Museums

Museums: Managers of consciousness:

Mike Ainsworth

Revisited

Parallel, Action, Report, Essay Exploring contemporary art institutions

Fig. 1

01 / 02

Fig. 2

In 1986 the first image was featured on the opening page of “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”1 a catalogue for the survey exhibition of Haacke’s work of the same name at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York, USA. The later image currently features on the corporate sponsorship page at TATE, UK.

03 / 04

Among the essays featured in “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business” is a text by Haacke entitled “Museums: Managers of consciousness”2. This explores the industrialised art world, the rise of the art manager and most crucially the acquisition, application and consequences of funding in art institutions. This is discussed in direct correlation to socio-political factors and the realisation among the corporate sector of the power the “consciousness industry”3 as Haacke refers to it has, and the benefits such philanthropic acts can bring. Haacke also makes a connection between the occupation of trustee and patron roles and the control and power over institutions that such positions hold, whilst exploring the affect this has on the art institutions we visit. The essay predominantly looks at art institutions in the USA, UK and (West) Germany.

Although Haacke wrote this text 27 years ago we can still apply many of the thoughts he had at the time in regard to the operation of art institutions to the present day. Even though there have been significant changes globally from when the text was written. Most glaring in light of the origins of Haacke4 and the time the essay was published being the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent end of the cold war. There is very little shift from what Haacke stated to be the case 27 years ago and today, with the exception of different names inhabiting the White House, 10 Downing St. or the boards of trustees and lists of sponsors at the prior mentioned art institutions.

As with the chain shops on our high streets, capital and revenue are factors that make or destroy art institutions. Access to funding defines how a museum or gallery operates. What artists will they exhibit? What kind of shows they will put on? Will they do talks? Will they offer residencies? Will they be a commercial 1 Brian Wallis and others, eds. Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) 2 Brian Wallis and others, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” Hans Haacke, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp60-73 3 A phrase originally used by Hans Magnus Enzensberger for an article of the same title.“Museums: Managers of consciousness” Hans Haacke, p60 4 Hans Haacke was born in Cologne, Germany, in 1936.

gallery? Will they support young artists? Will they have educational programmes? Where will they advertise? How will they advertise? These questions are always with a consideration of generating further funding. Haacke would also argue that depending on whose money you had would define this too. The origins of funding really comes from two groups, identified in “Museums…5” as individual donors such as patrons, collectors, entrepreneurs, and corporate sponsors.

If we were to look at these two time periods, 1986 and 2014 we are able to make parallels with what Haacke has to say about the art world and the operation of it. We can also make several contextual connections that perhaps add to this. These are both periods of economic recession, and economic need, Reagan is in the White House, Thatcher is in 10 Downing Street, mass unemployment in the UK, rises in nationalist feeling and racial tensions exploited by media and political parties and major cuts in the funding of sectors deemed less necessary i.e. the arts.

Cuts and the consolidation of arts council and government funding for arts projects today has left creative projects and institutions to search for much needed funding from other sources, such as large scale corporate sponsors. This initiative was and is actively encouraged by governing bodies; … many Governments, facing huge deficits- often due to sizeable expansion of military budgets- cut their support for social services as their arts funding. Again museums felt they had no choice but to turn to corporations for a bail-out…President. Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher encouraged the so-called private sector to pick up the slack in financial support.6 As well as economic support for the culture sector from corporate sponsors and funders, Haacke makes a reference to the dependence of other industries on the economic success and growth of the arts which is enabled through corporate funding; Arts administrators do not exaggerate when they defend claims for public support by pointing to the number of jobs that are affected not only in their institutions, but also in communication, and particularly, in the hotel and restaurant industries. The Tut show at the Metropolitan 5 6

Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness”, pp60-73 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” p69

Museum is estimated to have generated $111 million for the economy of New York City.7

05 / 06

Haacke also goes on to point out the benefits of art on the real estate business, namely in the business of gentrification; displacing one population with a wealthier one, revitalising and rejuvenating areas of a city, slowly pushing those less economically well off or socially undesirable to the outskirts, physically and socially marginalizing them. This is a phenomenon that often cites the integration of artists and culture into a community as a catalyst. This of course can be seen in any “up-coming” borough of London, places such as Peckham with its recent arts involvement with Bold Tendencies8, it is evident in Leeds, south of the train station, with groups such as Project space Leeds9, Mexico Project Space10 and The Tetley11 all playing major parts in the rejuvenation of the city, the 7th and 8th Districts of Budapest, Berlin, Paris, New York, you can see this in action.

