l na
o ti u t ti s e n u I tiq i r C . y a d To
ry ora y p r m nte pora o c e em o th d cont t s he an . oac ution itique r p Ap instit al cr n art tutio worth ti s in e Ains Mik
Parallel, Action, Report, Essay Exploring contemporary art institutions
01 / 02
If we are to consider the previous writings in this series1, what are we able to allude to in regards the contemporary art institution? If we are to review the current context we are situated in, a globalized, neo-liberalist, free market capitalist system, where corporate sponsorship and involvement with art institutions is not a rarity but a necessity for the survival of an institution due to decrease in state funding. Where the trustee boards of galleries and museums are occupied by former CEO’s, financiers and bankers, all of whom in the UK are appointed by the Prime Minister under the 1992 Museums and Galleries Act2, giving them a say in what we see and do not see in art institutions. How then is there the possibility for artistic autonomy and critical artistic discourse within such a system? Is it possible? What are the alternatives for how we should approach the institution today? There is of course a history of struggle and the institution in art, the avant-gardes, the situationists, the fluxus movement and conceptual art, all made breaks from the institution in one form or another, but all eventually ended up back in the institution. The catalyst for this is often cited as the diminishing of Fordism and its replacement with globalized free-market capitalism, this has developed and spread in the post-Cold War era, bringing with it a globalised idea of democracy which has become stagnant. So discourse between the artist and the institution has existed in the past and not simply through the practice termed “Institutional critique”3 which; …is characterised by work that is less concerned with the formal aspects of art than with the unseen economic and social structures that buttress arts’ institutional setting.4
1 Please refer to Mike Ainsworth, Museums managers of consciousness: Revisited, RE: The Sponsorship and funding of “Art turning Left” at TATE Liverpool”, and A Fidész és az MMA Legyőzni reménytelenség, Fidész and the MMA, To defeat hopelessness (2014) 2 Full copy of the Museums and Galleries act 1992 can be read at http://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/1992/44/contents 3 A term thought to be first put in print by Andrea Fraser in “In and out of place” in 1985 while reflecting on what then became known as the first generation of institutional critique from the 1970’s and subsequently establishing a second phase of institutional critique in the late 1980’s, this is also cited by some as a point of institutionalization of the practice. Andrea Fraser, “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”, Artforum, vol.44, iss 1; pp.278286, (2005),[Accessed February 2nd 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Andrea-Fraser_From-the-Critique-of-Institutions-to-an-Institution-of-Critique.pdf> 4 Gregory Sholette, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, Third text, 16:2, 153-166, Doi: 10.1080/09528820210138290, (2002), p.10 [Accessed January 15th] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09528820210138290#.Uv0-mPl_ ua9>
It is through the alternatives outlined by those associated with and under the banner of institutional critique that I wish to explore here, looking at artists and theorists from the 1970’s, 1980’s and the third phase of institutional critique which we are part of now. It Is notable to point out the differences between these phases, the second phase which included artists and theorists such as Gene Ray, Andrea Fraser and Brian Holmes, developed on the work made in the 1970’s, its approach to the institution was dramatically different. In the 1970’s institutional critique sought to distance itself from the institution, to step back from it to view it fully and break from it. During the second phase there was an acceptance of an inevitability of such practices being involved with the institution and so sought to address this involvement and how we can use the institution for our own means. It is also necessary to point out through the critique generated in the 1980’s that the first phase was established and eventually became institutionalized and the practice of institutional critique as it had existed was canonized by art history, losing its revolutionary and critical qualities to some. In “From the critique of institutions to the institution of critique” Andrea Fraser would argue however that such practices have always been institutionalized by the very nature of art practices and our situation in a globalized, 24/7, free market international capitalist system, and that to step out of or opt out of such a system in an attempt to critique it is an impossibility due to its internalisation in those who practice it also and the inescapability of ourselves. …what is announced and perceived as art is always already institutionalized, simply because it exists within the perception of participants in the field of art as art…It is also internalized and embodied in people. It is internalized in the competencies, conceptual models, and modes of perception that allow us to produce, write about and understand art, or simply to recognize art as art…There is of course, an “outside” of the institution, but it has no fixed, substantive characteristics. It is only what, at any given moment, does not exist as an object of artistic discourses and practices. But just as art cannot exist outside the field of art, we cannot exist outside the field of art, at least not as artists, critics, curators etc…It is because the institution
