative." he writes, referring most centraly to list movements: ‘he broad historical step of communism and affliated anticapts jeve that these parties umeig bring shout a glorious future or 9 more egelitarian ward and ne leager gave thors their egitim vss and Having lost conpideace In the mcuentents, they abso rou their jaiti in tie state as 4 mechanism of rrumsfurrmation. this did not mean thar large sectians of the population would ne longer vote for such parties in eiections; but it had iacome a defensive vote, for lesser evils, wot an affirmation of ideotagy or expectarions ‘That said, however the art practice of satutional critique as {t is understood here is something largely different in its critical emphasis stom the new left policies shat emerged in Cie wake of these fail sand therefore is sinavailable Lo the theorel’ral siusings of she “kes of Castoriadis, Althusser, and Foucault, and fal's outsice of the purview given to us by Wallerstein’s hiscory of legitimacy Put sipiy. ta snomalons investment i instit- Jonal criligue Yad litle ef the delensive ceavtion thet Wal'ecslein speaks of and little of che instizutionel-outsiderism of its contemporazics, Against many of the postmedern’sens thas would emerge sussequently, instisational critique retained its comrttment to the old pronti of insiitutionali:y tn this way instilulional evitique as an atistic genre stood opposed 10 ant instituconality as such, not just that of Lhe perioe terdance Groucha but also z0 that which hag cone to be the trademark of the bourgeoisie soon afler it came to power “The aetitude of the bourgeois Lo the institut‘ons of his regime is xe that of the jew 1a the law" is the analogy Marx and comrade Erge.s sed with caaracteristic anti-Seraitism, “ne evades them whenever ft is possible to do 0 in each individual case, but he wants everyone clse :0 eb- gerve then" Whal is relevan: for our purposes = che contradic|ion—"If the entire bout: 8, It wayle cease Lahe geo'sic, ina mass and at one lirms, were lo evade bourgeo's insti. bourgeois conduct whick, of course, never occurs 20 Nhe bourgeois and by no means depends or their willing or cunning"—a contradiction that makes ‘sel! manifest in various forms: The disso! sles the 12 bourgeois evades marriage and secre! ly commits adultery, the merchant institution of property hp depriving others of property by speciation, banbeupte, etc; the young iowrgenis makes himself independent of his owt farnity, if he cam by im fact aboiishing the faraity as far as he is concerned. Sut marriage, property, the Jamsily vemain wtowched in theory, because sh fore thy pretinal hasis ox whieh the bourgeniste has ereccad its domixation, and because in chair ouraeois form they are the conditdons which make the bourgeots a bourgeois, just as 'he constancy evaied las mates the religious jew 4 religicis jeur Ihis aititude of the bourgeois to che conditicns of his enistence acquires on2 ofits universal forms i boungea's moral To which, of course, Marx and Engels teeuonded wich the demand to chink ail sovial in : stitutions as such—that is, as types rather then indivicual instances: marriage, property, fsmily, worker, party, Ca ele. Typology was stsolf social thinking, institutional thinsing, less thinking, and it was only as such thal @ truth of class could be made avuila’sle lo congeigusness, even if it accasionslly devolved fromm meaningful abstraction ints the philo- AL forms of tink sophical. political, und ani 2vope-opica: falsity of stereozyring anc rae ing have their limits, including thay "stripped of ‘he festers of individuality” Inorder to ly appreviate the difference between such typologival think’ag and the meth- ocolopical individualism of the bourgeoisie and its theorists chat came to undercul the sovial rnganing cf art, we will need to trace a history back ta “is modernist foandacions, an uncevstsnd betcer whal |: is that Burger called the “inscitution of art At the outs, we s a28 shoud put forward a disclaimer (ital will already be well urdersined by most readers: the category chat concerns a 1s not simply reducible to the social and economic institutions thal house and support visual art—musearns, gallettes, indivicusl and carporate ar: col-ec- tions, universities, academic presses, art magazines, and the like, We might appropelate!y begin this genealog’cal endeavor te get at Burger's broader understanding, then, nol via sociological inquiry butt sad by philosophy In particular, we can slact with the bourgeot sie’ now much-sullied claim +c uaiversalisn: that oud continue ce serve