Fear and loathing in the white cube

Art criticism at the end of the last century and in the first decade of this new one seems often a victim of its own posturing and terrified of criticality. The fear is rampant that unless one can expunge any straitjacket of theoretical adherence one is doomed to supporting one meta narrative or another.

The perversity of this, particularly here in Sweden, is the flip side and the complete domination of populist art criticism particularly in newspapers by the ‘I like - I don’t like’ school of writing. Personal opinion regardless of its veracity or intelligence is favoured over any hermeneutics or analysis. Art should be rated like films or restaurants. I give this show three easels. That performance was definitely worth four smilies etc.
The lack of criticality is clear and in its absence we are subjected to an unending diet of institutional critique, as if the attack on the presumed establishment constitutes a sui generis critical voice. Institutions are straw targets in this sense. They are the assumed supporters of the evils of aesthetic autonomy and cultivated sensibility. It is remarkably simple to appeal to the creation of the free space, suggest that art should be shown in butchers shops or the cabs of long-distance lorries and reject the over-determination of the permanent sites of cultural production as confining. The problem is simply that without these sites the gestures towards an imagined freedom are formless.

As a practicing artist in eighties and nineties raised on Marxist critique, I refused to show my work in any gallery or art space as I was convinced that this would predetermine its potential social interaction. Similarly I refused to allow any photo or video documentation of my performances, as this would change the nature of the work itself. I have to say that the result, in retrospect, was becoming undetectable. This is not to suggest that the purpose of an institution like Tensta Konsthall is making culture visible but it does point to the idea that what can happen in the negotiation between artist and site is the framing of a form of legibility. Is this what might be called institutionalised? The fear I began with, of being subsumed into the hegemonies of neo liberal capitalism or allied with the vapid master narratives of transcendent and universal truth may be parallel to a worse fear, of being understood. Thus the lack of criticality that we see is built on a lack of self-confidence. We dare not speak, rather than not having the words. It is certainly easier to attack the edifices of culture, or say that you like or hate something, than develop a systematic analysis or sense of urgency.

Theories of new institutionalism are of course appealing as they develop cognitive and behavioural models particularly as alternatives to traditional economics. It would be great if we could explain the ways that cultural institutions shape criticality in forms of supraorganizational patterns of activity. And whilst such institutions contribute to symbolic systems or orders of reality I really do wonder to what extent. In other words if we are looking for scapegoats for our critical lack, I am more tempted to address the individual than the institution.