is inside of us, and we can’t get outside of ourselves.5 Fraser also cites the artist as much as the critic, curator and market for the expansion and creation of an inescapable, all-encompassing cultural sphere through their critical discourse and actions;
03 / 04
It is artists-as much as museums or the market-who, in their very efforts to escape the institution of art, have driven its expansion. With each attempt to evade the limits of institutional determination, to embrace an outside, to redefine art or reintegrate it into everyday life , to reach “everyday” people and work in the “real” world, we expand our frame and bring more of the world into it. But we never escape6 Confirmation of what Fraser is talking about would be in this text I am writing, although I am writing with the intention of exploring the cultural institution and critical discourse within it, there is a certain irony I think in the fact that I am writing this paper for an institution, and for an institutions approval. With a change in economic and political spheres has come a change in cultural spheres, also transforming culture into commodity, representative of both an imposed national identity, but also of individual representation. Like many others Gene Ray sights the need for a radical reorganisation of socio-political structures and a severance from capitalism, as it is arts links to this that define and create its problems. It’s obvious that no general or durable solution to the predicament of art, as a relatively autonomous but ultimately dominated sphere of institutionalized practices, is possible in the absence of radical social reorganization. In the end, arts’ utopian aspirations are hitched to the fate of revolution. As long as capitalism is the dominant world system, it will force art to tow the line.7 When we really consider the art institution today and its’ reliance 5 Andrea Fraser, “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”, Artforum, vol.44, iss 1; p.282, (2005), [Accessed February 2nd 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Andrea-Fraser_From-the-Critique-of-Institutions-to-an-Institution-ofCritique.pdf> 6 Andrea Fraser, “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”, p.283, 7 Gene Ray, “This way to exit: On Julian Stallabrass’s ART INC”, [Accessed January 26th 2014] <http://www.transform.eipcp.net/correspondence/1167849593#redir>
and dependence on the capitalist system for its survival, it does become difficult to think of a sustainable alternative that would ensure an autonomous existence. Particularly in the light of the decrease in state funding for artistic and cultural institutions during this current climate of economic recession, as already stated both capital and culture are intrinsically linked and so of course when one booms as does the other and when it crashes the other follows. The cultural sphere develops a dependency on the funding and sponsorship of corporations and the market, whose actions can be put down to many reasons; boosting public image, moral and ethical cleansing, philanthropic charity or a drive for turn-over, for profit on their investment. Hito Steyerl talks of an almost self-defeating stance from the institution when under pressure from the markets to perform to business expectations, and outlines a further reason for a severance between art and capitalism is needed; …when a cultural institution comes under pressure from the market, it tries to retreat into the position which claims that it is the duty of the nation state to fund it and to keep it alive. The problem with that position is that it is an ultimately protectionist one, that it ultimately reinforces the construction of national public spheres and that under this perspective the cultural institution can only be defended in the framework of a new left attitude seeking to retreat into the remnants of a demolished national welfare state and its cultural shells…8 Through its’ actions here the institution reifies its’ reliance and need for the state and thus the capitalist system for its’ survival, by proclaiming the necessity for it. Questions of how effective and revolutionary actions by artists and movements also arise, particularly when ideas of a social responsibility of the artist are considered. Does the ideology of the artist measure up to the content of the work? If so then how effective is its’ implementation? Is it even present? As Gregory Sholette points out, content and ideology sometimes do not correlate; …by the late 1970’s, politically engaged artists were 8 Gerald Raunig, and Gene Ray, eds. “The institution of critique”, Hito Steyerl, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) p.18
becoming increasingly sophisticated in mixing the symbolic realm of art making with the practical needs of political activism. Unlike an earlier generation, exemplified by Donald Judd or Carl Andre, who both strongly opposed the Vietnam war yet remained devout minimalists…9 This could also be said for what has broadly been termed socially engaged practice, although often touching on and highlighting important issues and problems in society at times works can seem “more symbolic than practical.”10 Similarly Claire Bishop points out possible flaws in “Relational Aesthetics”, the genre Nicolas Bourriaud coined in the 1990’s which instead of developing critique and alternatives to the problematic system of the art world is
05 / 06
