Institutional Critique Versus Institutionalized Critique: The Politics of Andrea Fraser's Performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1989 Andrea Fraser, a New York based artist, initiated a performance at the Philadelphia Museum of Art titled Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk. Intended to function as a gallery tour, Museum Highlights placed Fraser in the position of docent, providing information to those visitors who happened upon her work unaware. The purpose of the project, as outlined by Fraser, was to call attention to the history of the Philadelphia Museum as a public institution addressing conflicting social and economic demands. Invited by the Museum to perform the critique, Fraser describes the project as a service-product project, involving 'services' provided by an artist for the consumption of the institution, but whose forms defy the potential ownership of the Fraser's project takes the form of a performance, her project is situated in the gallery space and the subject is the institution itself. She offered a service-product: providing a labour that was not compensated through the sale of a tangible product. For Fraser, one of the vital elements of the service-product project is that both the artist and the performance elude a commodity-based ownership. Fraser's performance is part of a lineage of institutional critiques that, as both subject and object of artistic endeavours, have performed a ubiquitous and necessary function within the history of the museum. Ranging in form from paintings, photographs and alternate-space exhibitions, to textual commentaries and performative interjections, these critiques, as Fraser's project shows, sought to critique the institution from within the institution itself. But when critiques are offered as 'services' and invited and legitimated by the institution, do they still have a potential for success? How is the success of these projects defined? What happens to the intervention when it occurs in a conflicting space? When the subject and object of the intervention is the site of the intervention itself, does this construct a limiting framework for the possibility of a developed critique? Or, like the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century carnivals, do these critiques function as 'safety-valves', forms of social control which both allow and limit the potential of critiquing action? This project seeks to investigate the potential and function of these critiques, and their service as a postmodern strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.134 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".