Institutional Critique: Some Thoughts

My professor prompted our Contemporary Art class with the question, “Do you see "institutional critique" as a viable and efficacious political act?”

Yes. And no.

I think the institution continually co-opts the optics of radical, groundbreaking ideologies & acts but they do not actually support it as we saw with the canceling of Haacke's retrospective by the Guggenheim. As was iterated by The Frankfurt School, the underlying invisible foundation of every system within this paradigm is capitalism and so the effects of all of these mechanisms is a projection of the violence perpetrated by capitalism. Within the system, it is impossible to create without replication of the same thing that we are exposing. Do I think that it's impossible, however, to effect change within this system? No. I think it's necessary to operate within the system, actually.

Fred Wilson is a fantastic example of the fact that it is possible to be a disruptor within these institutions. Instead of allowing the steady stream of bullsh*t, artists have the responsibility to disrupt and catalyze shifts of consciousness through their work. Unfortunately people think that the only shifts that matter are the ones that happen in the 3D, however that's untrue. Before we choose to act, there is an impulse that we choose to act upon. We may not be able to control the actions of others-- not all the time-- but we can seed a disruption btween impulse and action within their consciousness by exposing some new way of perceiving. We can introduce a new way of seeing that can never be unseen. To continue acting in the way they were acting before they were exposed to their own ignorance will be a conscious choice and they will know that, and their choice will haunt them. For that reason, I think it is necessary to implant as many disruptions within the every day as possible.

This was the power of such revolutionary entertainers as Tupac Shakur who shifted the consciousness of not just Black Americans but people of all races all over the world. Despite his early and untimely (probably shady) demise, Shakur was able to present the radical Black Power ideologies of the Black Panther Party he grew up in through platforms such as popular radio and television stations. His message reached the common person because it was for the common person, and that is truly revolutionary.

One of my biggest inspirations is Audre Lorde who taught at Hunter College, and the thing about Lorde is that despite the fact that she is undeniably powerful, she is not as well known as Shakur. She is not quoted as often, in fact, I don't know very many people who do not identify as Black women or femmes (and non-heterosexual, usually) who hold Audre Lorde in as high esteem and then, they are also usually intellectual to some degree however most of the people who would find liberation from her writing lack that access. Does that mean her work is any less powerful or meaningful? No. Does it mean his is more powerful? No. They're both important and impactful, but their audiences are very different and equally as important.

Death Row Records and Interscope as well as many other white corporations have made a lot of money off of Tupac's legacy, and Hunter & NYU attract young Black queer femmes such as myself because of Audre Lorde's legacy. Despite the fact that people believe Suge Knight killed Tupac. Despite the fact that Audre Lorde called out NYU in an open letter. Marginalized people follow in the footsteps of the trailblazers that came before them as beacons of hope, but it's important that we remember that these spaces are still part of our prison. It's not enough to be uplifted within the prison by the warden; we must truly be revolutionaries in every action we take. We're in here for better or worse. We ought to make the best of it.