The Institutional Critique Discourse and the Case of the Museum of Contemporary Art in SkopjeProf. Dr. Suzana Milevska Conference: Next Step Moderna Galerija/Mestni muzej Ljubljana 9-10 May. 2009 Museum of Contemporary Art – Skopje, 1967 • The Museum of Contemporary Art was established in1964 as a political decision put forward with an Act of the Skopje City Assembly, in order to host the collection of the art works that hundreds of international artists donated to the city immediately after the catastrophic 1963 Skopje earthquake. • With an exhibition area of over 3500 m2 and total area of 5000 m2 with depots, cinema, archives, library and other rooms serving the purpose of this exceptionally important cultural institution the new Museum building opened in 1970 as one of few museums of contemporary art in the region. • The project of the Museum building itself was also a donation to the city by the Polish architects: J. Mokrzynski, E. Wierzbicki and W. Klyzewski. Pierre Soulages. but most of the works that are now in the museum depot either belong to the early modernism and Czech Cubism (Jan Štursa. Jindrich Stýrský. Enrico Bay. Pablo Picasso. Hans Hartung. Emilio Vedova. Robert Adams. Alexander Calder.• Today the fund of donated works consists of around 4600 art works by several hundreds of artists in various media but the acquisitions are rare and incidental. • The works of the internationally well-known artists are of special importance. Georg Baselitz. Antoni Clavé. Alberto Burri. Robert Jacobsen. Henryk Staževski. Emil Filla. . Victor Vasarely.. André Masson.. Christo. Václav Spála. Etienne Hajdu. Zoltan Kemeny. František Muzika. Vojtech Preissig) or date from 1950s -1970s: Fernand Léger. . 1990 that was triggered by the text “The Perfectionism of the Obedient – or why the 2 Youth Biennial looks so classical”. consisted of 7 texts published from 10 September – 16 October. Republika.A polemic between Suzana Milevska and Viktorija Vasev Dimeska. 10 September 1990 . . hangout of ZERO group .Gallery 7. a tea shop. . 1996 . The Last Supper.Aleksandar Stankoski. . . . The statement "Hierarchies do not exist" offers an example of performative contradiction referring to the very capacity of making a statement. because the statement itself is a hierarchy of semiotic relations of letters (as symbols) formed into words (as signifiers) formed into a sentence (as a statement). . . in contrast to preferred democratic (weak) institutions that by all accounts are expected to deal with art and cultural production in a more creative and liberal way. • It implies a severe critique of the supposedly autocratic (powerful) institutions and their governance.• The vicious circle of institutional critique stems out of its dichotomic nature. It inevitably entails a certain position that exists out of or beyond any institution in contrast to the criticised institutional position. • I want to argue that because of this dichotomy any institutional critique‟s discourse paradoxically becomes dangerously internalised. [i] • [i] Hardt. similarly to the biopower and biopolitics that are initially its targets. 23-27. . London: Harvard University Press. Empire. Michael and Antonio Negri. Phenomenology of Spirit. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1979. 119-139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.” Such divided mode of consciousness Hegel called the "unhappy consciousness" because the self is in conflict with itself when there is no unity between self and other. . [ii] •[ii] Hegel.• I am interested in tackling the set of questions that derive from such intrinsic dichotomic split within the institutional critique that as its result has “unhappy consciousness. .• This "unhappy consciousness" of the institutional critique is the institutional consciousness that is conscious of itself as being divided internally and as not being able to reconcile itself with its "other" – the institutional system. " In this text want to argue that what stands behind the “unhappy consciousness” of the institutional critique is the performative contradiction of contemporary society today that prevents such unity to take place. the undivided consciousness would be a dual selfconsciousness which brings unity to the self and the "other.• On the other hand. . Does this indicate that the position of any institutional critique is that of a double dialectics. what if one can utter relevant statements only when there is a certain institutional framework (weak or strong) from which position one speaks.• the question to be asked here is what if such a completely independent position of institutional critique (beyond any institution) can not exist. always already simultaneously self-legitimising and selflegitimated and therefore strong but questionable in implying the oppositional shortcomings exactly because of relying on self-legitimated strength? . . • [iii] Habermas. “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification” in Habermas.W. 1990). even if it were so. trans. Jürgen.• The main paradox of the institutional critique is that at first sight it seems as if such position implies that because of such performative contradiction any institutional critique is always already impossible. it would be relevant to discuss the potentialities for other possible directions in transitional institutional critique in the context of the countries of South East Europe. [iii] However. a posited contradiction within itself in which the interlocutors are entrapped since they deny the possibility for communication and understanding. C. 89.: MIT Press. Nicholsen (Cambridge. Lenhardt and S. Mass. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. By questioning and pursuing truth these “rebels” could hope to achieve a kind of institutional emancipation. . and break free from the bonds of ideology.• However what could be more evident that the institutional critique is still possible and very much alive than that individuals and communities still step aside from the society. pass judgment on it. Because of the crisis of legitimation and state authority in the transitional period the institutional critique became possible in more general and political terms. despite of all contradictions. the question from which political or social position such institutional critique would speak becomes crucial (much more relevant than any professional position). . and not only in terms of art or cultural institutions.• If we try to recuperate the need for institutional critique in post-socialist context from this perspective. it makes a big difference whether the institutional critique is: • a singular position of an artist or culture producer • a position of self-organised but not formalised community of art and culture producers • a neo-liberal governmental position • a conservative (nationalist) critique. or • a non-governmental – democratic civic society organisation .• Therefore. .• It is important to emphasise that even though each of the above mentioned positions entails different starting point some of the objectives of these different positions overlap and intertwine. Only if the agents of the institutional critique are aware that their questions are formulated from a certain institutional platform there can be any relevant impact of the institutional critique on the overall society. The contradictions of governmentality. • The fundamental challenge of each government is how to govern but not too much or as Michel Foucault famously put it: . selfgovernance and self-organisation are only few of these contradictions.• Self-consciousness of the institutional critique is contradictory because it is conscious of both sameness and otherness. • „The suspicion that one always risks governing too much is inhabited by the question: Why.. Michael. .. 1997. what makes it necessary for there to be a government. Editor: Paul Rabinow.In other words. and what ends should it pursue with regard to society in order to justify its existence?‟ [iv] • [iv] Foucault. 74-75. in fact one must govern?. Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. New York: The New Press. Ethics. ‟ [v] • [v] Foucault 75.• The “art of government” for Foucault is actually something that does not entail any universalised distinction between different governing systems. • „Instead of making the distinction between state and civil society into a historical universal that allows us to examine all the concrete systems. . we can try to see it as a form of schematization characteristic of a particular technology of government. net/disc/institution/raunig04_en. • [vii] Raunig.• According to Gerald Raunig „not only resistive individuals. the „fact that a speaker says something dangerous something other than what the majority believes. but also progressive institutions and civil society NGOs operate on the same plane of governmentality.‟ [vi] • The main attribute of parrhesia is not the possession of truth. Gerald. but the taking of the risk. . which is made public in a certain situation. „The Double Criticism of parrhesia: Answering the Question "What is a Progressive (Art) Institution?"‟ 18 September 2007 <http://www.‟ [vii] • [vi] Raunig.pgf > 1. „The Double Criticism‟ 2.republicart. Diskurs und Wahrheit. quoted according to Raunig.14 (cf." [viii] • The activity of uttering truth is much more important than truth put in opposition to the lie or to something "false. . discussion of parrhesia in English: <http://foucault. „The Double Criticism of parrhesia‟ 2.• Raunig actually refers to Foucault‟s statement that makes difference between “classical Greek conception of parrhesia” . p.info/documents/parrhesia/>. Berlin 1996.constituted by the one who dare “to tell the truth to other people” and a new truth game which entails being “courageous enough to disclose the truth about oneself." • • [viii] Michel Foucault. 150. . It is only by linking the two parrhesia techniques that a one-sided instrumentalization can be avoided. that the flow between movement and institution can be maintained. that the institutional machine is saved from closing itself off.• According to Raunig a productive game emerges through the relationship between activists and institution so that the social criticism and institutional criticism intertwine the political and personal parrhesia. . its institutions and its critique could bring us closer to a sober and refined critical position that would be up to the job of institutional critique of today in which process different institutions could contribute with both critiquing of the others‟ practices but also with self-critical approach. The acknowledgment of this complex entanglement of the power.• Instead assuming that the institution internalised the power through the instruments of governing only because it is an institution that stands higher on the hierarchy. perhaps it would be more constructive to remember that the institutions of power are all around us and that biopolitics reaches much further than only in its own institution. and as self-questioning) I would suggest that the dialogical critique offers a more appropriate model of institutional critique in terms of positive agency of action.