Not An Alternative

Quoting Gene Ray

While the subjectivity that Gene Ray describes here sounds like an ideal solution to what has become an institutionalization of critique, we should be aware of the pitfalls that a celebration of this kind of idea potentially opens. One must not idealize the flexibility of the artist described here over the static institutions and concrete frameworks they move within. If ever the fact of their wearing a mask becomes a signifier for a new form (i.e. immaterial laborers over “older” material forms), this vehicle that makes their flexibility possible today will become the institution of tomorrow. The mask that these artists wear (that today makes it possible for them to move in an out of institutions) is not the symbol for the emergence of a new subjectivity but the trace of a subjectivity that, while already present within the institution, is unrepresentable. If there is an emergence of a new subjectivity that should be supported, it is not be accredited to the artist who “shuttles back and forth between inside and outside” of an institution. The artists who do this do not represent the flexible subject but act in place of this subject. There function is to bring attention to what can’t exist (NOT TO REPLACE IT). The true new subjectivity, if there is there is to be such a thing, is located within the laborers who work already inside institutions. If the subject that Gene Ray is describing really does represent a new laboring class then we must approach it with the understanding that what he’s describing must first and foremost require a transformed understanding of traditional labor itself as a subversive (artistic) act.

“Here artists refuse any fundamental investment in autonomy or professional identity that would confine them to the art system and limit their practices to those sanctioned by the art institutions. But they also refuse to rule out sometimes working under the category of art or participating in the art world. They reserve the right to make that choice on a case-by-case rather than a once-and-for-all basis. In this way they secure the highest degree of flexibility and room for maneuver. They can shuttle back and forth between inside and outside, responding to opportunities, taking advantage of funding sources, and exhibiting work in exhibitions, without having to restrict themselves to the imperatives of an art career. On the other hand they can invoke artistic autonomy and „spend“ the symbolic and cultural capital they accumulate through participation in the art system in order to construct a kind of cover or limited immunity that carries over into the sphere of everyday life. In certain situations, such cover may gain them more freedom of action and expression or provide a plausible defense against prosecution for politicized actions on the borders of legality. Moreover the institutionally enforced border dividing art and life is not always clear-cut. Where new practices are still vaguely defined and lack established conventions, this border line sometimes breaks down into more ambiguous border zones, in which (these artists) operate.”