…learning to inhabit the world in a better way’; instead of looking forward to a future utopia, this art sets up functioning ‘microtopias’ in the present.11 This of course can be linked with a change in the role of the artist socially and with ideas of a social responsibility in art. The artist is not solely a producer of material that is placed in a gallery, there is a social mobilization and involvement of artists, as members of a community, as a voice, as a political power/ tool, as activists, and there is an expectation for artists to be inclined this way. It certainly seems to me at least that as artists we must use our practices to highlight social problems, social injustices, environmental issues etc. If we can see the problems or are aware of them in our expanded social field and choose not to make work about them then what are we doing? We are being ignorant to the problem, instead using art as a form of escapism from social, political and economic reality, and with such action there can be no hope for the development of our current situation, only the prolonging of it. Obviously we see different levels of involvement and commitment in relation to such issues from artists, and it can of course take many different forms in an artists’ work, be it in the shock fuelled scenarios orchestrated 9 Gregory Sholette, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, p.4 10 Nato Thompson, eds. Nato Thompson, Living as form: Socially engaged art from 19912011, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2011), p.18 11 Claire Bishop, “Antagonism and Relational aesthetics”, MIT Press journals, October 110, (2004), p. 54 [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Claire-Bishop_Antagonism-and-Relational-Aesthetics.pdf>
by Santiago Sierra or the actions of Ai WeiWei for example, both of whom use the institution on a global scale as a platform for critical discourse. There are some such as Gregory Sholette12 and Brian Holmes13 who have read the increase in socially lead and directed practices as a fashion trend of the art world, as something artists need to appear to be interested and concerned with to become known, to be seen and to be exhibited. Sholette states; It has become almost de rigueur to make explicit reference to issues of politics, cultural diversity, gender and sexual identity14 Even if this is the case, that socially directed and engaged projects are becoming fashionable practices to be involved in, this certainly cannot be seen as a reason for such practices to be stopped. I don’t believe this could be applied to all artists engaged with these issues and it certainly doesn’t stop the necessity for such actions and work as the problems still exist. There is still the need for what Gerald Raunig refers to as parrhesia; ...‘to say everything’, freely speaking without rhetorical games and without ambiguity, even and especially when this is hazardous.15 This is not something that should only be applied to an artistic practice that seeks to comment on social factors, the anthropologist David Harvey eludes to a similar mobilization of such critical practices in daily life also in “The Crises of capitalism”16 12 Gregory Sholette, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, 13 Brian Holmes , “Liars poker: Representation of politics/Politics of representation”, [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1276&lang=en> also refer to Ainsworth, Mike, Museums managers of consciousness: Revisited, (2014) 14 De rigueur, meaning a necessary if you wish to be popular or fashionable. Gregory Sholette, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, p.156 15 Gerald Raunig, and Gene Ray, eds. “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, Gerald Raunig, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 9
16 David Harvey, “The crises of capitalism”, RSA Lectures (2010), [Accessed Febrauary 24th 2014] <http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1533613/RSA-Lecture-David-Harvey-transcript.pdf>
I don’t see us debating and discussing this. I don’t have the solutions. I think I know what the nature of the problem is, and unless we’re prepared to have a very broad based discussion that gets away from the normal pabulum you get in the political campaign and everything’s going to be okay here next year if you vote for me – it’s crap. You should know it’s crap and say it is. And we have a duty, it seems to me those of us who are academics and seriously involved in the world, to actually change our mode of thinking
07 / 08
As well as changes in the role of the artist and in approaches towards the institution we also see an expansion of who is involved with such practices. No longer is it only artists working outside of the confines of the institution in this critique, there is now input from curators, and gallery directors, working from within the institution to consider how it can be used as a tool by art. …the current institutional-critical discussions seem predominantly propagated by curators and directors of the very same institutions, and they are usually opting for rather than against them. That is, they are not an effort to oppose or even destroy the institution, but rather to modify and solidify it. The institution is not only a problem. But also a solution.17 Although Simon Sheikh offers this one possibility for the internalisation of institutional critique he also suggests another possible outcome in the co-opting of institutional critique by the institution to thus render its resistive and critical powers obsolete. Institutional critique, as co-opted, would be like bacteria that may have temporarily weakened the patient – the institution – but only in order to strengthen the immune system of that patient in the long run.18 One of the most suggested developments19 needed for the 17 Gerald Raunig, and Gene Ray, eds. “Notes on institutional critique”, Simon Sheikh, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) p. 30 18 Simon Sheikh, “Notes on institutional critique”, p. 31 19 Suggested in the Gerald Raunig, and Gene Ray, eds. “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, Gerald Raunig, pp. 3-12, “The institution of critique”, Hito Steyerl, pp.