But why would large multi-national corporations want to fund and support art institutions? What does picking up the slack do for them? If we were to consider the two quotes from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Tate we can allude to why corporate sponsors want to fund the arts and culture sector, because of the potential benefits it entails for them. For your company to be seen as the chief sponsor on the poster of a national exhibition at Tate Britain conjures up many assumptions for your company, as well as acting as another form of advertising and marketing for your own image and brand. You are no longer a tight fisted capitalist organisation; you are now a cultured, sophisticated, classy, open minded, liberal, charitable organisation who helps the struggling artist. This as Haacke points out is old news to the sponsors, they may not care at all about the arts but they are more than aware of the importance of seeming to care. Particularly for air time with the gallery demographic, white, middle class, middle aged, educated, employed, the basic demographic for a large cross section of markets and potential customers. Institutions are also aware of this; 7 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” Hans Haacke, p62 8 For further reference visit http://boldtendencies.com/ 9 For further reference visit http://www.projectspaceleeds.org.uk/ 10 For further reference visit http://www.m-e-x-i-c-o.co.uk/ Since writing this Mexico Project space Leeds has closed due to rises in rent costs.

11 For further reference visit http://thetetley.org/

Museums, of course, are not blind to the attraction for business of lobbying through art. For example, in a pamphlet with the telling title “The business behind art knows the art of good business”, the Metropolitan Museum in New York woos prospective corporate sponsors by assuring them: “Many public…12 13 Corporate involvement with the arts can be used to mask preconceived ideas on the ethical or moral practices of these corporations. A prime example of this would be BP oil and the Tate. BP is the Tate’s longest running sponsor, former BP CEO Lord Browne of Madingley is even a chairman on the board of trustees, and will be until 2015. Even though Browne no longer works for BP he sits on several energy boards and is currently the director of the fracking company Cuadrilla, and he still seems to look out for his former employers. Recently Browne rejected a freedom of information act from Liberate Tate14 concerning BP’s involvement with Tate on Tate’s behalf.15 I personally would be quite interested to see who is funding “Art Turning Left: How Values Changed Making 1789–2013”16 the current exhibition at Tate Liverpool. Alternatively you could also look at the trustee board of any national gallery and find representatives of many of the major financial institutions that were involved in the economic crash of 2008.

Haacke identifies in “Museums…” further reasons for the investment of time and money from corporate sponsors in the culture sector, namely to gain power and influence over policy making and implementation. This is linked with political and governmental movements and is beneficial to both state and corporations in proliferating their ideologies. If we are to 12 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” pp69 13 “Many public relations opportunities are available through the sponsorship of programs, special exhibitions and services. These can often provide a creative and cost effective answer to a specific marketing objective, particularly where international or governmental or consumer relations may be a fundamental concern.”

14 Liberate Tate are an art collective, they have staged many performances inside Tate over the last few years in response to BP’s involvement with Tate. More information can be found at http://liberatetate.wordpress.com/ 15 Because of Browne’s previous involvement with BP, the freedom of information act submitted by Liberate Tate has been referred to the information commissioner on the grounds that Lord Browne’s involvement was inappropriate. If the rejection is repealed by the commission it will be the first time the information commissioner has forced the disclosure of sponsorship information.

16 Refer to Mike Ainsworth, “RE: The Sponsorship and funding information for “Art Turning Left” Tate Liverpool”, 2014

Fig. 3

07 / 08

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

09 / 10

11 / 12

Fig. 6-7

consider this, the managerial power and control of art institutions ultimately lies with those that hold the purse strings, The board is legally responsible for the institution and consequently the trustees are the ultimate authority17

13 / 14

the trustees and patrons, they have an ultimate say on what happens in the institution “…as guardians of the public interest…”18 They have a say in what exhibition proposals are accepted and become the shows we visit and the ones that do not get accepted and we never hear about and also have some power over who that institution employs and does not employ.

