The Artist's Position Is Basically A Critical One
Posted on August 27th, 2006 in activism, musings, of interest
We work within, for, around (and perhaps against) institutions almost on a daily basis. Artists, as cultural producers, may be even more beholden to or dependent on institutions for various kinds of support; we spend a great deal of time and energy writing and submitting applications to these institutions for grants, residencies, exhibition and publication opportunities. These institutions, in turn, frame our work, wrap it up in their taxonomical systems, their politics and cultural agendas. In a conversation from 2001 entitled The Folds of the Institution, Greg Sholette, Cesare Pietroiusti, and Brett Bloom rapped about this predicament and the various possible tactics and practices artists employ to work critically within institutions. Pietroiusti says,
I think that a good way to define an “institution” is to outline the fact that most of its efforts go in the direction of a self-confirmation of the institution itself. Therefore its activities will be, to a large extent, a “celebration,” a continuous effort to give an image of success, of richness, of effectiveness, of power. It’s obvious that any critical position will be seen as a menace; and, as I am convinced that the artist’s position is basically a critical one, there will be an inevitable contradiction between the artist and the institution. Having said that, I also think that not all the institutions are the same, nor that all their activities have always the same character. It’s true that the institution can have the “power,” so to say, of accepting and neutralizing even critical positions (making them become “trends” in the art market), but I do think that “institutional critique” is more interesting than neo-expressionist painting or sleek corporate photography, because in any case its content (especially in the beginning) provoke the public to pose questions. And then, when it has become a successful trend, no big drama. I think it just means that time has come, for another critical position to appear.
A few years later, Sholette wrote in an essay for republicart (now transform.eipcp.net):
Finally, in order to describe oneself as both artist and political being, or what Pier Paolo Pasolini termed a “citizen-poet,” one must remain ill at ease with the neo-liberalism of post-cold war institutions, especially those that seem all too willing to embrace a prudent form of political dissent, including the unstated demand that curators be culturally inclusive and socially progressive. Despite this uncertainty, and regardless of one’s divided loyalties, we might now seriously consider re-approaching the idea of critical autonomy that groups such as PAD/D attempted to establish more than twenty years ago. I’m not referring here to the modernist notion of autonomy in which the art object is celebrated as something solely in and for itself, transcending everyday life. Rather, I 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.
After surveying the lay of the land here in Philadelphia since returning last October, it’s very apparent that this town is in serious need of some critical autonomy and institutional critique from the artists who live and work here. A few of us are finding each other. If you’re reading this in Philly and it resonates in any way, please make contact.
