Negation and Change
in the 1960's and 70's, institutional critique was based upon the confrontation of art institutions and the negation of conventions. The aim of these critiques was to produce real change in the art institutions built upon the utopian, 'change the world' attitudes that dominated this era.
Daniel Buren's work where he closed the gallery for the duration of the exhibition, "negated that which was the vehicle of their voice, and yet held on to it at the same time." this is an example of how to critique the institution by utitlising the institution (critiquing from within.)
Works such as this are able to critique the art world while still gaining publicity, support, and finances from the institution.
Why would museums, curators, and collectors support art that critiques them?
The institutions can cultivate the image of being innovative, cutting edge, and of supporting artists by endorsing critical works.
Mel Ramsden refers to this genre of institutional critique as "ameliorative, calling for specific changes in the institutions of art but affirming its basic structure."
Elitism and Art
Art is historically seen as cultured, high class, educated, exclusive, and sublime, which is in opposition to the view of art as domocratic, public, and free.
Social Status of the Artist
The artist either relates to: - the public, art students (lower income)
- OR buyers and collectors (higher income)
Artists from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (which is the result of art education costing $) produce a similar kind of work, reproducing the status quo.
1980's and 90's
Artists believe that it doesn't matter that instiutional power, economic value, and status control art IF this is made visible, e.g. in the works of Andrea Fraser, and Fred Wilson.
These artists must be aware that they themselves constitute the institution by working in this manner.
2000's and Artist Collectives
Proof that there are ways to work around the institution, e.g. the Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment