This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
POSSIBILTY. RISK. PEDAGOGY. An ideology of the artist run space.
Submitted to the Faculty of Visual Culture in Candidacy for the Degree of BA (Hons) in
Fine Art, 2012
National College of Art & Design Faculty of Visual Culture
I declare that this thesis is entirely my own work and that all sources have been fully acknowledged.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Emma Mahony for her invaluable research assistance and support. Thanks also to the NCAD Library. A special Thanks to Hannah Fitzpatrick, Greg Howie, Hugo Byrne and everyone who has been involved with BASIC SPACE since it’s inception.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………5 BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN ‘ART’ AND ‘CURATION’. Strategies and approaches to exhibition making………………………………………...8 A PLATFORM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ART MAKING. The role of the New Institution………………………………………………………...16 POSSIBILITY, RISK, PEDAGOGY & ENGAGEMENT. Presenting the synomity and comparisons between the ideology and practice of BASIC SPACE and New Institutionalism……………………………………………………...23 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………...30 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………...………………………………………34
INTRODUCTION This thesis is an attempt to locate the position of BASIC SPACE, Dublin – an artist-led initiative which I co-founded in 2010 along with Hannah Fitzpatrick, Greg Howie, and Hugo Byrne1 – within the twentieth century genealogy of the artist-as-curator, Institutional Critique and more recently, New Institutionalism. With reference to Hegel’s Dialectic, and specifically the idea of an active space where infinite outcomes are possible between the thesis and antithesis, I will consider how BASIC SPACE explores this space between two static sides. The triad can be made form any number of opposing ideas, but it is what happens inside the triangle that creates new ideas. BASIC SPACE explores this space with each project or initiative. Hegelian Dialectic is a term used to describe a theory of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Evolving from the thoughts of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the dialectical method involves the notion that the form of historical movement, process or progress, is the result of conflicting opposites.2 The triad consists of: The Thesis – a determined intellectual proposition. (An idea); The Antithesis – the negative reaction to the thesis; The Synthesis – the middle ground formed out of the conflict (Friedrich/Raapana, 2005) The theory creates a structure similar to a triangle. If you imagine the conscious as the tip of the triangle, then one side of the triangle as the thesis, the other as the antithesis. Dissecting the angle between the opposing thesis and antithesis is the synthesis - a new proposition arising from the conflict and holding onto the truths of both. This theory has acted as a “framework for guiding our thoughts and actions to a predetermined solution” (Friedrich/Raapana, 2005), but rather than accepting the restriction of the synthesis as a solution located half way between the two opposing ideas I am interested in looking at every point between the two. From the instant you leave ‘thesis’ to the instant before you enter ‘antithesis’ there are infinite possible outcomes. BASIC SPACE has existed as a space for exhibitions and projects as well as seminars and
Hugo Byrne is no longer involved in the organization and running of the space. The triad has been linked to philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who used it to back up their theory of communism. Hegel himself only used the term once and attributes it to 18th Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
discussions, and is generally defined as an art space. The ideology of the space is in a constant flux; each project/initiative taken on questions the identity of the space. Through this thesis, I will illustrate the influential factors, which circulate BASIC SPACE, in an attempt to locate it both physically and ideologically. The development of the artist-ascurator in the twentieth century, explored in the first chapter, will open up the question of the relationship between curators and artists. Chapter one will demonstrate how the line between ‘art’ and ‘curation’ is becoming more and more blurred. With many artists travelling down the curatorial route within their own work, as well as curators considering their curatorial ventures as ‘art’ in their own right, a complex question of authorship arises. I will consider various stand points in this argument, focusing on the views of Anton Vidokle, Matthew Higgs, Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt and Jens Hoffmann – whose varied arguments expand the complex discourse concerning curation. I will outline the opposing strategies employed by curators; performative, editorial and artists-as-curators. My interrogation of the self-reflexivity of developing curatorial strategies will lead onto a discussion of the similarities between the theory of New Institutionalism and the curatorial approach of BASIC SPACE; one as a counter-critical curatorial framework, developed in small to medium scale institutions located mainly in the Nordic countries and in Northern Europe, which oppose the establishment; and one, which through the making of art, has become the manifestation of the idea that art can happen outside any institution. The second chapter will focus on New Institutionalism, tracing its history from Institutional Critique through to its application as a platform for the development of alternative approaches to art making and exhibiting. It will interrogate the ideas of Charles Esche, as he applied them to Rooseum, Malmö during his tenure there as director (2002-2004), and his opinions about the role of art as an instrument for progressive thought and social change. Chapter two will also consider opinions opposing New Institutionalism; claiming that it itself has become ‘institutionalised’, and marginalises art practises not concerned with the same preoccupations. The final chapter will expand on the relationship between BASIC SPACE and the characteristics associated with New Institutionalism; comparing and contrasting the methods and approaches applied by each, in an attempt to dissect and re-frame the boundaries set up by governing institutions. The synonymy found between projects embarked on by BASIC SPACE and those under the
authorship of New Institutions will be outlined, especially with reference to each one’s ideology concerning risk, possibility, education, and engagement. The factors circumventing BASIC SPACE are as important as the ideologies determined by those involved. These factors range from the economic situation of the current recession, the fact that the space is run by full time students, and the simultaneous association with, and autonomy from, the adjacent National College of Art and Design (NCAD). It is hoped that the following analysis of the evolution of BASIC SPACE – as a project, initiative and idea – will determine its situation within a curatorial framework and the larger genealogy of critique.
BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN ‘ART’ AND ‘CURATION’ Strategies and approaches to exhibition making. “Curation” was first used in popular english literature only sometime before 1914 which in etymological terms is a very short time. It is also not surprising that the word “curation” was beginning to circulate through literature as Modernism – considered one of the most influential and important movements in art history – was flourishing. Modernism marked the beginning of l’art pour l’art “art for art’s sake” a term coined by the French in the late 19th century. Modernist artists began to question the value of art and their philosophy was that the intrinsic value of art, and the only “true” art is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function (Gautier, 1835)3 And so in order for art to engage, impress or challenge, practitioners must place it within a context – be it social, technological, political or cultural. The word ‘curation’ is difficult to define, it is derived from the Latin curare ‘to care’ which implies a relationship of responsibility. Wiktionary.com, a wiki based, open content dictionary variously defines it as: 1. The act of curating, or organising and maintaining a collection of artifacts. 2. The act of curing or healing. 3. The manual updating of information in databases. And merriam-webster.com, the online version of the Webster Dictionary defines a curator as: 1. One who has the care and superintendancy of something; especially: one in charge of a museum, zoo, or other place of exhibit. But these definitions don’t necessarily fit with the contemporary understanding of what curation is and what a curator does. Furthermore, there is no option on these dictionary databases to search for “art curation”, and so it is no wonder that artists, art writers and
Cited from Théophile Gauitier in his reviews in L’Artiste (1865) through which he publicized ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ theories through many issues. Gautier originally voiced his theory through novels such as Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835). The words can also be traced back to works by Edgar Allen Poe, Benjamin Constant and Victor Cousin.