A current example of this can be found in Budapest, Hungary, and the removal of Barnabas Bencsik as director at the Ludwig Museum and subsequent replacement with Júlia Fabényi. To give a bit of contextual history, Hungary since 2010 has been under the power of Victor Orbán, leader of the Fidész party, taking almost 70% of votes in the last general election. Since coming to power and with such overwhelming strength in Parliament Orbán has implemented many changes in national policy, some which will probably never be revoked due to his majority in government. In 2013 at the Ludwig Museum in Budapest, the contract of director Barnabas Bencsik was not renewed, even though Bencsik was highly successful as a gallery director and an asset to the popularity of the Ludwig, the position instead was given to Júlia Fabényi, someone many deemed completely unqualified for such a role but none the less backed by the Fidész party. These actions lead to public outcry from the arts community who protested for transparency in such decision making and implemented a month long occupation by artists, activists, students and teachers in the Ludwig museum.

So we can see some influence of the prevailing political climate of a nation shining through in the policy implementation of its’ art institutions. But this is surely something to be expected, particularly when we consider that in the UK the trustee 17 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness”, p61 18 Taken from the TATE’s current trustee’s webpage; “Because Tate’s Trustees act as guardians of the public interest, we seek to represent a broad range of different backgrounds, areas of expertise and perspectives on the Board. Trustees are frequently leaders in their fields.

They include practising visual artists, experts in education and art, and leaders in media and business.” http://www.tate.org.uk/about/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/current-trustees

members are appointed to a board by the Prime Minister19. There is of course an awareness of the power of culture and what it can do for the state, as with corporate sponsors it can be used to mask ulterior motives, …’culture’ camouflages the social and political consequences resulting from the industrial distribution of consciousness.20 Pushing a desired political and social ideology through these institutions, feeding it into society, by defining what we see in these galleries. Using the venue of the art gallery, the museum, the biennale the art fair to project an ideology of the state, as Haacke puts it: An institution’s intellectual and moral position becomes tenuous only if it claims to be free of ideological bias. And such an institution should be challenged if it refuses to acknowledge that it operates under constraints deriving from its sources of funding and from the authority to which it reports…Every museum is perforce a political institution…21 My original outset for this series of papers, to explore the ideological neutrality of art institutions, was a naïve one, As we can ascertain, a majority of institutions do possess and purport an ideology. It is however an ideology of the dominant political parties and of those in positions of power within the institutions, who are not the curators, not those we in the art world may have thought to have the final say. It is the corporate sponsors and trustees, people we would assume to have limited if any prior knowledge to the intricate workings of the art world and are more accustomed with the fluctuating nature of the economy.

Defining what we see and of course what we do not see depending on its coherence or lack of with the dominant political powers and ideological stance within an institution: It is fair to assume that exhibition proposals that do not fulfil the necessary criteria for corporate sponsorship risk not being considered, and we never hear about them.

Certainly shows that could promote critical awareness, 19 Stated in the Museums and Galleries act 1992, a full copy of which can be read at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/44/contents 20 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness”, p65 21 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness”, p66

present products of consciousness dialectically and in relation to the social world, or question relations of power have a slim chance of being approved – not only because they are unlikely to attract corporate funding, but also because they could sour relations with potential sponsors for other shows.22

15 / 16

So we see here the problem for institutions and for the artists and curators who are proposing a critical discourse or dialogue in contemporary art. They are making budget sheets, press releases and presenting them to the boards of trustees for approval or to the corporations for sponsorship, to the same system the work is commenting on. It is down to fear of damaging future investments that may keep an institution open, fear of souring relationships with current investors that hampers the development of the art institution, and keeps us returning to archetypal models of art exhibitions that we know work, and by work I mean generate capital.

