The apperception of art as a field of social and economic relations is at the heart of the book Seven Days in the Artworld. Thornton deals with the diverse aspects that make up what is called the ‘art world’ through the lens of one governing quality that she observes as an integral part of every actor, organism, and the relation between them: status. Thornton examines institutions acknowledged as cultural authorities. Therefore one gets from the book is what’s mainstream, popular, spectacle-like within the contemporary art world: a rhapsodical experience in Christie’s auction, the trade show of Art Basel, the stirring Turner Prize, the celebrity artist Takashi Murakami’s studio, carnival-like Venice Biennial, the renowned Art Forum, and the lesson of the rock star of criticism, Michael Asher. Additionally, it must be highlighted that the book gives an account of the art world as determined by Neoliberal values and dynamics. Thornton’s subject choices reflect the zeitgeist of the time of her writing, a period when with the art market boom “the notion of art as a luxury good and status symbol” have become popular (Thornton, 19).
However, the focus on actors at the top of the hierarchy excludes other typologies within the art world. Hence, the book lacks the representation of actors offering alternatives to these spectacular authorities. And because the way Thornton chooses her cases (and structures her book) is based on different views-functions of art[1], it is possible to argue activist art -i.e artivism- as another chapter in the book since this approach offers another view of art: art as a medium of social and political change. Because Thornton pays attention to various institutions and paints their portraits through observation, the institutional critique can be helpful for understanding these portrayed institutions through a sense of investigation. Therefore, within the context of this article, I will be handling institutional criticism as a form of activist art as it appears missing from the book regardless of its integral importance for a more holistic and accurate understanding of the art world. After reviewing the book regarding its key points and themes, I will be exploring institutional criticism through Hans Haacke’s relation to the institution of Museum and his artistic practice contrasting that of the example of Takashi Murakami, therefore in relation to two concerned chapters (The Prize and The Studio Visit).
Review of Seven Days in the Art World
One can postulate that, among others, Thornton does two important things in the book: a) demonstrating the interrelation of the social, economic, political with art industry and b) emphasizing that great art is something made within the system of the art world.
The first theorem can be seen, for example in the case of auction. In her account of this sport of the wealthy, Thornton highlights that the boom in the art market reflects and is fueled by people wanting to adopt a certain social status, entering the lifestyle of a group of elite, gaining cultural power through the acquisition of what is fashionable. Not so differently, the transaction in the fair, just like in the auction, can be understood as an exchange of economic capital (i.e the collectors’ money) with cultural-social capital (i.e the value of the artwork in terms of status): purchases are used for climbing the social ladder, establishing themselves as art gourmet within the network of the art world and form relationships with powerful figures. And all these, in return, change the “tastes and buying patterns” according to the “vagaries of fashion” (Thornton, 50).
In the biennial chapter, the art event is used as a regional development tool and national promotion strategy. To some extent, the chapter reveals the underlying motives of “philanthropy of art” or “art-loving” -personal and institutional interests for supporting, distributing, and selling art. To illustrate, the head of British Council explains that her job is to “use art to serve Britain’s foreign policy objectives overseas,” (Thornton, 199) while an Italian collector laments that the event is used by the government for political ends, as it is an attraction point, an income source, and brand image; and yet there is no real adequate support to contemporary art in the country -that the artists can’t survive in the Italian art scene as they can’t make a name and a living due to inadequacies in opportunities for creation and circulation (205).
The latter proposal is seen in the way how each separate unit of the art world make up a part of the whole and function as a larger system, even though they mark distinct notions of art. In that sense, all the different institutions in the book ultimately function as legitimators of either the artwork or the artists. In their own ways, they provide the status necessary to exist and be visible within the art world. An existence that requires, for example, prestigious MFA degrees functioning as ‘passports’, representation by a prominent dealer, “reviews and features in art magazines, inclusion in prestigious private collections, museum validation in the form of solo or group shows, international exposure at well-attended biennials, and the appreciation signaled by strong resale interest at auction” (Thornton, 59). Hence, the great artist or art is a construction of all these factors that function as identifiers of an artist’s “cultural worth…prestige, and…the potential for long-lasting greatness” (106). Therefore, the value gets created by the ‘institution of art’[2] as a totality, that its power to decide “what is great, good or simply competent” (106), substitutes, as Thornton remarks, the decision of time or history to decide art that has lasting value.
