SP5: Andrea Fraser discusses the central role of class in her work on institutional critique, tracing her examination of class, philanthropy, public policy, and plutocracy back to research started in the mid-80s. This theme persisted in her later work "2016 in Museums, Money, and Politics." She notes that the critical examination of class in contemporary art waned in the early 1990s due to the dominance of multiculturalism and identity politics. Despite societal events like Trump's rise, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and Occupy Wall Street, Fraser observes a lack of direct or indirect engagement with class or electoral politics in the work of young artists applying to her UCLA program. She suggests that institutional critique and cultural political critique often reflect an ambivalent relationship to authority and institutions, wherein criticism is directed at those in power without a corresponding commitment to stepping up and taking on it as it financially benefits us. Fraser lists out the hindrances towards the progress of institutional critique. I think this is a real dilemma for artists and scholars. How should we weigh the critique of institutional and authoritative forces against the financial assistance that these economic forces bring us, and what are the trade-offs we should make? If we really step up against the institutions, who should fund the creation and action needed for this confrontation? We need dedicated policies to show support, in order to motivate young artists to act and resurrect the once thriving, critical examination of class issues in contemporary art.

SP3: Andrea Fraser defines institutional critique as a practice of critically reflexive site-specificity, distinguishing it as an ethical rather than political practice. She views politics as the pursuit of power, and everyone, regardless of privilege or deprivation, engages in politics from their position. In contrast, institutional critique is seen as an ethical practice from a relatively dominant position, aimed at mitigating the exercise and impact of power. For artists, this involves critically engaging with power relations from a reflective standpoint and recognizing their own privileges. Fraser emphasizes the ongoing need to revive and reconsider institutional critique in the context of specific situations, relationships, and objects, noting its development as a response to critiques of historical and neo-avant-garde movements and the recognition of the transitory nature of their revolutionary impacts. I agree with Fraser’s definition of institutional critique as an ethical practice, because in order to alleviate the exercise of power in any institution, the premise is that we ourselves must first realize what privileges we have and use this reflection on ourselves to critique and reflect on the power structure of the institution.

SP4: Andrea Fraser addresses the persistent critique that institutional critique has become institutionalized, labeling it as the "zombie argument" that resurfaces repeatedly. She dismisses the notion that institutional critique should remain untouched by institutionalization, deeming it an idealistic view. Fraser recognizes the inevitability of institutionalization over time due to historical and social factor from a materialist’s point of view. Therefore, she advocates for institutional critique to remain site-specific and responsive to counteract this natural institutionalization. Fraser reminds us that even criticisms of institutions can be institutionalized. To prevent institutional critique from being absorbed and assimilated, we need to stay alert and come up with out-of-box ways of thinking and refreshing critical perspectives that go beyond the preconceptions of the institution leaders.

Challenge1: Fournier and Fraser are suggesting the differences in public funding structures between Canada and the United States significantly shape the artistic landscape and artists' relationships with wealth and economics. While Canada indeed has a history of artist-run centers and different dynamics in its art market compared to the US, it's essential to consider that these structural distinctions might not wholly define an artist's approach to their practice or their relationship with the market. While Canada's funding structures are robust and there's less emphasis on the commercial art market, I think artists' decisions to move to the United States and change their bio line might not solely signify a shift in their approach to their practice. It's plausible that the move might reflect a desire for exposure, opportunities, or a different artistic environment rather than solely a change in their relationship with the market. Moreover, even within Canada's supportive funding environment, there might still be pressures or considerations around sustaining an art practice, especially given the rising costs of living and creating art. Therefore, while differences in funding structures certainly impact artists' experiences, their decisions and attitudes towards their practice and money are likely influenced by a complex interplay of factors beyond just the structural differences between the two countries' art scenes.

Challenge2: While Fraser’s book's intent to encourage artists to research collectors and supporters is commendable, I would argue that the practical impact might be limited. Artists may find it challenging to discern the full extent of a collector's or board member's political leanings or actions beyond public records, especially considering the complexity within these boards. The suggestion of artists researching their supporters might not lead to substantial changes in their interactions with collectors or patrons in the context of economic challenges. Moreover, the expectation that this book will drive significant change might be overly optimistic. While conversations within museums regarding fundraising and board development might be sparked, the likelihood of altering established practices or deeply ingrained networks within these institutions due to a book's influence alone could be limited. Additionally, assuming that museum directors and board chairs would fundamentally alter their strategies or board nomination processes solely due to this book's influence might overlook the complexities and interests involved in such decisions. It might be overly optimistic to expect this book alone to significantly impact the politics of board members or patrons within museums without considering broader institutional dynamics, vested interests, and power structures that might resist such changes.