critics have long stuggled with the definition. In this chapter I intend to identify the challenges that exist within the role of the ‘curator of contemporary artistic practice’. I will consider the current debate which oscillates around two key and opposing curatorial positions – the performative curator and the curator-as-editor and their effects on the exhibition as a vehicle for contextualising these practices. At the forefront of Modernist Avante-Garde, and more specifically of Dadaist and Surrealist movements, was the French artist Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp challenged conventional ideas about art production, processes and markets as well as questioning the role of the audience or viewer as a participant. He wrote: “The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications” (Duchamp (1957), Cited in Jodovitz, 1998, p.49) As artistic critique grew within Modernism so did the idea of curation and in 1938 Duchamp agreed to take on the role of the “exhibition designer” for the International Surrealist Exhibition in the Beaux-Arts in Paris, a move which saw the beginning of a radical questioning of the role of the audience and the gallery space. Duchamp’s ‘intervention’ quite literally turned the conception of what the gallery should look like on its head. By suspending 1,200 coal sacks from the roof, covering ornate mouldings on the ceiling, turning down the lights and blackening the walls, he turns the elegant Eighteenth Century interior into a dingy grotto. Visitors were handed a flashlight on entering the gallery which, in the darkened room, meant the viewers had to step closer to each work in order to see what was there. This disregard for the ‘rules’ of exhibition viewing and ‘proper distance’ along with the soot falling from the coal sacks onto the bourgeoisie audience meant that the viewer, instead of being a ‘pair of disembodied eyes’ was faced with an inescapable situation of audience participation (O’Doherty, 1989(b) pg 69). This installation has proved to transcend time as it’s critique echoes in radical contemporary installations. Once again in 1942, Duchamp challenged the viewer in the the Madison Avenue venue of ‘The First Papers Of Surrealism’ exhibition. Using the buildings architectural details as a backdrop, he tied a mile of string between each moulding, ceiling painting and chandelier,
creating a criss-cross web through which the other works in the exhibition could not be properly seen. Through this barrier the viewer was cut off from the art and so had to make decisions about how to interact alternatively with what was on show (O’Doherty, 1989(b), pg 72). This challenge presented by Duchamp set the stage for curation to expand and grow into what it is today; a vehicle for a “contextual framework that makes art a more meaningful activity” (Dickson, 1998 pg 83). This framework has, by and large, taken the shape of exhibitions, with a large proportion of artists relying on exhibitions staged within/by art institutions in order to get their art out into the world. The exhibition has become a right of passage, and curators and the institutions they are associated with have the power to decide what is or isn’t seen; they act as mediators between the artist and the audience/public. Therefore, there is a level of responsibility to the artist that isn’t fulfilled by many existing curatorial structures. Over the last 100 years, the role of the curator has grown from ‘picking’ out and hanging pictures, which would be more like the dictionary definition of a curator as a caretaker of art pieces, to a role of an all encompassing promoter-come-organiser-come-producer, who in many cases see themselves as artists in their own right. This increase in the power to dictate what makes it into an exhibition, goes beyond any kind of rational reasoning when it exists within such huge ‘mega-gallery’ institutions, such as MoMA, the TATE and Guggenheim franchises. Critics such as Anton Vidokle argues that curators are using artists as their medium. “Curatorial practice portray[ed]s the figure of the curator as a knowledgeable and transparent agent moving between cultures and disciplines—a cultural producer par excellence. Furthermore, it seemed to suggest that art has become a subgenre of “the Curatorial” (Vidokle, 2010) Anton Vidokle, artist, writer and founder of the international art network E-flux, has focused his work on experimental artistic education – setting up projects such as UnitedNationsPlaza (2006-2007) and Night School (2008-2009). He believes that the shift in curation towards this cultural producer within the realms of established institutions is something of concern. In his article ‘Art Without Artists’ posted on E-flux, he outlines his concerns that curators may well undermine artists by using their production as a tool for realising their own ideas. He writes:
The necessity of going “beyond the making of exhibitions” should not become a justification for the work of curators to supersede the work of artists, nor a reinforcement of authorial claims that render artists and artworks merely actors and props for illustrating curatorial concepts…movement in such a direction runs a serious risk of diminishing the space of art by undermining the agency of its producers: artists. (Vidokle, 2010) His accusations raise questions of authorship. When a work of art is contextualised by being placed into a specific framework by someone other than the artist, who concieved the work within their own personal context, who does the work belong to? Who takes the credit for the idea? What Vidokle suggests is that curatorial practice is undermining the artistic decisions and direction of the work being produced by artists. This is being done in order to fit the objectives and conditions of how the curators want the work to be viewed. Unless the curator works closely with the artist making the work, the initial meaning behind the practice can be lost to the framework decided by the curator. In this article, Vidokle is arguing that the role of creating the conditions necessary for the production and reception of art lies with the curators and critics and not the artists. They set the scene for audience expectation. If you are spoon fed the answer to a question; told exactly what to expect and how to feel afterwards you may not recognise the other elements that may be at play or those you weren’t told to expect. This undermines the ‘freedom of production’ and the agency of artists.
Many curators acknowledge this and have developed their curatorial practice on the basis of a closer working relationship between artists and curators. Jens Hoffmann, curator, editor, writer, and currently director of the Wattis Institute for Contemporary Arts at the California College of the Arts in San Francisco, believes that this closer working relationship has led to expanded curatorial practice. Notions of style, in terms of having a recognisable methodology or approach (a characteristic associated with artists and writers) begins to manifest itself in the realm of curation, as engagement between artists and curators becomes more visible. Artists are considering curatorial routines within the structures of power and institutions while expanding their practice, and in turn are influencing curators to consider artistic (visual art) routines and concepts. (Hoffmann, 2005, pg. 324) This strengthening relationship by-passes the concerns of curators ‘using’
artists and, as each is influenced by the other, we are also seeing artists begin to curate exhibitions themselves. However Hoffmann is a self-proclaimed performative curator, who can be subjected to the criticism outlined by himself above. This hypotheses outlines how uncertain and interchangable these ideas can be. While curating exhibitions for which he could be accused of ‘using’ artists. Hoffmann seems to deflect these accusations by further enhancing these ideas again when he expands his investigation of the relationship between ‘artists and curator’ and ‘artist as curator’ to the understandings between artist and community/audience/public. His exhibition ‘Institution 2’, at KIASMA in Helsinki, questioned the function of the art institution and was interested in a selfreflexive process which is one of the characteristics of the theory of New Institutionalism (Doherty, 2004, pg. 1), which I will explore further in the next chapter.