One quality of these authorities, that can be observed, is the fact that they function like “self-fulfilling” prophecies. That is, it is challenging to decide whether they award, promote, and support the (potentially) successful art or their awards, promotion, and support make them successful. In her observation of the prize, Thornton remarks the same thing, that she experienced a “chicken-and-egg confusion about the prize’s ability to reflect or create a defining sense of the moment” (124). It probably works both ways, and it can be both a great opportunity or an opening for corruption if left unchallenged and unquestioned.
One last thing to point out is the inherent arbitrariness and diversification of the aesthetic judgments of institutions due to the subjective nature of art, a theme that pops up here and there in each chapter due to the polyphonic quality of the narrative. Concerning this idea Tichner asks “What does it mean for a work of art to succeed in this context? People like it? It’s bought for a lot of money? Critics like it?” (Thornton, 117). Regarding art competitions, even Serota himself acknowledges that the prizes are “iniquitous in drawing distinction between artists of very different kinds”[3] (111). With the example of the biennial, while Thornton voices the common belief that the biennial “is meant to capture the global artistic moment” (189), some prominent actors remark that the biennial shouldn’t be thought of as the “barometer of what’s important” (195), or that it’s not merit for a biennial to be “correct” and that “it’s supposed to bring some instability into the system, not replicate the consensus ” (195). And while the essentialized and fetishized myths of genius and masterpiece sells well in the auction and art fairs, different types and views of art -more focused on the intellectual and the conceptual- is valued by different actors: “crits offer a striking contrast to the five-second glance and shallow dollar values ascribed to works at auctions and fairs” (60). While some trust in the market’s judgments the other find it “unwholesome and irrational” (95)
Institutional Critique and the concept of Activist art
Based on the acknowledgment that the book lacks a counter perspective offering a problematization of or alternatives to the institutions that Thornton narrates, artvisim appears productive for examination in terms of its quest of causing a change in the status quo. Due to Thornton’s special attention to institutions that are the dominant authorities defining the aesthetic status quo and also for the sake of brevity, I will be focusing on institutional critique in specific as a form of activist art and Hans Haacke’s practice, as the leading exponent of it.
Activist art can be defined as a wide perspective of art (it is not to be viewed as a movement since it does not involve a unified style or subject among its practitioners) that is characterized by the qualities of exposing injustice, challenging authorities, and “using creativity to create change[4]” (Duncombe, 117). Art activism brings together two distinct processes: while activism challenges power relations and aims for a “discernible end” and hence, creates effect; art, generates affect as it is more about “stimulating a feeling, moving us emotionally or altering our perception” (Duncombe, 118). The roots of activist art go back to 19th-century avant-gardes, especially dadaists who have questioned the aesthetics and values of the status quo, of the bourgeois culture. In continuation, the conceptual artists of the 60s and the 70s “rejected the commodification of art” and focused on “daily life, critiquing art institutions tied to the aesthetic and political status quo” (Lippard, 17). Hence, the tradition of self-criticism in art problematizes art as an institution in which the dominant authorities define the aesthetic status quo. Thus, in its efforts of challenging the status quo and the cultural authorities, Institutional criticism can be considered as a form of artivism.