• Therefore. . I suggest that a kind of deconstruction of the one-way critique inherited by the 70s and 90s institutional critique models would entail collaborative policy that could engage both state and independent institutions on the same critical projects in order to suggest and promote institutional activity as constructive institutional self-developing criticality. in addition to Raunig‟s proposal for applying of parrhesia as a double strategy (as an attempt of engagement in a process of refutation. p74 – Ljubljana. Stacion – Prishtina. • Especially relevant are some recent collaborations between the state and non-governmental initiatives and projects that tend to overcome the performative contradiction in institutional critique and its unhappy consciousness or some projects that deal with the institutional critique in a more positive and visionary way. WHW-Zagreb. . RemontBelgrade.• In particularly the shift in the institutional critique can be discussed by taking into consideration the shift of the role of the contemporary art museums in SEE and the change of their monopoly position in the regional art scene that occurred because of some new critical curatorial practices and of the appearance of small independent but very active art institutions such as kudaNovi Sad. etc. press to exit project space – Skopje. bucket) that the artist Sašo Stanojkoviќ took in the upper floor of the Museum of Contemporary Art. The photographs show the colourful plastic bucket installation that instead of the collection was “hosted” by the Museum for almost fifteen years (reproduced in Contemporary.) .• From 2004 dates a series of ten digital photographs “Legend About the “legen” (Mac. 20. 2005. Nu.70. London. Saso Stanojkovik. The Legend about Legen (bucket). 2004 . . . . . . . • Taking into account that floods of dirty „rivers‟ are frequent sights in the Museum after each rainy day some projects exhibited in the Museum (such as the Mozart’s Boat by Antoni Maznevski consisting of a 6.5 m wooden boat that was also presented in Venice). . sounded as a critique even when they were not meant to be. Yane Calovski and Hristina Ivanoska │ Oskar Hansen’s Museum of Modern Art │ a series of 12 original posters in limited edition (in close collaboration with the German designer: Ariane Spanier) . .The project presents a hypothetical program of the “lost” museum designed by Oskar Hansen in 1966 for the competition for the contemporary art museum in Skopje. The competition for the best design of a new art institution was organized by the Polish government as a gesture of solidarity with the earthquake tragedy on 26th of July 1963. and was open exclusively to architects from Poland and other Eastern Block countries. Oskar Hansen‟s proposal was based on peculiar assumptions: the museum was to consist of “a transformable exhibition space.” In this way the structure would transform in horizontal and vertical dimensions at the same time. with hexagonal elements lifted by hydraulically-powered rotating telescopes. . able to fold completely and then unfold into various combinations. It shouldn’t only aim at exhibiting artworks.” . but also encouraging and provoking their birth. We have assumed that a contemporary gallery should pursue the unknown in art.In the proposal the architect wrote: “Art in its development is unpredictable. Wierzbicki and the Museum of Contemporary Art that was established with the collection of donated works already in 1964 was built according to their project in 1967. Klyzewski. . The jury finally selected a design submitted by a team of three Polish architects: W. Mokrzynski and E.Hansen‟s design was not implemented. J. . . 000.• • • Reconstruction of the Museum building March . The works started in March and were completed in October 2007. • • • • • • . and to solve the problem that is for several years a serious obstacle in the work of the Museum. The total value of investment is around € 350. The project also considers complete interior reconstruction and redesigning of one of the main rooms for temporary exhibitions. lighting and climate conditions. and in order to enable better security. it is possible to approach this year to the project for reconstruction of the roof of the Skopje Museum of Contemporary Art. and most importantly it will enable regular exhibition program with the precious museum collection. which was closed for several years due to bad conditions. The project will bring back to use the entire museum space. The reconstruction project was made to repair structurally damaged parts of the roof and to stop its leaking and threatening devastation of the building.October 2007 With the financial support of the Decentralization Programme in the Fields of Education and Culture of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The management of the overall programme has been entrusted to the International Management Group (IMG). . . commissions of public monuments of personalities from antic history. etc.obvious preferences for antiquity and archaeology rather than for contemporary art .an attempt to stage a context for a newly constructed continuity in the Macedonian identity since antiquity with renaming of streets and institutions.Culture of Republic of Macedonia today New investments in culture: . The building of the Government Republic of Macedonia. since 2007 . euro . main square.5 mil.Alexander the Great. 2010 4. 12 m.