Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
Collectivism after Modernism - autonomous learning - Blogs
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Art & Language and the Institutional Form 89<br />
Buchloh writes: “[I]t would appear that Conceptual Art truly became the<br />
most signiWcant change of postwar artistic production at the moment that it<br />
mimed the operating logic of late capitalism and its positivist instrumentality.”<br />
26 In his view, conceptual artists’ adoption of tautological modes (evident<br />
principally in the view that artworks were analytic propositions but extendable<br />
to Art & Language’s reXexive structure) aligned the practice with the<br />
identity and operation of a depoliticized technocratic postwar middle class.<br />
What his account does not seem to allow for, and would follow from the<br />
arguments above, is that appropriation of hegemonic bureaucratic or administrative<br />
methods was not simply a move against aesthetic transcendence. It<br />
remained, I have contended, an ethical move and a strategy that, while at<br />
times mimetic of the culture it opposed, was certainly also carried out in the<br />
name of and with a view toward forming a resistant self-determination.<br />
That Buchloh was writing at the end of a decade of neoexpressionist<br />
returns to transcendence and authenticity may have colored his view<br />
of the bureaucratic nature of conceptualism. Yet with the perspective of an<br />
additional Wfteen years one may attempt to reframe with greater precision<br />
the practice of Art & Language and the administrative or institutional moment<br />
in conceptualism that it exempliWes with such clarity. How are we to understand<br />
this moment in which institutional life comes to the forefront of a<br />
collective practice to the extent that it serves as at least one group’s raison<br />
d’être? There are two answers to this. First, as far as a simple genealogy of<br />
the present is concerned, one may look to how Art & Language’s institutionalization<br />
of collective work—collectivity taking on an institutional character<br />
in an effort to secure autonomy from administered culture—did in fact<br />
mark a massive change in art production, <strong>after</strong> which it became impossible<br />
for even mainstream artists to unreXectively adopt the givens of studio practice,<br />
but they would henceforth have to locate their activities within selfinstituted<br />
or at least self-theorized practices. 27 The period that came in the<br />
wake of Art & Language’s administrative gamesmanship ushered in not only<br />
the “self-instituting” of most artists operating as individuals—together with<br />
the de facto institutionalization of institutional critique—but also an array<br />
of not-for-proWt galleries and other public organizations (like Artists Space,<br />
Franklin Furnace, Printed Matter) that in many ways make up the landscape<br />
of today’s art subculture. More important than this genealogy, however, is<br />
that from the standpoint of a radical historiography this case study of Art &<br />
Language points to how it is in the impulse to self-determination and the<br />
methodology of resistant organizational form that an important legacy of<br />
conceptual art may be located.<br />
It may seem that excessive weight is being put on one group in the<br />
above, and of course it would be mistaken to assume that Art & Language’s