Download pdf version of issue no. 16 (4 Mb) - Pavilion

depending on their usefulness for society,
the representational one, in which art
means imitation, and the aesthetic one,
the only one able to generate innovative
action. The aesthetic regime is
autonomous and creative; it overthrows
restrictions, creating an artistic equalitarianism
– hence, the possible resemblance
to the overturning of political and social
hierarchies. Each work of art must have a
story with a moral, social and political significance,
based on a system of meanings
and focusing on action (Ranciere, 2010,
p. 15).
On institutional criticism. Criticism by
art
The very term of “institutional criticism”
seems to point to a direct relationship
between a method and an object, where
the method is the criticism and the object
is the situation. In the first wave of institutional
criticism, in the late ‘60s and early
’70 – much celebrated and categorized by
the history of art since then – these terms
were apparently defined in an even more
specific and narrower way; the critical
method was an artistic practice and the
institution concerned was the institution of
art, in particular, the art museum, but also
the galleries and collections. The institutional
criticism took many forms, from art
works and interventions and critical writings
to artistic political activism.
Nevertheless, in the so-called second
wave of the ‘80s, the institutional framework
expanded, to some extent, to
include the role of the artist (the subject
performing the criticism) as being institutionalized,
as well as the investigation of
certain spaces (and practices) exterior to
art. Today, both ways are themselves part
of the institution of art, seen as art history
and education, as well as general
[16]
contemporary art practice, dematerialized
and post-conceptual.
Why do we speak of institutional criticism
in art today? The answer is very simple:
because we (still) believe that art has an
intrinsic power to criticize. Of course, we
do not refer here only to art criticism, but
to something more, that is, to the ability of
art to criticize life and the world beyond
the boundaries of its own realm and, by
doing this, even to change both of them.
However, this also includes a certain
degree of self-criticism or, more specifically,
the practice of critical self-reflexiveness,
which means that we expect (or, at
least, used to expect) the art to be aware
of the conditions making it possible, which
usually mean the conditions of its creation
(Buden, 2002). These two ideas – the
awareness of the conditions of possibility
and the awareness of the conditions of
creation – point to two major domains of
the modern criticism: the theoretical domain
and the practical, political one. Kant
was the one who launched the interrogation
considering the conditions making
our knowledge possible and who explicitly
understood this interrogation as an
act of criticism.
From this point forward, one can say that
modern criticism either is critical (that is,
self-reflexive), or is not modern.
References
• Jean Baudrillard, "Strategiile fatale", Polirom,
Iasi, 1996, p. 31-40
• Gilles Lipovetsky, "Amurgul datoriei.
Etica nedureroasa a noilor timpuri democratice",
Babel, Bucharest, 1996, p. 68
• Johnson E. A. J., Kroos H. E., "The
American Economy. Its Origins, Development
and Transformation" Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1960
• Antonio Gramsci, "Americanism and
Fordism", essay, Prison Notebooks.
• Joana Breidenbach, Ina Zukrigl, "The
Dynamics of Cultural Globalization. The
Myths of Cultural Globalization",
Research Institute for Austrian and
International Literature and Cultural
Studies, 1999
• Benjamin Buchloh, „Conceptual Art
1962–1969: From the Aesthetics of
Administration to the Critique of
Institutions“, in October, No. 55, 1990, pp.
105–143
• Julia Bryan-Wilson, „A Curriculum of
Institutional Critique“, in Jonas Ekeberg
(ed.), New Institutionalism, Oslo,
OCA/verksted, 2003
• idea.ro/revista/?q=ro/node/40&articol=516
• Jean - Jacques Gleizal, "Arta și politicul",
Meridiane, Bucharest, 1999
[17]