Vidokle’s concerns around curators using artists are echoed by critic, curator and writer Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt. In her essay ‘Harnessing The Means Of Production’ (2003), Gordon-Nesbitt voices a strong opinion that institutions are harnessing the energy, imagination and ability of artists to express themselves. Gordon-Nesbitt, focusing on the ICA exhibition, CITY RACING 1988-1998 – A Partial View, 2001, she looked at the contribution of artist-led space, City Racing, London to the artistic scene in the United Kingdom during the 90s. (The artists showcased by City Racing were largely making work in opposition to the dominant ‘Young British Artists’(YBA) culture of the London art scene in the 90s). Using the example of how City Racing was represented in the exhibition by its curator Matthew Higgs, she outlines her opinions concerning curatorial roles within the context of representation: “simply being aware of the local social significance of artists-led initiatives and inviting them to the intitutions does not make it ethically sound” (Gordon-Nesbitt, 2003).
City Racing was an art space set up in 1988 by five artists recently graduated from art college who turned an old betting shop into a gallery. Keith Coventry and John Burgess along with Paul Noble, Peter Owen and Matt Hale began by squatting the building near the Oval Cricket Ground in South London. The interior was grubby and almost uninhabitable, but with limited funding, they hosted exhibitions, showcasing many local young artists. Their ideology lay in their attempts to work with emerging artists in an
inclusive way. Rather than using their access to an exhibition space as a way of selfpromotion they also created a platform where emerging artists could exhibit without commercial pressures. She says “They diversified from showing their own work into offering exhibitions to artists who generally would not have the chance to show their work in London otherwise” (Gordon Nesbitt, 2003). In 1996, after it had ceased operating as an artist-run space, City Racing was invited to play an important part in the exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) curated by Matthew Higgs. Existing primarily as a platform for artists who couldn’t get out there, City Racing worked with the artists to put together shows that would best represent the artists. However in CITY RACING 19881998: A Partial View, Gordon Nesbitt feels that Higgs exhibited a false representation of City Racing by focussing on the artists who had become successful. Higgs, she feels, had no regard for how inclusive City Racing had been and that omiting some of the lesser known artists, went against the ethos of the space. The City Racers stated that they agreed to this project so that they could further the exposure of emerging artists, but that was not Higgs’ intention for the exhibition. They felt that a shared dialogue and exchange between curator and artists was necessary for development of a comprehensive overview of the inclusivity of City Racing. The resulting exhibition, they contended, was the ICA’s view of City Racings contribution, not the City Racers’. Is this an example of curators going too far in the framing and contextualising of art, risking losing the value of what they are trying to frame? City Racing had a clear objective and manifesto to support emerging artists whether famous or not, and through this exhibition City Racing was framed in such a way that only the ‘successful’ artists would represent the space. In this case Matthew Higgs is portrayed in a negative light, but it is important to point out that he titles the show ‘A partial view’, admitting it was not a full account of the ideologies of City Racing as an initiative, but rather an overview (by an outsider) of the art produced there. As curator of the exhibition, Higgs was given the responsibility to make decisions concerning which pieces would go into the show. As an editorial approach to curation, his decisions cannot be faulted. Higgs’ supposed concept for the show was a representation of the contribution – not success – of the initiative to the artistic scene in the UK in the 90s, and especially those who were working in opposition to the fanatical YBA movement (which was underpinned by notions of fame and glory).But although representing an ‘alternative’ space/inititiative, which would surely
need to be represented through an alternative approach, to keep the ethos of the space intact, Higgs’ can be criticised for approaching the whole exhibition from an institutional angle. This is a good example of how the institution can shift the ideals of a particular artist or group of artists and their initiatives to suit its own agenda and raises a very valid question; who benefits from the exhibition? Matthew Higgs, ironically, shares some of the positions put forward by both Vidokle and Gordon Nesbitt. He is skeptical about curators having too much control over the production of art, believing that curators often appropriate ideas and strategies from artists, which they then put forward as their own. In an interview with cuartor, artist and writer, Paul O’Neill, Higgs states, “Curators rarely create new approaches or methodologies for exhibition making, they simply adopt or adapt strategies developed by artists” (O’Neill, 2006, pg 2). He believes that artists are the driving force behind new and exciting developments in art, not curators “when artists are creating the “rules” or parameters…we stand to gain a great deal…art changes exhibition-making, I don’t think the reverse is true” (O’Neill, 2006, pg. 2). In critiqueing the concept of curation and exploring it’s effects on art, we realise the argument that curation does have an effect on the work of artists. The extent of this can depend on whether the curator is aware of the effect of their opinions and whether the exhibition is being curated by an institution or an individual. When the insitution is in control there needs to be an degree of precaution by the artists, questions must be asked concerning the overall benefit of taking part in such exhibitions. By all means there is nothing to fault in artists who take part in large institutional exhibitions – with the progress of Institutional Critique, and it’s acceptance into the mainstream institutions – there has been a distinct growth in the discourse between artists and curators. In the next chapter this discourse will be explored with secific reference to the role of New Insitutionalism, and it’s development in alternative approaches to art making and exibitions.
A PLATFORM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ART MAKING. The role of the New Institution. If we assume that every attempt to recontextualise strategies for exhibition making, and every approach to re-framing art making, borrows from models already in place, then the approaches used by BASIC SPACE, Dublin, shows similarities to the ideas within New Institutionalism. New Institutionalism is a theory based on the multi-functional approach to curation which exists most notably in Northern European art institutions, and which has origins in the practice of Institutional Critique. It is interesting to note that although New Institutionalism is the closest institutional model BASIC SPACE can be compared to, it is in fact alternative, artist-led initiatives which inform much of the methodologies that characterise the New Institution. The third chapter of this thesis will expand on the relationship between BASIC SPACE and New Instititionalism, tracing synonyms through their ideologies and practice, whereas this chapter will form the basis of knowledge that will inform the parallels drawn in the next chapter. Many artist-led inititatives centre around investigating how their localised art sphere works. In an attempt to deconstruct any preconceptions of how artists are expected to make work, exhibit work, gain access to audiences and frame their art within boundaries set up by their previous governing institutions (most commonly the Art School), artists set up spaces where a discourse questioning these assumptions can happen. Although most artist-run spaces are run by recent graduates, BASIC SPACE was set up by students which allowed an immediate questioning of the practice taught by art schools, in this case NCAD. Exploration of these alternative spaces challenges ideas of education and systems of working, thereby questioning top-down learning, and new approaches to exhibition making and the production of art. Artists who take investigation and critique, of already set boundaries, as the subject of their art fall under the heading of Institutional Critique. Institutional Critique investigates the framework of art institutions and establishments, with the desire to systematically re-frame and contextualise previously assumed boundaries within any institution. Institutional Critique seeks to break down the structure of institutions, examine them critically, and re-frame them.
Artistic practice concerned with this investigation of structures of institutions was initiated in the late 60s by artists such as Michael Asher, Daniel Buren and Hans Haacke. Buren’s first solo exhibition at the Galleria Apollinaire in Milan, 1968, consisted of him blocking a glass door, the only entrance to the museum, with his signature stripes (Il s’Agit de Voir des Bandes Verticales Blanches et Vertes) He used these stripes as a way of challenging previous notions of a space and how it was used, in later years concentrating on museums, galleries, public and institutional spaces. Again in 1986, with his 3,000 metre squared sculpture at the Palais Royal in Paris (Les Deux Plateaux), Buren questioned the boundaries of contemporary art existing within public spaces as he filled the courtyard with striped columns. Like Buren, but operating on a more directly critical level of museum politics was artist Hans Haacke. Haacke’s critique focussed on social and political systems; especially on the system of exchange between museums and corporate bodies. In, Moma Poll, 1970, Haacke installed two transparent ballot boxes inside the Museum of Modern Art, New York, as part of the Information Exhibition. Printed above the ballot boxes was a sign which read: "Would the fact that Governor Rockefeller has not denounced President Nixon's Indochina Policy be a reason for your not voting for him in November?". Haacke’s intervention sought to reveal that Nelson Rockerfeller was both governor of New York and a donor and board member of MoMA. This question directly commented on the relationship between political sponsors and the museum and had he not kept the question under wraps until just before the show opened there was no doubt that at the time his proposal for a ballot box would not have been accepted. (Buskirk, 2005, pg. 166-167) A second wave of Institutional Critique emerged in the late ‘80s and ‘90s – with a younger generation of artists, including Andrea Fraser, Renee Green and Fred Wilson. Performance artist, writer and lecturer Andrea Fraser, in 1989, imitated a museum tour guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in an attempt to highlight the museums’ involvement in the commerce, sale and diplay of art. Typically drawing from political, historical and commercial connotations of the art museum, Fraser’s intervention highlights the museum’s agenda for art as enterprise. A later work, ‘Untitled (2003), consisted of an hour-long video documenting a sexual encounter between the artist and a man in a hotel room. The man, an unidentified American collector, paid 20,000 dollars to take part in this art piece and the contract was drawn up by the gallery representing
Fraser. Quoted in a New York Times Article, Fraser says, ''All of my work is about what we want from art, what collectors want, what artists want from collectors, what museum audiences want”(Fraser, cited by Trebay, 2004). Her agenda to expose the power mechanisms at work within the art institutution is contrasted by the humorous manner of her wild gestures. If Institutional Critique is considered the work of artists, New Instititionalism is considered the work of the establishment (curators) and engages with the transformation of art institutions from within, by using tactics of investigation informed by the institution itself. It is envisioned largely as the third phase of Institutional Critique, where the institution begins to internalise the critique which once operated against it in an attempt to create internal reform. (Mahony, 2011). These investigations include questions of curatorial practice, critical debate and transparency within institutional frameworks. New Institutionalism is characterised by concepts of the temporary: transient encounters, event based/ process based work, education and peer critique. It also focuses on socially and economically contextualising the institution and its space within this context, by attempting to redefine the art insititution through interrogation of not only the limited discourse of art works but the whole framework supporting the institution (ibid). New Institutionalism is largely the preserve of small to medium-scale, publically funded European art institutions, with many spaces existing in countries with strong social democracies, such as the Nordic countries. Rooseum, located in Malmö, Sweden is one such space. For the period it was directed by Charles Esche (2002-2004), it was held up as being one of the most progressive New Institutions in the Nordic Countries. Esche conceived Rooseum as a space of democratic deviance, where incoherance, disagreement, uncertainty and unpredictable results were encouraged (Esche, 2004, pg 2-3). This approach to curation, critique and art-making has bred an ethos of social, active spaces. Currently director of the Van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven, Esche, having experienced the fall of Cummunism while growning up in the German Democratic Republic, is interested in the philosophical concept of ‘possibilty’ as an aid to rethinking the relationship between art and social change (Project Base Lecture, Press Release, 2011). Art, he believes, gives priority to the imagination and has the ability to become an instrument of progressive thought. In Rosseum’s mission statement Esche
notes, Now the term ‘art’ might be starting to describe that space in society for experimentation, questioning and discovery that religion, science and philosophy have occupied sporadically in former times. It has become an active space rather than one of passive observation. Therefore the institutions to foster it have to be part-community centre, part laboratory and part-academy (Esche, 2001). To these ends, he imagines the experimental institution, not as a container for art, but as a creative engine for re-thinking the change that can occur within our own personal consciousness but also through society as a whole. (Esche, 2004, p.1) He is interested in the impact visual art could and does have all over the world. In an interview for Artforum Magazine with Mats Stjernstedt, Esche calls for responsive action to social change through art, whether that is through imitation of the fluidity of capitalism, stating that “art centers are still rightly required, to serve and create possibilities for the society in which they find themselves” (Stjernstedt, 2001). Within New institutionalism, there have been an array of projects developed which are anchored in social and political awareness and pedagogy. To take the example of Unitednationsplaza; Anton Vidokle in collaboration with Liam Gillick, Jalal Toufic, Boris Groys, Martha Rosler, Natascha Sadr Haghighian, Nikolaus Hirsch, Tirdad Zolghadr and Walid Raad, set up a temporary art school in Berlin between 2007 and 2008, after the cancellation of Manifesta 6, Nicosia, a project they had been working on. Unitednationsplaza took the form of an independent long-term project involving artists, writers, philosophers and curators.(unitednationsplaza.org) Existing now as an online archive documenting the debates, workshops, seminars and essays, the Unitednationsplaza started with the ‘the desire that art and artists should engage with all aspects of social life’ (Vidokle, Rosler, 2008) and held a “strong desire on the part of the organisers and participants of these shows to see their work as transformative social projects rather than merely symbolic gestures”.(ibid). The project is linked indirectly to establishments but also directly when it was commissioned as a new iteration, under the name Night School, which travelled to the New Museum, New York in January 2008. Unitednationsplaza ticks all the boxes in terms of being a model of investigating boundaries within New Institutionalism; socially and economically contextualising the institution and its space within this context – both in Berlin and New York, rendering it 19
transient and movable. It also ticked the box of pedagogy with the array of educational discourses in that it took the form of an art school. It is important here to note that there is considerable doubt surrounding the outcomes and affects of New Institutionalism and its compulsion to broaden the ideology surrounding art. This goes back again to the role of the curator and his/her responsibilty to the artist. Claire Doherty states that “rather than a broadening and expansion of ideas, I believe we’ve seen a narrowing of the field”(Doherty, 2006, pg.3). The ‘field’ being different kinds of curatorial strategies and interrogative practice – talks, discussions, seminars, exhibitions, education, performance, film, events. But what Doherty is suggesting is that rather than opening up a platform for the development of alternative approaches to art making and exhibiting, curators have begun to focus on art practices that deal directly with strategies of investigation within what New Institutionalism stands for; thereby closing the door to developments in practices that aren’t entrenched in notions of mediation, self-reflexivity and interrogation of institutions. A gap has been created with one side fully anchored in ideas of critique, which question the prescribed and nonprescribed theories and positions of society within political realms and establishments. On the other side, we have artists for example whose practice can be considered more object based; spectacular, especially large scale practices which are embraced by the counter model to New Institutionalism – the corporatized art museum. These artists while still making art; exploring ideas, criticality, alternative notions of education and practice (ideas associated with the other side), find that because their art isn’t necessarily framed by the artists as directly complying with the disposition of New Institutionalism, their work isn’t considered relevant. Alex Farquharson, writer, critic and director of Nottingham Contemporary, states that ‘Curators interested in dealing self-reflexivly with the structures of mediation inevitably end up privileging and creating an artificial demand for art practices engaged in the same questions’ (Farquharson, 2003i, pg. 7). In ‘The Curatorialisation of Institutional Critique, 2005’ Jens Hoffmann reflects a concern, that if curators become wholly preoccupied with practices related to Insititutional Critique as the only strategy of critical engagement, they will risk losing out on possibly new radical strategies. Once a catalyst for interpretation and fundamentally challenging critical engagement, curation distracted by these strategies will become merely “a celebration of self-reflexivity that ultimitely re-sanctifies the institution” (Hoffmann, 2005, pg 334). His
opinions echoes with those of Andrea Fraser, mentioned above as an artist previously preoccipied with notions of Institutional Critique, who is presently engaged in New Institutionalism. In her essay From a Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique she asks what happens when artists who previously critiqued institutions have now, through their critique and New Institutionalism, become institutions themselves? (Fraser, 2005, pg. 2) She outlines her argument by presenting Daniel Buren and Hans Haacke, as artists who, returned to corporate museum franshises such as the Guggenheim and MoMA, once censored their work, and now put on huge solo shows. She claims that the practises once associated with Institutional Critique, an alternative radical movement, have themselves become “Institutionalised” (Fraser, 2005, pg. 1). Having looked at the methods and approaches to practice, of New institutionalism that span various disciplines of art, curation and critique, both praise and criticism become increasingly evident. The very nature of New Institutionalism’s self-reflexive, questioning, discourse, allows it to be both an established ideology, as well as a constantly evolving alternative to an established ideology. Going back to Hegel’s Dialectic and the analogy that between the thesis and antithesis, there exists infinite alternative standing points, ideologies, truths and ideas (the active centre), New Institutionalism encapsulates the practice of stimulating this centre.