as the founda. ion for modem art and its -erper political aims up through the middle of the twentieth centuty, even as ifs legitimacy detenoratod with the process of inslitulionatzation, Here, for exemple, is how one scholar has painted that original impetus, albeit with the broadest of brushes: "As the Furopacn eurgeoisie extemailiy encompassed the whoie world end in so doing postulated one mankind, it set ou: ‘nwardly.in the name of the same vgumenta tion, to shatter the Absolutist order" The inwardliness that Reinhart Koselleck wrote of there, in his 1958 Critique and ithe nation crisis, is not inwardl:ness toward tae ‘nveriority nic Mastead toward fhe interiority of the self, As he desorfzes this tu io its Sounding form, @ deep breact: wes laid in che subjerc’s position” such litot matters of she heart were kept sharply distinct from matters of politics: "A prudent mnax withdraws fnco che secret charn- bers of his hear’, where he rerrains his owr: judge, but external actions are tn be submitted zo the suler's jucgment and jurisdiction» Put in summary form,a manneraf separated. au- toneme: ¢ formacion of a inwardliness emerged as Lhe vehic’s for 2 sunscerhegemnony— initially in the rie of universal reason and the “rights of man"—and as surh serves: as 2 Zorm of prolopwitics, This would ond it travesty, at least a¢cording -o Koselleck, writing itaenedh iy after World War Il, but thal ‘s not our concern here." Rather, aur Sacus is on art's cis:inctive “orn of ins\/ustional thinking and the tole that came to play in the genre Ienown as inslitutional ertique. Jn this regard, it fs important lo remember that the maders conceps of the Su manly derived institution and (he tnaciem notion of enitigue carne of age in convert, Fach in its own way end in its own time emerged as a figure for political participation in resporse to cory snodern absoiansm: first, the sovere’gnty of the stete shifted from the body of the king to the body of the Leviathan; and second, the measure of particivacion in “hat sovereignty shisted Srom con:racteé obedience born of life-threatening necessity ce the courage to 360 one's reason without direction from another and, sherefere, we rethink ane renegotiate thal comtract. "Our age is che genuine age af criticism, to which everything 20! subniit,” boasted Kant famously, but so :00 arte nol unrelatedly, of course, would his age become the "genuine age” of institutions: institutions such as assembl'es ad legislatures and congresses and parliaments, of course, but also the ‘nstitution of artespecially asit came to be ledged in the museum. Together [hese were the institutions of criticiem, of “free and public exarrnati ‘hat were the condition and purpose for what. Xant called (anticipating the contre] proslem of h’s teire critique) the nowiy "ripened poser of juagment. parliaments and museums ate different sorts of institutions, of courwe. One pre sames vo represent the public will, the ather presumes to give eccasion for private serti- snents and pleasures, Modem art of the sort that anticipated the salons des refuses, the urge to purer ies hourgunis, and the like, if it amounts to anythi: wg of value at al, hus ulways been about reconciling these opposiles: bringing public and prtvate, parliament ard museum, the abstract-collective and the concrete-particular, the exterior and the inceticr, consensus ly if ever succeeded at this ‘ntention, or sather its successes have only boon fieeting at the very and eriliqu, the political and -he aesthatic, into concert with each other II as ‘esl But suceess in the nornai sense is not zeally the point. The goa! has never boon to make individual dasive and the collective will of che democratic process fully isomorphic: few imagine art to 9¢ 9 ingttay pf suslained serious concern for parliaments or for the de: tails of parlisenentary mazters to be sovted out in rmaseurns, Rather, at its bes:, modem art stages the dialogue be:ween che two—betwecn art and politics, between individuality end col-ectivity oy serving as occasion for a conerate-particuler response se the abstract, sta tiscical experience of collective decision makirg. Sometimes it does go exnlittly. bu: mostly not. (Lis always an experience of withdrawing into the secret chainbers of une's hear, for sure, but itis so inseparably within the context of the world outside, ‘This diaioguo actween outside and issiy, polities and aesthetics, has always been achieved hy the spacific meder means we have already alluded to bul now need to state explicitly. Pat most simply, f-resation of