Dating back to the late 1960s, institutional criticism can be defined -in the simplest sense- as the criticism of the “institution of art” as well as art institutions. It must be clarified that such consideration, quite remarkably, views ‘institution of art’ as a ‘social field’ rather than as a substantive being (however it is true that this social field includes the institutions as substantive beings). Building on this point, in her examination of Institutional Critique, Andrea Fraser puts forth the idea that institutional critique does not suppose that “radical artistic practices can or ever did exist outside of the institution of art” and that their criticism does not “opposes art to institution”. She establishes the idea that its project is more of a “question of what kind of institutions we[5] are, what kind of values we institutionalize, what forms of practice we reward, and what kind of rewards we aspire to”.
Hans Haacke’s art practice
Museums being the cultural authorities that form and shape the historical and cultural narratives, hold noteworthy power within society. The museum that Thornton gives an account of is one of the best examples of this power. Tate Museums -Tate Modern, Tate Britain, Tate Liverpool, and Tate St. Ives- form an ‘empire’ (Thornton, 111) and hold the power of legitimizing artists and defining artistic/cultural narratives due to its ‘brand value’, long history, and the scope of influence as it is one of the most well-known, well-respected museums with a strong and large collection. Extending beyond Tate, any major museum or art institution holds certain powers that enable them to establish themselves as authorities over culture. And since culture is an integral part and common product of the larger society, it is crucial to question their legitimacy, function, and relation to the society.
Hans Haacke, as a prominent figure of institutional criticism, understands and engages with the art world “as a network of social and economic relationships” (Fraser). Regarding the content of his work, his main focuses are “the art world and the systems of exchange between museums, corporations, and board of trustees”, “politicians’ misuse of power”, and the “political and economic practices of museum board members” (Brackman). Haacke’s exposé of the surrounding systems and inner functionings of the museums function to render the “particular forms of domination that are exerted on the art world” (Gabrielsen) visible and public.
One of his most straightforward works ‘On Social Grease’ (1975) demonstrates the political and business administrators’ -including David and Nelson Rockefeller, Nixon, Robert Kingsley, and Douglas Dillon- statements on art. In one of the plates Nixon’s statement on art’s “capacity to help heal divisions among our people and to vault some of the barriers that divide the world” is seen, as well as the public affairs advisor Robert Kingsley talking about art as a tool for ‘lubricating the environment’ for growing the business of EXXON, which is one of the main sponsors of art since 1970 and a supporter of the apartheid government of South Africa. The work shows the profit-driven instrumentalization of art, reducing it into a mere investment field to further the interests aligned with capitalist ideology -that art is “essential to business” and valuable only to the extent that it provides “direct and tangible benefits” from a profit-driven perspective. Similar exposure is to be seen in his 1970 dated “MoMa Poll” where he encouraged visitors to vote on a timeous socio-political matter pointing out Nelson Rockefeller’s association with the Nixon administration’s policies and the Vietnam War. This commentary on a major donor and board member of the museum caused David Rockefeller (the museum trustee) to intervene in the removal of the installation (Brackman).
One that exposes dynamics between museums and sponsors is the “MetroMobilitan” installation in which Haacke shows corporations’ rationale for sponsoring culture through an appropriated language and collage-like style. Such discourse expands on Thornton’s account in the book, within which the involvement of art with business is seen but never critically evaluated in depth. Haacke questions the intersection of those fields, tackles the concept of ‘complicity’ -between art and business, between art and advertisement, and so on. The banner, on the fake façade of the Metropolitan Museum, shows an exhibition about Nigerian Art in the museum, in between the banners is shown the culpableness of the sponsoring corporation Mobil in its involvement in South Africa through its support of the apartheid-era government. It is by this mimicry of the museum that the work “depletes the aura of authority they project” (Meyer) and questions their hypocritical ethical stance.