LOCATING BASIC SPACE Presenting the synonymy and comparisons between the ideology and practice of BASIC SPACE, and New Institutionalism. There have been many parallels drawn between the strategies and ideals characterising BASIC SPACE and those associated with New Institutionalism. While not intentionally set up with the methodologies of New institutionalism in mind, there is a strong sense that BASIC SPACE is asking some of the same questions that set the foundations for those institutions and projects which exist under the umbrella of New Institutionalism. Four major criteria come to mind when looking at these similarities: Possibility, Education, Risk, and Engagement. In this chapter I will outline the synonymity between BASIC SPACE and New Institutionalism, paying particular attention to these criteria. Through this investigation I will hopefully give a sense of the somewhat unique position of BASIC SPACE as a project, a building, a movement, a curatorial venture, and an idea. BASIC SPACE was conceived out of the frustration felt at the lack of exhibition spaces for emerging artists in Dublin. This reality existed alongside an abundance of commercial properties left vacant by the recession. The belief behind the initial idea was that at least one of those spaces could be transformed into an art space, and while changing the use of the building; the organizing collective would also be creating cultural capital for the city and support for ourselves and other emerging artists. After ten months of meetings and negotiations, a prominent Dublin-based property developer drew up a contract that would allow us to use a vacant warehouse without paying rent. The ten thousand square foot property would stay on the market and there would be a ‘two-week-kick-out period’ if tenants were found. It was not the “street front commercial unit” anticipated when we began the process, it was a hanger-sized warehouse, and so BASIC SPACE grew from the foundations and physicality of this space. Underpinning the ethos and ideology of BASIC SPACE are a number of circumstantial factors – the recession, the fact that the collective are all NCAD students, the unfurnished state, the precarity of the availability of the building, and the lack of funds. The founding members saw these factors as challenges and not setbacks. Each of these circumstantial challenges have led the group to investigate more interesting ideas, for instance, the size
of the building led us to reconsider scale when large objects looked tiny in relation to the building. The freezing temperatures during the winter months inspired artist Andreas Kindler Von Knobloch to make a piece of work using a thermal infrared camera which measured the temperatures of people who attended Half Way There, the inaugural exhibition. Our lack of funding means that we haven’t invested anything that can be lost into the building. As full time students, we have access to all the facilities NCAD has to offer, including workshops and tutorials, as well as a body of artists who are engaged with contemporary artistic practice. We don’t have a set of guidelines we have to follow set out by a governing body or institution. There was never any commercial agenda with BASIC SPACE, which opened up opportunities to take on the space as literally four walls and a roof with nothing inside, or as a space which had no previous ideals attatched, and to figure out what that allowed you to do as an artist, a collective, a student and a curator.These factors allow us to take more risks, while at the same time not risking anything. Charles Esche’s approach to curation and critique within the realm of art-making interrogates the concept of ‘possibility’. These ‘possibilities’ occur in the the form of neither positive nor negative outcomes, but are reached through a desire to answer a question or to unravel an idea without the pre-set boundaries of having to come up with a finite result. This mirrors the appraoch of BASIC SPACE. Set up simply as a space for ‘things to happen’ (basicspacedublin.wordpress.com), the space allowed for the possibility of failure and, like Esche’s Rooseum, Malmö, for incoherent, uncertain and unpredictable results. The acceptance that failure is just as inevitable as success alleviates the pressure to avoid failure when embarking on a project and allows for increased experimentation. Again, going back to Hegel’s triad, BASIC SPACE allows for the existance of limitless outcomes and ideas. One of the attributes which sets BASIC SPACE apart from other alternative spaces and institutions is that it was set up and run by undergraduate students, as opposed to recent graduates. In effect, this means that the running and organisation of events, access and availablity of the space, and facilitation of projects and ideas all had to be negotiated while engaging in full-time study. James Merrigan, a Dublin based artist, writer, critic and founder of +BILLION- Online Art Journal made an observation relating to this in his
essay ‘Historical Cases of the Subterranean Kind’ which reviewed ‘Underground – An Exhibition of Works Below Surface Level’(November 2011, www.billionjournal.ie) when he compares the situation existing between BASIC SPACE and the National College of Art and Design, and that of Gordon Matta-Clark and his relationship with his college. Merrigan writes that although BASIC SPACE is affiliated with NCAD, the founders are all NCAD students, the college’s student union insurance policy extends to cover all student registered with NCAD to work in BASIC SPACE and the warehouse is situated a mere 100 metres away, there is autonomy from the college. The disconnection between NCAD and BASIC SPACE is clear from talking to tutors and lecturers from the college, but it is inevitable that what each does influences the other. Merrigan talks about how Gordon Matta-Clark describes his study of architecture in university as ‘his first trap’ and that without this trap, he would have had nothing to oppose, and perhaps would have ended up an entirely different artist. Just as without NCAD, BASIC SPACE would not have evolved the way it did. Not strongly against the attributes and virtue of NCAD, but rather using the existence of these attributes as a starting point, to evolve and experiment with other ways of working, learning, making and engaging, rather than just engaging with what the art college teaches. There is some semblance between the educational discourse of BASIC SPACE’s projects such as Half+Half (2011), and Summer Camp (2011) and Anton Vidokle’s project UnitedNationsPlaza (2007-2008). As mentioned in the previous chapter, UnitedNationsPlaza existed as a temporary art school dedicated to the idea of ‘exhibition as school’. Using the model of an art school for an exhibition allowed a questioning of what constitutes a learning experience; discharging assumptions that ‘school’ signifies learning while challenging the potential of an exhibition to facilitate educational discourse (Hadley, Maxwell, 2008). Summer Camp took the form of a six-week full time residency with a high concentration on production, discourse, experimentation, critiques and collective work. The artists involved dedicated six weeks of their summer to full-time participation in the residency with a view to extending the college term into the summer without the formal strategies of assessment, but maintaining the element of productivity and activity. There was an emphasis on skill sharing and interdisciplinary practice with no clear end point at the beginning. (Host Press Release, 2011) Like UnitedNationsPlaza, Summer Camp and Half+Half acted as a tool to realize different forms of exchange and