Brian Holmes explores this in “Liar’s Poker: Representation of politics/Politics of representation”23, using the analogy of the game liars poker24 to explore the representational stand-off between critical artistic discourse, the institution and the audience. Outlining that artist’s must disguise work as representative of politics rather than actual politics to the institution for it to be exhibited, however ideals cannot be completely compromised and in favour of the institution as the audience will see through this façade. This game is however played out by both the artist and the institution, which must take art proposed as representative politics and present it as actual politics to appeal to audiences whilst safely remaining representative. In this game the artist has most to lose, the opportunity to exhibit within the institution and receive all the benefits of doing so and their ideological and artistic integrity hang in the balance in this game.

But funding will always go to the cultural events and endeavours that will benefit the political majority or those that are putting the money on the table; so for example, there are currently 22 Hans Haacke, “Museums: Managers of consciousness”, p70-71 23 Brian Holmes, “Liars poker: Representation of politics/Politics of representation”, [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1276&lang=en> 24 Liars poker: Card game consisting of only Kings and Aces, players draw one card, names their hand, either telling the truth or bluffing, the other players must decide if the player is telling the truth

plans to create a museum to commemorate the late Mrs. Thatcher25. I think that it’s safe to assume that with the UK’s current political stance such a project will have very few problems acquiring the £15million it is estimated to cost, I’d actually anticipate that there will be a clamour of people fighting to be seen as the biggest sponsor.

Haacke is all too aware of the reservations of art institutions to appear to be anything but nonpartisan. In 1971 the Guggenheim museum, New York, infamously refused to show 3 works by Haacke, on the grounds that the work “forfeited its status or atleast its immunity as a work of art”26 The main work in question here was “Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a Real-Time Social System, as of May 1, 1971”27 (1971) which Leo Steinberg writes about at length in “Some of Hans Haacke’s works considered as fine art”28. The work itself comprised of a compiling of information of properties owned by Mr. Shapolsky, a slum land-lord in New York at the time.

As an artist much of Hans Haacke’s work revolves around the institution, how they operate, their stance on socio-political issues, how they sustain themselves, or more commonly who sustains them. Why people fund and sponsor them and who actually visits them, what is there audience demographic? These ideas have been explored and worked with in a variety of mediums by Haacke, working in an area we have since come to term “institutional critique”29. Using audience participation and interaction to fill in questionnaires about themselves30, place pins on maps where they were born and where they lived31, asking them to cast votes and opinions on local current topics and issues32. This compiling, correlating and eventual displaying of information over various projects has been used to compile an 25 For further reference visit http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/ news/17042013-margaret-thatcher-museum-and-library-plans-revealed 26 Brian Wallis and others, “Some of Hans Haacke’s works considered as fine art” Leo Steinberg, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp9 27 Refer to Fig. 5,6,7 28 Leo Steinberg, “Some of Hans Haacke’s works considered as fine art” pp8-19 29 A term thought to be first put into print by Andrea Fraser in “In and out of place” Alexander Alberro, and Blake Stimson, eds. “In and out of place”, Andrea Fraser, 1985, Institutional critique: An anthology of artist’s writings, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2009) pp. 292-301 30 Refer to Fig.8 31 32

Refer to Fig. 4 Refer to Fig. 3

idea of an art demographic specific to an institution. This information alludes to comments and assumptions of a social, racial, gender and political nature in relation to an audience.

The audience viewing the work inevitably become part of these statistics, by further concreting or undermining them as they participate in visiting the gallery as well. These connections and assumptions are left to be made by the viewer, Haacke makes no physical comment in the work himself.

17 / 18

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quite ironic to think however that these same techniques of compiling information are utilised by these same institutions Haacke is commenting on and talks about in â&#x20AC;&#x153;Museums: Managers of consciousness.â&#x20AC;? However, for quite different means than Haacke is. Instead of collecting and correlating this information to comment on who attends galleries and why, they perform these similar actions to tailor their gallery experience to enable maximum customer satisfaction, and ultimately maximum profit.