institution and for art is a drive for an interdisciplinary approach to critique, a broadening of discourse and disciplines so many different areas overlap, and coincide. Not only investigating the problems within the art world but also taking stock and considering a much broader spectrum of topics; such as ecology, politics, economics, human rights, and the environment, as well as a consideration of what is pertinent in the present, what needs talking about, reconfiguring and redeveloping, now in the present day. It is through this overlapping of critical discourse that you are able to create a collectivist approach to the critique of an overall system. It is highly common today for collaborative process to appear between artistic practices, this is made even more accessible and potentially revolutionary with the use of digital networks allowing instant information transference and communication around the globe. There are however counter arguments to a revolutionary stance/use of the internet in society and critical discourse. That through its qualities of remote, global access we in some ways proliferate the qualities of alienation and isolation from society and social interaction the has become the norm in modern society. Isabelle Graw however would disagree with a need for collectivisation and interdisciplinary connections and instead takes a conservative approach to how as an artist we can approach the current system, mainly in the method of hermitage as opposed to exodus which we will touch on later. …the model of the preoccupied painter working away in his studio, refusing to give any explanation, ostentatiously not networking, never travelling, hardly showing himself in the public”, it is allegedly to prevent the principle of the spectacle from “directly accessing his mental and emotional competencies20 Brian Holmes sees the broadening of this critical field as a necessity for the development of resistive practices today; The specific focus on extradisciplinary artistic practices does not mean radical politics has been forgotten, far from it. Today more than ever, any constructive investigation 13-20, “Extradisciplinary investigations: Towards a new critique of institutions”, Brian Holmnes, pp. 53-62 20 Gerald Raunig, “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, pp. 7
has to raise the standards of resistance.21 As well as interdisciplinary connectivity we must be selfcritiquing and self-reflexive. There must be a constant reassessing and re-contextualisation of practices, actions and critiques in and towards the institution so as not to become entrenched by our own critique. Like many other systems such as, social, economic and political structures, culture must also remain developmental and evolutionary if we are to hope to maintain a critical and relevant discourse and achieve an “emancipatory transformation”22 as Gerald Raunig puts it.