discourse that could only exist outside the walls of an institutionalized art school. Half+Half was concerned with interdisciplinary practices spanning different colleges and specific courses. It grew out of the desire to explore academic disciplines throughout the arts, humanities, sciences and technology sectors through the medium of art, and took the form of two one-week seminars held in the warehouse. Half+Half was interested in a form of art that looks beyond the self and personal experience towards collaborative learning and communal engagement. (Fitzpatrick, 2011). As Summer Camp evolved over the first few weeks, it became evident that the participants were imagining an exhibition as the manifestation of what was happening; that the ‘doing’ was as important as the discourse surrounding it. There was a desire to show work, as individuals but also as a collective; to turn our custom designed “summer camp” into something more tangible, and an exhibition was the way this would happen. This show, entitled Host, acted as a signifier of the experience of Summer Camp, and was ‘curated’ by the group as a whole. It is important here to tackle the notions of curation within BASIC SPACE at this juncture. Initiailly there was no sense that what was happening in Basic Space was in any way involved with a curation process. This is possibly because a lot of what BASIC SPACE does is out of necessity – the necessity of providing a platform for emerging artists and what is important to us at that time. Although we don’t send out open calls for submission and we don’t hang any work for other artists, we work as a team/as a group of autonomous individuals, or somewhere between the two, to turn an idea into something more tangible through the means we see fit. This, in a nutshell encapsulates our curatorial approach. “It is about realizing potential in the present moment and challenges those who know about it to realize ideas through engagement” (Fitzpatrick, 2011). NCAD, while helping us achieve our goal to open a space up to the arts, also presents challenges. Experiencing rigid structures around the areas of critique, tutorials, and examination requirements in college, BASIC SPACE opened up the discussion for how we, given the freedom, would assess ourselves; taking the boundaries, opening them up, and re-framing them within the context of our needs and requirements. We introduced new methods of peer-to-peer critiques, a process whereby the artist under critique is only allowed to talk about their work after the rest of the group has discussed it. This seemed like a natural
thing to do as our position as emerging artists means that we have limited exposure to critiques other than from college tutors. Existing alongside the institution but being autonomous from it, has meant that we can investigate notions of education without having to reach an answer. Similar to Charles Esche’s vision for Rooseum, BASIC SPACE realizes a potential for self-perpetuated education and promotes experimentation with no clear end point, possible uncertain outcomes, and the freedom to work without boundaries. (basicspacedublin.wordpress.com, 2011i). Through all the initiatives, projects, events, and exhibitions we have become preoccupied with notions of challenges, and engaging with these challenges (‘doing’ and ‘making’) provides an atmosphere of activity. The aforementioned element of ‘risk’ and our current situation means that we don’t lose anything if a project ‘fails’ or happens to take a different direction than we originally planned. These were the initial ideas that led to the conception of Underground - An Exhibition of Works Below Surface Level, which took place in November 2011 and included the work of nine artists. The physical features of the building have allowed us to consider different methods and approaches to making work. Site specificity, in terms of 'taking on' the building, has become an integral part of any project that is realized in BASIC SPACE. Until recently it operated as a warehouse and still bears evidence of industry. Adjacent to each supporting wall, are trenches of soil; long narrow pathways where the concrete has been removed; scars from the routine survey of the foundations for a future construction on the land, planned before the recession hit, and a constant reminder to all involved of the fragility of the buildings existence. (Merrigan, 2011). In this exhibition, a specific objective was given to the participating artists: ‘Create a site-specific work that engages with the underground’ (basicspacedublin.wordpress.com, 2011iii). This exhibition says a lot about the way art is made in BASIC SPACE – Artists used the idea of ‘labour’ and the physical engagement of digging into the earth as their way to explore and generate individual ideas for the exhibition. The premise was that labour adds value to something; gives it value as art. Just as the digging informed the practice of the artists involved in the exhibition, what BASIC SPACE is, is what happens, what is done there, what is made. Directly relating to ideas of deconstructing institutional presumptions the elements at play in Underground; the act of digging/unearthing created a sense of value to the work being made, and while doing so allocated it as art, and ‘shift[ed] any predetermined notions the viewer may bring to an
exhibition of work’ (Wasser, 2011). Understandably there are questions surrounding the longevity of an initiative that has no funding and no stable residence. Its situation begs the question: Is there an inevitability that BASIC SPACE will eventually fade away or be forced to join an institution in order to continue? This question assumes that BASIC SPACE can only exist within a building, that it needs four walls to exist. What sets us apart from New Institutionalism is that we don’t hold onto the importance of the physical building as a site for art. The ideas manifested inside the warehouse could easily exist elsewhere. A reliance on state funding often sees art institutions defeated during times of economic crisis, when arts funding is one of the first areas to experience severe cuts. BASIC SPACE in this regard has the upper hand, as it has been proven that it can evolve without any funding and without the building it would continue to do so. The reality is that it is just an idea, BASIC SPACE is a collection of exhibitions that happened; a community of artists who make work; an investigation into methods of practice; a desire to create a self-sufficient support network during a time of uncertainty.