Fig. 8 (Page Opposite) Fig. 9-10 (Overleaf)

19 / 20

Appendix: Fig. 1: Facade of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.Scan from Wallis, Brian and others, eds. Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986), p.2 Fig. 2: Corporate sponsorship and brand building webpage for TATE. Screen shot from <http://www.tate.org.uk/join-support/corporate-support/ sponsorship/brand-building> [Accesed March 1st 2014] Fig. 3: Hans Haacke, MOMA Poll, 1970. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.87 Fig. 4: Hans Haacke, Gallery goers birthplace and residence profile part 1, 1969. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.77

21 / 22

Fig. 5: Hans Haacke, Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a Real-Time Social System, as of May 1, 1971. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.92 Fig. 6: Hans Haacke, Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a Real-Time Social System, as of May 1 (Detail), 1971. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.94 Fig. 7: Hans Haacke, Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, a Real-Time Social System, as of May 1 (Detail), 1971. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.95 Fig. 8: Hans Haacke, John Weber Gallery visitors profile 1, 1972. Scan from Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, p.99 Fig. 9: Visitor survey form for Art Sheffield 2013. Scan of original document, acquired from Site gallery Sheffield.

Fig. 10: Visitor survey form for Art Sheffield 2013. Scan of original document, acquired from Site gallery Sheffield.

Bibliography: Books/Publications Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake, eds. Institutional critique: An anthology of artist’s writings, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2009) Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake, eds. “In and out of place”, Andrea Fraser, 1985, Institutional critique: An anthology of artist’s writings, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2009) pp. 292301 Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, eds. Donna De Salvo, Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, (London: Tate publishing, 2005) Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, “The mimesis of thinking”, Boris Groys in Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, eds. Donna De Salvo, (London: Tate publishing, 2005) pp. 50-63 Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, “Paragraphs on conceptual art”, Sol Lewitt in Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, eds. Donna De Salvo (London: Tate publishing, 2005) pp. 180-181 Burton, Johanna, Mark Godfrey and Boris Groys, “Intermedia”, Dick Higgins, Open systems: Rethinking art c.1970, eds.

Donna De Salvo (London: Tate publishing, 2005) pp. 170-171 Debord, Guy, Society of the spectacle, (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983) Degen, Natasha eds. The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) Degen, Natasha eds. “The Yale lecture”, Richard Serra, Kunst and museum journal, vol.1, no.6, (1990), The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) pp.23-33 Degen, Natasha eds. “Extract from ‘Libre-échange’”, Pierre Bour-

dieu and Hans Haacke, (Paris: Éditions de seoil/Dijon: Les Presses de reel, 1994), The Market: Documents of contemporary art, (Massachusetts : MIT press, London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2013) pp.15-19 Dossi, Piroschka and others, Art, price and value: contemporary art and the market, (Milan: Silvana editorial spa, 2008) Dubin, Steven C, Arresting images: Impolitic art and uncivil actions, (London: Routledge, 1992) Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Instituent practices: Fleeing, instituting, transforming”, Gerald Raunig, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 3-12

23 / 24

Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks), 2009 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “The institution of critique”, Hiro Steyerl, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 13-20 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Anti-canonization: The differential knowledge of institutional critique”, Stefan Nowotny, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 21-28 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Notes on institutional critique”, Simon Sheikh, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 29-33 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Criticism without crisis: Crisis without criticism”, Boris Buden, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 33-42 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Extradisciplinary investigations: Towards a new critique of institutions”, Brian

Holmnes, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 53-62 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Toward a critical art theory”, Gene Ray, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 79-94 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Attempt to think the plebeian: Exodus and constituting as critique”, Isabell Lorey, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 131-140 Raunig, Gerald and Ray, Gene, eds. “Anthropology and theory of institutions”, Paolo Virno, Art and contemporary critical practice: Reinventing institutional critique, (London: MayFlyBooks, 2009) pp. 95-112 Rocco, Fiammetta, “Special report: Museums: Temples of delight”, (The Economist, December, 2013) Sholette, Gregory, eds. Esther Leslie and Mike Wayne, Dark Matter: Art and politics in the age of enterprise culture, (New York: Pluto press, 2011) Siegel, Jeanne, “An interview with Hans Haacke”, Arts Magazine, 45:7, (1971) pp.18-21 Sierra, Santiago, eds. Katya Garcia-Antón, Santiago Sierra: Works 2002-1990, (Birmingham: IKON Gallery, 2002) Sierra, Santiago, “Buying time” Katya Garcia-Antón, Santiago Sierra: Works 2002-1990, eds. Katya Garcia-Antón (Birmingham: IKON Gallery, 2002) pp. 13-18 Stallabrass, Julian, Art incorporated: The story of contemporary art, (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2004) Thompson, Nato, eds. Nato Thompson, Living as form: Socially engaged art from 1991-2011, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2011) Wallis, Brian and others, eds. Brian Wallis, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986)