09 / 10
If we are to take Gene Ray’s call for a severance between capitalism and the institution as a necessity for the development of a critical cultural institution and practice, which is a priority, not just for art but for many other fields as well, I think we will be waiting some time. Another alternative to this which many have suggested would be an exodus from the institution, to leave the system that doesn’t work the way we want it to and create our own institution on our own terms. I personally however would agree with the possibility expressed by Gregory Sholette …to remain opposed to all institutional intercourse, is to assume the most ideologically accommodating position possible. It leaves the institution in the hands of those administrators and intellectuals who dismiss the impulse for economic and political justice as impractical and who instead turn to a melancholy exploration of personal meaning or an unreflective indulgence in popular culture.23 Exodus does not solve the much larger problem of the dominance of neo-liberalist, capitalist doctrine. Taking critical practice out of the institution does not solve the issue. Instead it leaves the institution vulnerable without a possibility of critical discourse or change. In which case the institution as we have at the present isn’t going anywhere, so what can we do instead if such a rupture is not practical? 21 Gerald Raunig, and Gene Ray, eds. “Extradisciplinary investigations: Towards a new critique of institutions”, Brian Holmnes, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) p. 61 22 Gerald Raunig, “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, p. 5 23 Gregory Sholette, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, pp.157-158,
Most possible and effective I think would be a reinvention and re-invigoration of how we use and approach the current institutional system. This consequently requires a new approach to institutional critique and critical practices, or at least as I have previously written a re-contextualising and self-critiquing of practices to ensure there development and relevance to the present day. It would be Gregory Sholette who I think proposes the most concise and practical approach to the institution at present, this however cannot be taken as the model for the future, as the problems of today and the tools and methods with which we solve them will not be the same tomorrow. â&#x20AC;ŚI want to propose re-introducing the concept of a self-validating mode of cultural production and distribution that is situated at least partially outside the confines of the contemporary art matrix as well as global markets. In other words, a self-conscious autonomous activism in which artists produce and distribute an independent political culture that uses institutional structures as resources rather than points of termination.24
24 Gregory Sholette, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museumâ&#x20AC;?, p. 164,
11 / 12
Appendix
Bibliography BOOKS/PUBLICATIONS Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake, eds. Institutional critique: An anthology of artist’s writings, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2009) Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake, eds. “In and out of place”, Andrea Fraser, 1985, Institutional critique: An anthology of artist’s writings, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2009) pp. 292301 Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, eds. Donna De Salvo, Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, (London: Tate publishing, 2005) Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, “The mimesis of thinking”, Boris Groys in Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, eds. Donna De Salvo, (London: Tate publishing, 2005) pp. 50-63 Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, “Intermedia”, Dick Higgins, Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, eds. Donna De Salvo (London: Tate publishing, 2005) pp. 170-171 Debord, Guy, Society of the spectacle, (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983) Degen, Natasha eds. The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) Degen, Natasha eds. “The Yale lecture”, Richard Serra, Kunst and museum journal, vol.1, no.6, (1990), The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) pp.23-33 Degen, Natasha eds. “Extract from ‘Libre-échange’”, Pierre Bourdieu and Hans Haacke, (Paris: Éditions de seoil/Dijon: Les Presses de reel, 1994), The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) pp.15-19 Dossi, Piroschka and others, Art, price and value: contemporary
art and the market, (Milan: Silvana editorial spa, 2008) Macphee, Josh and Reuland Erik, Eds, Realizing the impossible: Art against authortity, (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007) Macphee, Josh and Reuland Erik, Eds, “The twilight of vanguardism”, David Graeber, Realizing the impossible: Art against authortity, (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007) pp.250-253 Macphee, Josh and Reuland Erik, Eds, “Reappropriate the imagination!”, Cindy Milstein, Realizing the impossible: Art against authortity, (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007) pp.297-307
13 / 14
Macphee, Josh and Reuland Erik, Eds, “Branding anti-consumerism: The capitalistic nature of anti-corporate activism.”, Anne Elizabeth Moore, Realizing the impossible: Art against authortity, (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007) Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, Gerald Raunig, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 3-12 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks), 2009 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “The institution of critique”, Hito Steyerl, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 13-20 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Anti-canonization: The differential knowledge of institutional critique”, Stefan Nowotny, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 21-28 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Notes on institutional critique”, Simon Sheikh, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 29-33 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Criticism without crisis: Crisis without criticism”, Boris Buden, Art and contemporary critical
practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 33-42 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Extradisciplinary investigations: Towards a new critique of institutions”, Brian Holmnes, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 53-62 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Toward a critical art theory”, Gene Ray, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 79-94 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Attempt to think the plebeian: Exodus and constituting as critique”, Isabell Lorey, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 131-140 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Anthropology and theory of institutions”, Paolo Virno, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 95-112 Rocco, Fiammetta, “Special report: Museums: Temples of delight”, (The Economist, December, 2013) Sholette, Gregory, eds. Esther Leslie and Mike Wayne, Dark Matter: Art and politics in the age of enterprise culture, (New York: Pluto press, 2011) Stallabrass, Julian, Art incorporated: The story of contemporary art, (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2004) Thompson, Nato, eds. Nato Thompson, Living as form: Socially engaged art from 1991-2011, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2011) Wallis, Brian and others, eds. Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) Wallis, Brian and others, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” Hans Haacke, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp60-73 Wallis, Brian and others, “Some of Hans Haacke’s works considered as fine art” Leo Steinberg, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished busi-
ness”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp819 ONLINE PUBLICATIONS Bishop, Claire, “Antagonism and Relational aesthetics”, MIT Press journals, October 110, (2004), [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ Claire-Bishop_Antagonism-and-Relational-Aesthetics.pdf>
15 / 16
Cotter, Holland, “Lost in the Gallery – Industrial complex: Holland Cotter looks at money in art”, The New York times, (2014), [Accessed January 23rd 2014] <http://www.nytimes. com/2014/01/19/arts/design/holland-cotter-looks-at-money-inart.html?_r=0> Fraser, Andrea, “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”, Artforum, vol.44, iss 1; pp.278-286, (2005), [Accessed February 2nd 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Andrea-Fraser_From-the-Critiqueof-Institutions-to-an-Institution-of-Critique.pdf> Harvey, David, “The crises of capitalism”, RSA Lectures (2010), [Accessed Febrauary 24th 2014] <http://www.thersa.org/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1533613/RSA-Lecture-David-Harvey-transcript.pdf> Holmes, Brian, “Liars poker: Representation of politics/Politics of representation”, [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www. springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1276&lang=en> Horn, Gabriele, “FOREWORD FROM THE NEWSPAPER ACT FOR ART (EXCERPT)”, Berlin Biennale, (2012), [Accessed January 16th 2014] <http://www.berlinbiennale.de/blog/en/allgemein-en/foreword-from-act-for-art-by-gabriele-horn-27704> Lebuhn, Henrik, “Gene Ray: Terror and the Sublime in Art and Critical Theory”, Linksnet.de (2006) [Accessed February 25th 2014] <http://www.linksnet.de/de/rezension/19768> Orbrist, Hans Ulrich, “Elected affinities: Hans Ulrich Orbrist talks with Edi Rama and Anri Sala”, Art Forum, (2014), [Accessed February 22nd 2014] <http://artforum.com/inprint/id=45004>
Ray,Gene, “On the Conditions of Anti-Capitalist Art: Radical Cultural Practices and the Capitalist Art System”, European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies, (2006), [Accessed February 25th 2014] <http://eipcp.net/transversal/0303/ray/en> Ray, Gene, “This way to exit: On Julian Stallabrass’s ART INC”, [Accessed January 26th 2014] <http://www.transform.eipcp.net/ correspondence/1167849593#redir> Sholette, Gregory, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, Third text, 16:2, 153-166, Doi: 10.1080/09528820210138290, (2002), [Accessed January 15th] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/09528820210138290#.Uv0-mPl_ua9> Zmijewski, Artur, “7th Berlin Biennale for contemporary politics”, Berlin Biennale, (2012) [Accessed January 6th 2014] <http:// www.berlinbiennale.de/blog/en/allgemein-en/7th-berlin-biennale-for-contemporary-politics-by-artur-zmijewski-27718> WEB Berlin Biennale main page, (2014) [Accessed February 23rd 2014] <http://www.berlinbiennale.de> McLean, Bruce, Tateshots: Bruce McLean, (Tate, Nov, 2009) [Online digital recording], [Accessed September 28th 2013] <http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssw-BiEVefU> Peng, Wang, Tateshots: Wang Peng, (Tate, Aug, 2013) [Online digital recording], [Accessed September 28th 2013] <http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=LinNW-GIlP0> Syjuco, Stephanie, Beyond institutional critique, (San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Dec, 2010) [Online digital recording], [Accessed February 11th 2014] <http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jq7zGTrnQvU> Zmijewski, Artur, Artistic freedom (Karlmarkonstmuseum, July 2010) [Online digital recording], [Accessed September 10th 2013] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTtSLLMyou4>