CONCLUSION The action of looking back poses many problems. In the case of BASIC SPACE, we have always just done things and then talked about them afterwards. Being described as a philosophical group4 recently baffled us, as we see BASIC SPACE as a practical space; a place to get things done, whatever the outcome, whatever the reason. But then in hindsight you can find the links between ideas, and apply theory to the practice – stating what you may not have been able to articulate during the process of making. This thesis is a retrospective analysis of how and where BASIC SPACE fits into of the institutions of the art world; how what we do could be compared to other projects and approaches. It is also a way of locating co-ordinates for our position on a map. Ideally this thesis will become part of a series of literature that interrogates the activities and ideology of BASIC SPACE in relation to its position in the here and now. The retrospective nature of this textual analysis creates a strange situation where BASIC SPACE is being objectively5 discussed and investigated in text, while at the same time it continues to change and evolve without any concern for this thesis. Alongside this thesis, BASIC SPACE has recently been invited to take part in a programme running in the NCAD Gallery, which focuses on the history of alternative spaces in Ireland – especially strategic, independent, artist-run projects. BASIC SPACE was asked to represent its work as a project where the process of exhibiting is as much the subject of the work as the objects or ideologies. In other words, to translate what BASIC SPACE does into an institutional gallery space. This prompted some very interesting questions about how our activities would translate when contextualised in a typical white cube gallery space, how this ideology would impress on BASIC SPACE? Other more basic questions followed, would we make art or make an exhibition? Would we curate other artist’s work or would we use the gallery space as just another building for a project to take place within? The conversations that happened mirrored the ideas being investigated in this thesis in relation to New Institutionalism, Institutional Critique and
During a conversation between BASIC SPACE, and the NCAD Gallery board of directors. The discourse was centered around why BASIC SPACE was asked to participate in the gallery programme, and what BASIC SPACE proposed to do with the space. 5 Although I am a founding member of BASIC SPACE, and organize the day to day running, I endeavor to remain as objective as possible in this thesis – treating it with the same analysis as if I was not immediately involved.
UnitedNationsPlaza, Night School, illustrate the manifestation of ideas that bear resemblance to the ideas important to BASIC SPACE. This ‘invitation’ from the NCAD gallery made us realise that although BASIC SPACE is an ‘alternative’ space and essentially autonomous from NCAD, we were not against the institution per se. On the contrary, the relationship between the art college and BASIC SPACE has informed our ways of working. Through our 4 years studying in NCAD we have been exposed to the teaching methodologies of an institution. Granted that there has been space to expand on the methodology to a certain degree, but for the most part, being part of the Irish Education System, each department and faculty adheres to regulated criteria and processes of teaching. While providing students with a trove of knowledge and professionally taught skills and practice, there is a limit of opportunities to expand on, a lack of experimentation with alternate ways of learning, or considering, work. BASIC SPACE is a place that allowed us this exploration. Since BASIC SPACE was founded, NCAD has experienced the growth of a series of part collective, part community within the students in college who have a desire to expand their knowledge, not through topdown learning, but through peer-to-peer critiques, group tutorials and skill-sharing workshops. Due to the current economic crisis and the cutbacks, which have heavily affected arts funding, students have realised the importance of gathering the skills to learn and think independently, with no provisions, only the knowledge and opinions they can share and refine together. BASIC SPACE might ‘fail’ – in that it won’t last forever. Its future is uncertain; access to the building could be revoked for any reason, at any stage. Furthermore, no independent funding limits the possibility of insuring the space following our graduation from NCAD, as currently we are covered by college insurance6. However, going back to the theories of Charles Esche, when asked whether the closure of Rooseum meant that the project had failed, he replied“There isn’t any experimental institution (New Institution) that you can point to, that has
Under NCAD Students Union Insurance Policy, all registered students are covered, anywhere in the EU, by the policy as long as they can prove their activity to be furthering their studies. Once we graduate this policy will still be in place, but only for registered NCAD students. Anyone outside the college will have to supply their own insurance.
been a hundred per cent successful…the point is that that’s the very nature of what we’re doing…of course these institutions are going to fail”. (Esche, interview with Kunstkritikk, 2011) Rooseum closed due to funding cuts, but deciding to set up against an established modus operandi was to embrace the possibility of failure. The closure of Rooseum has left many questions unanswered; would it have produced greater and more varied publics given more time? Would it have influenced more artists, or would it have self imploded as the self reflexivity of its ideology spiralled into an all encompassing black hole, with nothing being produced, just the same conversations happening over and over? Esche’s thoughts about the ‘success’ of projects like this resonate hard here. Its very nature meant that it had an objective – to be seen as a working model of an alternative approach to art making, curating, education and the dissemination of ideas. It is the contention of this thesis that Rooseum succeeded in doing this, and that Basic Space operating in the same way has also succeeded. One might assume that the goal of the New Institution is to take over and replace traditional institutions – to leave behind the old ideology and replace it with a new one. This is not the intention. Replacing or doing away with long standing establishments would mean disregarding everything that has happened within their walls – their history. The new ideas, once they get marked as an ‘ideology’ have their own flaws and will be opposed and reacted to. What Esche was trying to do with Rooseum was show an alternative way of working, an approach that considered both time and place and that could be emulated within the framework of another institution. The criticism of these spaces exists only when you base their success on whether they are still operating, and maybe in that sense BASIC SPACE has the upper hand in that it never had any funding in the first place and so cannot lose its funding. The current building BASIC SPACE occupies can be taken but, unlike New Institutions, there isn’t an importance placed on the physicality of the building, and so the idea can exist in another site. Potentially BASIC SPACE fits the ideology of New Institutionalism; it adheres to its methods and approaches, but equally, BASIC SPACE could possibly represent a counter model to New Institutionalism in the future. This poses a difficult aversion in this thesis to define BASIC SPACE with any longevity – rather this thesis will locate its co-
ordinates at this present moment. BASIC SPACE is a space, which currently engages in alternate methods of pedagogy, where artists can take risks with their work, and where possibilities are realised.