Haacke not only targets the sponsorship and/or board members’ decisions but all the distinct grounds on which the museum legitimizes its power. The two examples I want to give is his study of provenance and the exhibition space, relatively through the works “Manet PROJEKT ‘74” and “Viewing Matters: Upstairs”. For the first matter, it must be pointed out that in the value creation of the artwork “provenance”, i.e ownership history, is one of the most remarkable factors in today’s market, as is explained in Thornton’s book. Haacke’s installations titled “Manet PROJEKT ‘74” and “Seurat’s Les Poseuses” document the change of ownership of the artworks step by step with special attention to the “objectionable acquisitions” of them. The Manet installation even gets rejected by a museum as it shows a shady side to getting the ownership of the work, more specifically, that the work was donated to the museum in the leadership of the museum’s Board chairman who had “substantial involvement with the Nazi regime” and that the former owners were Jewish (Gabrielsen).
As for the second way of depletion of the authority of the “hallowed rooms” of the museum space, Haacke commits the simple act of bringing artworks from downstairs (i.e storeroom) to upstairs (i.e the exhibition area) in his installation titled “Viewing Matters: Upstairs”. The work is a subversion of the usual way of doing things in a museum: he brings them up exactly the way they were stored in the downstairs of the museum, with dollies and tools around; put in the exhibition space with no distinction being made among period, format, subject, movement, artist, and so on. In an act of ‘iconoclasm,’ the work undermines the authority of the institution in terms of the epistemological regime it forms. The authority of museums creates the illusion that what they display is “a reliable account of history” when, in fact, the “canon is an agreement by people with cultural power at a certain time. It has no universal validity” (Haacke, Art is a Weapon). Furthermore, the mixture of works of art from different movements and periods functions as the reminder of the changes in the narrative of art throughout history: the installation “tell us about the ideological functions these works performed: … how and to the benefit of whom they represent the ever-changing notions of the Good, the True and the Beautiful (Haacke, Viewing Matters).
One of the things that can be mentioned at this point is how in terms of their production methods and motives Murakami and Haacke mark the opposite sides of the spectrum. With the emphasis on the perfection of visual aesthetics and mastering craft, and popular, mass production, Murakami’s practice creates a contrast to that of Haacke’s, where the focus is unapologetically on concepts, intellectual exploration, and challenging of existing conditions. The value of Haacke’ works come from not the object itself -i.e from its physical, material being- but from the intellectual, the social relationship that is produced between the artwork and the viewer; as this is so, the public is positioned as an active interrogator rather than passive consumers.
Murakami acknowledges that his works’, first and foremost aim, is being and remaining popular. “My concentration is how to survive long-term and how to join with the contemporary feeling” (Thornton, 170), he says, and in this sense, the demand appears as a definitive force in his creation. Whereas Haacke remarks that he aims to enable the visitors to have “the information they need in order to make sense of what they are exposed to” (Haacke, Exposing), that is to increase awareness regarding the existing conditions. Therefore, it can be argued that the status quo, is central to both artists’ work, but with a difference: one benefits from it, the other questions who benefits from it and the implications of it.
In conclusion, with the ever-increasing corporate and political involvement in arts, the boom of the art market, and the growth of a ‘collector-class’ who views art as a display object, an investment stock, and a soft power source, Haacke’s account of the art world is crucial. That is because the information he provides through his works renders what is invisible visible[6], what is incomprehensible understandable, what goes unchallenged challenged. And lastly, institutional critique gives a perspective for making sense of the cultural, social, and political status quo perpetuated by the actors of the art world and hence, in understanding more clearly the implications of the hierarchical, competitive, commercial, and spectacle-like qualities of the art world. Recognizing this given world under a Neoliberal economy as ideology-driven, and hence deducing its structure and values as contingent rather than necessary, opens up a space where one can think of the possibility of another art world that is more democratic, more inclusive, less pretentious, and prioritizing common good.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Art Is A Weapon: Hans Haacke on How Art Survived the Bush Administration”. ArtSpace, 2017. https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/book_report/art-is-a-weapon-hans-haacke-interview-political-art-54590
Brackman, Yvette. “Art For Much More than Art’s Sake”. Kunstkritikk, 2019. https://kunstkritikk.com/art-for-much-more-than-arts-sake/
Duncombe, Stephen.“Does it Work? The Æffect of Activist Art”. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44283398.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A337b5f787d078e76848a4e1ed03a35c5
Fraser, Andrea. “From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique”. Artforum. https://www.artforum.com/print/200507/from-the-critique-of-institutions-to-an-institution-of-critique-9407
Gabrielsen, Stian. “Touching Institutional Nerves”. Kunstkritikk, 2015. https://kunstkritikk.com/touching-institutional-nerves/
Haacke, Hans. Viewing Matters. NYU Wikis.
