BACK

On March 12th, vessel will begin a series of meetings for Giant Step, a project that investigates the current conditions of cultural and artistic production within institutions, as well as the possibilities of critical practice resulting in institutional change. Giant Step aims to articulate a collective reflection on the contemporary role of the art institution in the current economic, cultural and political climate. The project, initiated in collaboration with Van Abbemuseum | The Netherlands, MOSTYN | Wales and Galeria Labyrint | Poland, will culminate in a cycle of nomad symposia set up by each institution involved.

Reading Group #1 is the first of a series of meetings (talks, reading groups, laboratories), which will allow the communities of artists and cultural producers in the cities involved to become active participants in the articulation of a critical knowledge rather than its mere recipients. vessel is coordinating a group made up of artists, curators and art practitioners based in Apulia that will carry out a research process based on the analysis of case studies in addition to “ethnographic” investigation of various local, national and international institutions. The results of the research will be available on the Giant Step website.

Reading Group #1 will focus on Brian Holmes ’ article Extradisciplinary Investigations. Towards a New Critique of Institutions ”

http://eipcp.net/transversal/0106/holmes/en

The text examines the historical dimensions of specific phases of institutional critique, critically assessing their successes and failures. It contributes to the contemporary reflection on the possibilities of (institutional) criticism by articulating the “extra disciplinary”, a mobile and subversive position of the critical subject which is able to transverse in a back-and-forth movement heterogeneous disciplines (from art to psychiatry, urban geography and biotechnology) without letting herself caught in any of them.

THE REPORT

The first Reading Group within the Giant Step project was an important step for the workgroup based in Bari and for all the people involved in the project. The meeting, which took place at BLUorG gallery and was moderated by Vlad Morariu, was attended by Fabio Santacroce, Michele Spinelli, Bruno Barsanti, Alessandro Bucci, Roberta Fiorito, Giuseppe Bellini, and, via skype, Francesco Scasciamacchia, Alessandra Saviotti and Nicoletta Daldanise.

The starting point for the Giant Step project was a meeting held in January when a group of cultural workers interested in issues linked to the conditions and possibilities of institutional critique approached the project for the first time. That occasion raised many questions that were left answered; now that the project has a more defined shape it is finally possible to build a dialogue with the people involved.

The first part of the group meeting was focused on defining the Institutional Critique. Vlad succinctly described how the movement arose in the 1960s as an outgrowth of Minimalism and Conceptual Art and then highlighted its cultural and social background.

The Reading Group was supposed to focus on a text written by Brian Holmes but sequentially took different paths. The attendants seemed to be more interested in understanding what Giant Step is and what are the project’s aims. “So, what does Giant Step want?” was a popular question.

First of all, the project doesn’t aim for institutions to disappear. We live alongside institutions and they rule our lives and society. Additionally, we have to consider that they are made up of people who build systems of real and symbolic values. Cultural institutions are often full of contradictions; their aim is to preserve valuable artworks, but who decides what to represent? Which criteria do the institutions choose?

The focus on Bari is due to the marginality of a place that is witnessing the birth of a new institution, which has the energy and potential to investigate this process from its very beginning. In this context, Giant Step is a perfect occasion to raise questions about the role of the BAC within the cultural and social scenario of the city, as well as to get acquainted with the values that the museum represents.

The heritage of Institutional Critique can help the workgroup to formulate new questions directed towards many different institutions in order to investigate their systems of relationships.

Why are the Reading Group and case studies so important? The objective is to create a community of art practitioners who share a base of common research combined with the will to cooperate and collaborate by developing a strong sense of responsibility and commitment.

The reflections were manifold: why, for instance, does a small city like Bari need such an ambitious museum? Another interesting point is the presence of important collectors in the city, even if this aspect is not blatantly evident.

“How can we define an institution? How can we create categories?” asked Fabio Santacroce.

The conversation was enriched by Francesco Scasciamacchia’s contribution. He introduced Brian Holmes' article, highlighting the distinction between the interdisciplinary and the extra-disciplinary mentioned by the author; the former is conceived as a dialogue between different disciplines, the latter is a method to jump out of a specific sector while keeping its tools. In this context, can we consider the artist as a specialist?

Another interesting reflection came from Francesco: how do we criticize nowadays? In the current situation, many artists tend to build rather than to criticize, and they are much more marginal than the artists involved in social practices. It seems that institutions are everywhere, even outside of the museum.

What we are witnessing in the Occupy movement is a sort of nostalgia of the 1960s and 1970s protests. It is interesting to note that those movements had lots of contradictions and became institutional themselves.

Is it really important to change the state of things or should we look back on the experiences of the past?

In Vlad’s opinion, we should aim to modify our mental framework, as often it has a binomial approach; we should not look for a third way, but an “ n position ” that widens this way of thinking. After a brief mention of the last Venice Biennial and some reflections on the Romanian scenario, there are two words that emerged: context and power.