BIBLIOGRPAHY Baldessari, J. Craig-Martin, M (2009) ‘Conversation’ in Madoff, 2009, The Art School - (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge Massachusetts/ London, United Kingdom: MIT Press Buskirk, M. (2005), The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Charlesworth, J. (2007) ‘Curating Doubt’, in Rugg, Sedwick, (eds.) Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance, Bristol: Intellect Books Deliss, C. ‘Roaming, Prelusive, Permeable: Future Academy’ in Madoff, 2009, The Art School - (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge Massachusetts/ London, United Kingdom: MIT Press Dickson, M. (1998), ‘Another Year of Alienation: On the Mythology of the Artist-Run Initiative’, in McCorquodale, Siderfin, Stallabrass, (eds.), Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art, London: Black Dog. Doherty, C. (2006), ‘New Institutionalism and the Exhibition as Situation’, in Protections Reader, Graz: Kunsthaus Graz Esche, C. (2009) ‘Include me Out: Preparing Artists to Undo the Art World’, in Madoff, 2009, The Art School - (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge Massachusetts/ London, United Kingdom: MIT Press Ford, S. ‘The Myth of the Young British Artist’, in McCorquodale, Siderfin, Stallabrass, (eds.), Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art, London: Black Dog. Gielen, P. (2009), ‘The Biennale: A Post-Institution for Immaterial Labour’, In Seijdel, (ed.), Open 16 Publication, The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, Strategies in Neo-Political Times, NAI Publisher, SKOR Hoffmann, J. (2005) ‘The Curatprialization of Institutional Critique’, in Welchman, (ed.), Institutional Critiue and after, Volume 2 of the SoCCAS symposium, Zurich: JRP Ringier. Hoffman, J (Ed) (2004) The Next Documenta Should Be Curated by and Artists, Revolver, Frankfurt, Germany: / e-flux, New York / Platform Garanti Contemporary Art Centre Judovitz, D. (1998) Unpacking Duchamp: Art in Transit, London:University of California Press. Mahony, E. (2012) ‘New Institutionalism and its Legacy’(Unpublished manuscript.) Montmann, N. (2005) ‘Opacity: Current Considerations on Art Institutions
and the Economy of Desire’, in Montmann(ed.), (2005), Art and its Institutions: Current Conflicts, Critique and Collaborations, London: Black Dog Publishing Mouffe, C. (2002), ‘For an Agonistic Public Sphere’ in Okwui, Basualdo, Meta Bauer, Ghez, Maharaj, Nash, Zaya (eds.), Democracy Unrealized, Documenta11_Platform 1, Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz O’Doherty, B. (1989a), ‘The Gallery as a Gesture’ in Inside the White Cube, The Ideology of the Gallery Space (Expanded Eds), London: University of California Press O’Doherty, B. (1989b), ‘Context as Content’ in Inside the White Cube, The Ideology of the Gallery Space(Expanded Eds), London: University of California Press O'Neill, P. & Wilson, M.(Eds.), (2010), Curating and The Educational Turn, London: Open Editions/de Appel O’Neill, P.(2007), ‘The Curatorial Turn: From Practice to Discourse’. In Issues in Contemporary Art and Performance, Bristol: Intellect Books Raqs Media Collective, On Curatorial esponsibility, in Filipovic, Van Hal, Ovstebo (eds.) (2010), The Biennial Reader, Bergen Kunsthall: Hatje Cantz Siderfin, N, ‘Occupational Haazard’, in , in McCorquodale, Siderfin, Stallabrass(eds.), Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art, London: Black Dog. Vidokle, A (2009) ‘From Exhibitions to School: Notes from Unitednationsplaza’ in Madoff (2009) The Art School - (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge Massachusetts/ London, United Kingdom: MIT Press Welchman, J.C. (ed), Institutional Critique and After, Volume 2 of the SoCCAS symposia, Zurich: JRP Ringier ARTICLES Farquharson, A.(2006) Bureaux De Change, Frieze Magazine, Issue 101, Published Setpember 2006. http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/bureaux_de_change/ Article accesses October 2011 Farquharson, A.(2003i) I curate you curate we curate: feature on curating, Part 1. Art Monthly Magazine, Issue 269, page 7. Farquharson, A.(2003ii) I curate you curate we curate: feature on curating, Part 2. Art Monthly Magazine, Issue 270, page 13. Fraser, A.(2011) Where Do You Stand, Colleague? Texte Zur Kunst, Issue 81, http://www.e-flux.com/announcements/where-do-you-stand-colleague-art-criticismand-social-critique-symposium-on-the-occasion-of-the-20th-anniversary/ Date accessed December 2011 Haake, H.(1975), ‘The Role of the Artists in Today’s society’ Art Journal, Summer
edition 1975. Hadley+Maxwell (2008), ‘Find Us at the Kitchen Door’, Art Lies Contemporary Art Journal, Issue 57. http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1583&issue=57&s=1 Accessed: January 2012 Vidokle, A.(2010), ‘Art Without Artists?’, E-flux issue 136, May 2010 Available: http://e-flux.com/journal/view/136 Accessed: October 2011 Vidokle, A., Rosler, M. (2008) Exhibition as School as Work of Art, ART LIES, issue 59. http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1661&issue=59&s=1 Accessed: December 2011. Wasser, F.(2011), ‘Sisyphus Rishing – A Review of the Underground Exhibition at BASIC SPACE, Dublin’, Critical Bastards, Issue 4. http://criticalbastards.wordpress.com/2011/12/ Accessed: December 2011
ONLINE Doherty, C. (2004) ‘The Institution is Dead! Long Live the Institution! Contemporary Art and New Institutionalism’, Engage-Art of Encounter, Issue 15 http://www.situations.org.uk/media/files/Engage.pdf Accessed: October 2011 Esche, C. (2011)‘Historical Times: the capabilities of an art museum and how it comes to terms with the world today’, Project Base, Lecture Press Release, 2011, http://www.projectbase.org.uk/talks-and-events/charles-esche-historical-timescapacities-art-museum-and-how-it-comes-terms-withwo#/sites/default/files/_DSC5163.jpg Accessed: December 2011 Esche, C. (2004), ‘What’s the Point of Art Centre’s Anyway? – Possibility, Art and Democratic Deviance’, www.republicart.net http://republicart.net/disc/institution/esche01_en.htm Accessed: October 2011 Esche, C.(2001) Can Everything be Temporary? Art, institutions and fluidity, series of debated on Netw, Context, territories, November 2001 www.proyestorama.org/00/INGLES/TEXTS/REDES/eschei.htm Accessed: November 2010 Fraser, A. (2005) ‘From the Critique of Institutions to Institutional Critique’, Artforum. New York: Sep 2005. Vol. 44, Iss. 1; pg. 278 http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Andrea-Fraser_From-theCritique-of-Institutions-to-an-Institution-of-Critique.pdf Accessed: December 2011 Gordon-Nesbitt, R. (2003), ‘Harnessing the Means of Production’. http://www.societyofcontrol.com/pmwiki/Akademie/uploads/Main/harnessing.htm Verksted #1, Norway: Office for Contemporary Art
Accessed:September 2011 O’Neill, P.(2006), ‘Curating Subjects – Interview with Matthew Higgs’. North Drive Press, Issue 3. Edited by Paul O’Neill http://www.northdrivepress.com/interviews/NDP3/NDP3_HIGGS_ONEILL.pdf Accessed: October 2011 Raapana, N., Friedrich, N.(2005), ‘Introduction: Why study Hegel’, What is the Hegelian Dialect?, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm Accessed February 2012 Trebay, G. (2004) ‘Sex, Art and Videotape’, New York Times (Encounter), June 13 2004,http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/magazine/13ENCOUNTER.html? pagewanted=all Accessed: January 2012 Ekeberg, J., Seihaug, J. (2011), ‘Interview with Charles Esche’, The Possibility of Politics, Kunstkritikk, http://www.kunstkritikk.com/international-edition-en/thepossibility-of-politics/?lang=en Accessed: January 2012 PUBLICATIONS & PRESS BASIC SPACE(2011i) http://basicspacedublin.wordpress.com/about/ Updated 2011, Accessed: August 2010 BASIC SPACE (2011ii) Host Press Release, ‘HOST Opening 15 Sept’, September 3, 2011http://basicspacedublin.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/host-opening-15-sept/ Accessed: August 2010 Basic Space (2011iii) Underground Press Release, ‘New Show Opening November 10th’ October 28, 2011, http://basicspacedublin.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/underground-show-openingnovember-10th/ Accessed: August 2010 Fitzpatrick, H. (2011) Half+Half Press Release. Information courtesy of Hannah Fitzpatrick, Ireland Open Dublin(2010) ‘Open Dublin Proposal: For the Use of Vancant Properties in Dublin’. http://opendublin.wordpress.com/proposal/ Accessed: April 2010
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.