Wallis, Brian and others, “Museums: Managers of consciousness” Hans Haacke, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp60-73 Wallis, Brian and others, “Some of Hans Haacke’s works considered as fine art” Leo Steinberg, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp8-19 Wallis, Brian and others, “Director’s Foreword” Marcia Tucker, “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) p6

25 / 26

Wallis, Brian and others, “Institutions trust institutions” Brian Wallis , “Hans Haacke: Unfinished business”, eds. Brian Wallis (Massachusetts : MIT press, 1986) pp51-59 Weiwei, Ai, eds. Lee Ambrozy, Ai Weiwei’s blog: Writings, interviews, and digital rants, 2006-2009, (Massachusetts : MIT press, 2011) ONLINE PUBLICATIONS Bishop, Claire, “Antagonism and Relational aesthetics”, MIT Press journals, October 110, (2004), [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www.marginalutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ Claire-Bishop_Antagonism-and-Relational-Aesthetics.pdf> Brown, Mark, “New show reveals quality and breadth of corporate art”, The Guardian, (2014), [Accessed January 13th 2014] <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jan/12/ corporate-art-book-show> Cotter, Holland, “Lost in the Gallery – Industrial complex: Holland Cotter looks at money in art”, The New York times, (2014), [Accessed January 23rd 2014] <http://www.nytimes. com/2014/01/19/arts/design/holland-cotter-looks-at-money-inart.html?_r=0> Fraser, Andrea, “From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique”, Artforum, vol.44, iss 1; pp.278-286, (2005), [Accessed February 2nd 2014] <http://www.margina-

lutility.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Andrea-Fraser_Fromthe-Critique-of-Institutions-to-an-Institution-of-Critique.pdf> Holmes, Brian, “Liars poker: Representation of politics/Politics of representation”, [Accessed January 10th 2014] <http://www. springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1276&lang=en> Ray, Gene, “This way to exit: On Julian Stallabrass’s ART INC”, [Accessed January 26th 2014] <http://www.transform.eipcp.net/ correspondence/1167849593#redir> Rustin, Susanna, “Can Liberate Tate free the arts from BP?”, The Guardian, (2013), [Accessed January 3rd 2014] <http://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/april/24/liberate-tate-artsbp> Sholette, Gregory, “Fidelity, betrayal, autonomy: In and beyond the contemporary art museum”, Third text, 16:2, 153-166, Doi: 10.1080/09528820210138290, (2002), [Accessed January 15th] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/09528820210138290#.Uv0-mPl_ua9> WEB McLean, Bruce, Tateshots: Bruce McLean, (Tate, Nov, 2009) [Online digital recording], [Accessed September 28th 2013] <http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssw-BiEVefU> Syjuco, Stephanie, Beyond institutional critique, (San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Dec, 2010) [Online digital recording], [Accessed February 11th 2014] <http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jq7zGTrnQvU> Zmijewski, Artur, Artistic freedom (Karlmarkonstmuseum, July 2010) [Online digital recording], [Accessed September 10th 2013] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTtSLLMyou4> ‘Margaret Thatcher museum and library plans revealed’ , on The museums association, (2013) [Accessed October 17th 2013] <http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/17042013-margaret-thatcher-museum-and-library-plans-revealed>

Acknowledgements Allan Siegel Simon Lewandowski Nick Thurston Sophie Dodelin Szabolcs Kisspal Zoltan Kekesi Liberate Tate Footprint collective