Hudson, Alistair; Fulton, Jeni; Stewart, Paul; Thorne, Sam. “Recuperation of Art and Activism. An e-mail correspondence”. On Curating. https://www.on-curating.org/issue-31-reader/recuperation-of-art-and-activism-an-e-mail-correspondence.html#.YeUoZ1gza3K
Lippard, Lucy. “Is Another Art World Possible?”. Delirium and Resistance: Activist Art and the Crisis of Capitalism. Pluto Press, London. Pp 17–20.
Meyer, James. “James Meyer on Hans Haacke”. Artforum. https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/202003/hans-haacke-82223
Sholette, Gregory; Charnley, Kim. Delirium and Resistance: Activist Art and the Crisis of Capitalism. Pluto Press, London. E-book ed., https://0-eds-s-ebscohost-com.opac.bilgi.edu.tr/eds/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=a8a8d57f-d758-436d-ab6c-d4ed0e5080dc%40redis&vid=0&rid=1&format=EB
Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. E-book ed., W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2008. Apple Books.
[1]The way Thornton justifies her choices are based on the notion that each chapter-institution reflects a unique understanding of art: in the auction, art is viewed as “investment and luxury commodity”, in the criticism course it is an “intellectual endeavor and lifestyle”, in the fair it is a “fetish and recreational entertainment activity”, in the prize it is “media news and the proof of the artists’ worth”, in the magazine it is “something to be discussed and promoted”, in the biennial it is a “reason for networking and an international curiosity factor”, whereas, in the case of the studio of Takashi Murakami, it is the coming together of all.
[2] An organism or a system made up of the sites of production of art (artist studios), the sites of production of art discourse (magazines, catalogs, seminars, etc), the sites of liquidation (art fairs, auctions), the sites of presentation (museums, galleries, biennials), the sites of the production of the producers of art and art discourse (schools, educational programs), and of course, the “lookers, buyers, dealers and makers themselves” (artists, dealers, curators, critics, collectors, etc) (Fraser).
[3] Likened to a horse race (116), Thornton also points towards that the results and the way they’re presented are ‘orchestrated’ (119) in a specific way to make more people talk about the chosen artists, to offer a spectacle, which makes its legitimacy questionable. Higgs’- one of the juries- comment is important in this sense: that “quiet, sensitive work often gets drowned out, while flashy, photogenic work becomes mythic noise around the show” (121).
[4] The concept of “change” is examined in a wide frame by Duncombe. He lists eighteen types of change, which include but are not limited to varieties such as: fostering dialogue, inviting participation, revealing reality, altering perception, creating disruption, causing the imminent cultural shift, and so on.
[5] She means all the actors of the art world, which shape this world and are also shaped by it. In Haacke’s terms: “[those] work within that frame, set the frame and are being framed”.
[6] For example, the ‘patrons’ of arts, who are supposed to contribute to the development and enriching of culture within institutions allegedly humanistic and democratic, are the ones also supporting the Vietnam War (as shown in Moma Poll), investing in mining companies “in third-world countries with right-wing dictatorships” (Meyer) (as exposed in Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Board of Trustees), and investing in apartheid South Africa (as shown in “Who does What in South Africa” regarding Saatchi Brothers), or more recently the ones in the business of fossil fuels and lobbies against ecological laws.
