The text I summarized in the seminar is <From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique> by Andrea Fraser.!At the beginning of the text, Andrea thinks the institutional critique gained a lot of respect and achieved a certain historical status. While, it is also the exclusively and high-handedness rushes make the institutional critique dismiss the critical claims associated with it. So Andrea thinks that the institutional critique is dead. Later, Andrea gave some examples to demonstrate that she could be the first person to use the term of ‘ institutional critique’ in 1984. And she is also the first person to put the term in print. The term ‘institutional critique’ emerged as shorthand for ‘ the critique of institutions’, while today this term has been reduced by restrictive interpretations of its two parts: institution and critique.
Andrea mentioned Daniel Buren, a French artist, who held some exhibitions in 1970s, explored the function of museum and studio. Daniel Buren believes the analysis of the art system must be carried on by investigating both the studio and the museum as customs. Besides, Andrea also mentioned another artist Michael Asher, who aimed at artistic practice itself, considered that the institutionalization of art in museums or its commodification in galleries cannot be conceived of as the co-operation or misappropriation of studio art.
From 1969 on, a conception of the institution of art begins to include not only the museum, or just the sites of production, distribution, and reception of art, but the entries field of art as a social universe. This conception of institution can be seen most clearly in Hans Haacke’s work. Hans Haacke defined the institution as the network of social and economic relationship between them.
Moving from a substantive understanding of ‘ the institution ‘ as specific places, organizations, and individuals to a conception of it as a social field, Andrea tried to explore what’s inside and what’s outside. It said in 1969, Buren realized many works that bridged interior and exterior, but it was Ahser that demonstrated the institutionalization of art, because art depends on its conceptual or perceptual frames rather than the physical frame.
Andrea think that Asher took Duchanp one step further. In Asher opinion, art is not art because it is signed by an artist or shown in museum or any other ‘ institutional site ‘, Art is art when it exists for practices and discourses that recognize it as art, value and evaluate it as art. Art is always already institutionalized within the perception of participants in the field of art. So art is internalized and embodied in people. So art cannot exist outside the field of art, and the artists, Critics and curators also couldn’t exist outside the field of art. I think this is also a kind of ‘distinction’ which mentioned in David Roberts’s text <Paradox preserved: from ontoloy to autology. Reflections on Niklas Luhmann’s The Art of Society>. The institutional critique, in Asher’s opinion, has always been institutionalized, and it only function within the institution art. What’s more, the artists couldn’t escape the institution of art even they expanded the frame and brought more of the world into it when they made efforts to escape the limits of institution. That’s to say, we couldn’t escape the field of art when we are artist, cutators and critics. While, we are identified as artist, curators and critics when we are in the filed of art. It’s sounds like a paradox logic, but as the Luhmann’s idea that David Roberts mentioned, we cannot escape the paradox of origin.
Relating to the contemporary art, Andrea think the art world which contains art market and art industry is not part of the ‘real world’, and it’s one of the most absurd fictions of art discourse. The current market boom is a direct product of neoliberal economic politics, and it’s belong to the luxury consumption boom and the economic forces.
Andrea mentioned Daniel Buren, a French artist, who held some exhibitions in 1970s, explored the function of museum and studio. Daniel Buren believes the analysis of the art system must be carried on by investigating both the studio and the museum as customs. Besides, Andrea also mentioned another artist Michael Asher, who aimed at artistic practice itself, considered that the institutionalization of art in museums or its commodification in galleries cannot be conceived of as the co-operation or misappropriation of studio art.
From 1969 on, a conception of the institution of art begins to include not only the museum, or just the sites of production, distribution, and reception of art, but the entries field of art as a social universe. This conception of institution can be seen most clearly in Hans Haacke’s work. Hans Haacke defined the institution as the network of social and economic relationship between them.
Moving from a substantive understanding of ‘ the institution ‘ as specific places, organizations, and individuals to a conception of it as a social field, Andrea tried to explore what’s inside and what’s outside. It said in 1969, Buren realized many works that bridged interior and exterior, but it was Ahser that demonstrated the institutionalization of art, because art depends on its conceptual or perceptual frames rather than the physical frame.
Andrea think that Asher took Duchanp one step further. In Asher opinion, art is not art because it is signed by an artist or shown in museum or any other ‘ institutional site ‘, Art is art when it exists for practices and discourses that recognize it as art, value and evaluate it as art. Art is always already institutionalized within the perception of participants in the field of art. So art is internalized and embodied in people. So art cannot exist outside the field of art, and the artists, Critics and curators also couldn’t exist outside the field of art. I think this is also a kind of ‘distinction’ which mentioned in David Roberts’s text <Paradox preserved: from ontoloy to autology. Reflections on Niklas Luhmann’s The Art of Society>. The institutional critique, in Asher’s opinion, has always been institutionalized, and it only function within the institution art. What’s more, the artists couldn’t escape the institution of art even they expanded the frame and brought more of the world into it when they made efforts to escape the limits of institution. That’s to say, we couldn’t escape the field of art when we are artist, cutators and critics. While, we are identified as artist, curators and critics when we are in the filed of art. It’s sounds like a paradox logic, but as the Luhmann’s idea that David Roberts mentioned, we cannot escape the paradox of origin.
Relating to the contemporary art, Andrea think the art world which contains art market and art industry is not part of the ‘real world’, and it’s one of the most absurd fictions of art discourse. The current market boom is a direct product of neoliberal economic politics, and it’s belong to the luxury consumption boom and the economic forces.