abstr hal menos sas realized chrough a process of © this is the heart and soul of moder: art, of its aim to Spater les bourgesis and embrace ils position as refuse. What is sometimes not adequately appreciated is the origin c= ‘this ractc—and thus of madernis 2 whole—in casitalisen itstlé in experiencing oneself as a commodity 2s a quantum of laser defined rot hy human gelf-realizatior but :nste0d by its relalional position ix “a given state of society, under certain social average condi- tions of reduction, with a given dt tae labar em cial average incensity, nd average ski! ployed” Unserstons formally, such self-abstraction iy the same as that af Kant’s vazated ganbayis reuonmnsur sem yey, ova ez30 forcnuia for the bodily experience Lhat binds the different facules of reason in common cause, "pumosiveness without purposc", cr the great philosophical self-abstractian of gol’ Ge Te The true is the whole’; or the historic, revolutionary seit-abstzaction of Marxian cass consciousness: ‘Thus things huve now come i suck a pass that the individuis must appropriate the existing total Ley of productive forces, aor oniy to achieve selfactivicy, bul, also, merely te sajeavard their very existence, This appropriation is first deiermined By the abject to be apprapriated, the product forces, which have been developed to. totality and witch only exist within a universal intercourse, Troi this asp t alone, hovajere, this appropriation must have a universal characte corresponding to the productive forces and the intercnrs ‘That"un'versal character other words, 'y the solf-abstiaction of institutionality itself of organi7ec. collective expression, of aumanly devised constraints that shape human intaraz tion, The history of the bourgesisie is 2 history cf the tmsion delween the becoming saciai and the unbecoming soca! of that interaction, of becoming conscious and unbecoming conscious, The substarice or purpose or meaning cf le insctution of art has always heen hig battle line, and institutional critique as ag} like modernisi: as a wheie—rourinely attempted 10 reverse that process of unbecoming, to cell arl back to the sociailty of its ex pression, to 9rench 3 away from the overwholming, dehumanizing provess of becoming a “social hieroglynhie” or“fencaslic form of @ relation of things."* Alshough it arose in the iate 1860s, institutional eviiz Was a distinctive practice in thal context decause it was modemist in this sense il‘weid ca tothe aint of critica! nega lion: that is not negation for negalian’s sake or negation as a means of stepping oulsiie of institutionaltyy altogether, but instead expected a process of secenciliation tha: would be achieved in the resulting debace. In so doing it hetd fiem lo the principle at selt-abetraction thal is the iifebleod of institusionality. The measure of institutional entigue’s medernism, anc thereby the measure of its unornalousness or incompatihility with the poslovademism. of Castoriad’s, Althusser, Foacautt, atid [heir con‘empornr'es, was thus the degree to whic’: nded that the institu- it sought to redeem the institution of es, the degree to which it dem Con live up to ts founding ideels, the degree lo which it insisted that the abstract -coilective ‘will of the museum and orker institutions be rendered cesporsib'e to concrete-particular Bs ‘an desires. Itis in this sense more than ery aliner chat we can speak of instizational eri ‘que in the past tense—as 2 modemist impulse mn an era when tnat impulse was no longer bhosievee In or unders: nod—tuz that is @ mnaiter of history now, The more pressing questior: is what mneaning or purpose institutional critique, or ils wnennory. holds for us today ‘ution of art in thecontext of 2968's oroad disavowa_ Institusional criticue preserved the ins of inslihionslity by holding it acec:untabie to its Feunding idea!s—this, more ar lens, car aus of institut nality today is ¢ difterent serve as a summary of my argument so far. The matter, however, and, broadly speaking, we cen undersiand “lobe structused by a goveen- ig anl’nomy or concradict'on defined by two countervailing trends, It {5 this antinomy that can be svid 10 be our postmodersity andl to have pushed the mncaxing and purpose of insuitutional critique out of the category of canternpeaary ae: and inte the past were i sits for us only ix posse, On she ene hand, we see see from cur perspective today a generat recession or dispersion of institutions as we have krown them, thal is, of the old aievarchical soclaLarge- ‘ivalions that aided and sactzod social life, zho insti