SP1: "2016 in Museums, Money, and Politics" by Andrea Fraser critiques the connections between US museum board members and politics during the 2016 election. Fraser exposes financial contributions to Democratic and Republican nominees, revealing the plutocratic operations in art institutions. The book also suggests that despite promoting socially progressive causes, these institutions may undermine them at the leadership level. Fraser points out the situation of tokenism underlies in the art institutions. Socially progressive programs of museums serve as an illusion to cover the fact that the leadership level wants to sabotage these programs for their own personal gain through political donation.

SP2: Andrea Fraser expresses mixed feelings about the midterms. While positive about the Democrats winning the House, she is concerned about the Senate and post-election events like the attorney general's resignation and unsupported voter fraud claims. She perceives an ongoing assault on democratic institutions in the U.S., finding the situation somewhat apocalyptic. Despite these concerns, Fraser actively participated in pre-election canvassing, organizing artists to support candidates in California districts. She emphasizes the importance of direct political involvement for artists and intellectuals in the current political climate. Fraser’s wake-up call suggests although artists and intellectuals tend to address political topics only in their works instead of approaching the political conversation directly, in some real-life political scenarios which need people to standout like the president election, the artists and intellectuals should come out of one's work and really get involved in real political activities to bring about real change. Sometimes artists and intellectuals can't stay rooted in their work all the times and can't forget that while being an artist and an intellectual, they are also a citizen of the country.

Summarizing Point: The authors explore the idea of the edge of contemporary art, suggesting that many artists turn to history to escape the confines of the present. Some contemporary artists create works with anachronistic elements, reaching back to different eras, asserting their sovereignty and regaining subjectivity by breaking away from the imperative to be strictly present. The text reflects on Duchamp's impact, emphasizing how his readymades disrupted the foundation of art, prompting the field to grapple with his influence and even establish new traditions. Then they mention that there are a lot of artists today that do not acknowledge Duchamp’s break. The comparison to Bresson's film, "A Man Escaped," illustrates the concept of using the system's limits as material for liberation. The discussion also touches on institutional critique, noting its importance in recognizing contemporary art's integration into a global power system. The text raises the question of whether a Duchampian break today should not only challenge the aesthetic field and museological enclosure but also address the systemic inconsistencies of the global capitalist meta-museum. These paragraphs are inspiring to me because it introduces how Duchamp can utilize the edges of the system to produce work that eventually changing the system. Moreover, the text points out the prevailing neglect of this Duchamp’ break among artists today, which is also reminding me as a curator and artist to contemplate about the edge of the system and Duchamp’s break, also the lessons of institutional critique of art, to focus on the weak points and systemic inconsistencies within the institutions, pushing beyond aesthetic considerations to address broader socio-political issues.

Connection: This idea that introduced by Duchamp that breaking open a space within the exhibition for artists to work reminds of another article by Boris Groys called “Art and Money” where Groys uses Duchamp’s readymades to argue about there is no production of art beyond exhibition. Groys talks about the significance of this type of installation art in transforming a neutral public space into an individual artwork and encourage visitors to perceive it as a holistic, all-encompassing artwork. Anything placed within this space becomes part of the artwork by virtue of its location. These installation practices reveal the materiality and composition of objects in our world, which is a defining characteristic of contemporary art. While commodities are primarily valued for their monetary and symbolic worth, contemporary art has the unique ability to showcase the materiality of things beyond their exchange value. These two articles help me realize the significance of Duchampian revolution which not only advanced the position of the artist, but also demonstrate the materiality of the objects of our world. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/24/67836/art-and-money/

Question/Challenge: The authors mention the reason that the exhibition context seals the contents of artists’ works is the social conditions that these artists address in their work have been overshadowed by the question of why this or that work is even being shown. However, I don’t necessarily see a conflict here. Doesn’t this question of why certain work is being shown in an exhibition advance the viewer's thinking about the work and the relationship between the work and the exhibition context, thus promoting reflection and interpretation of the work and the exhibition as a whole? Do you think this political question about contemporary art overshadowed the social conditions within these artists’ works?

Summarizing Point: Praznik discusses the parallel between the essentialization of artistic labor and domestic labor. Both are portrayed as non-work, stemming from innate qualities of the individual, such as creativity or gender roles. Domestic labor has historically been seen as a natural calling for women, an extension of feminine traits. Similarly, artistic labor is considered non-work, originating from an individual's inherent artistic genius or talent. Both are invisible in the production process, and specific skills are essentialized as naturally stemming from the individual's essence. Despite the similarities, a critique reveals distinctions. Domestic labor is portrayed as selfless, while artistic labor, though essentialized and poorly remunerated, is elevated as an act of creation and self-expression. This essentialization contributes to the economic exploitation of both types of work. The distinction lies in the promise of self-realization for artists, implying that since artistic labor is self-affirming and natural, it shouldn't be monetarily compensated. However, the passages argue that any form of essentializing, whether related to gender or artistic talent, ultimately leads to exploitation. I agree with this argument against essentialization because I believe in the diversity of people and culture. Essentializing a certain profession or work, or even a certain group of people, into the same condition or motivation, especially for artists, is extremely wrongheaded, in my opinion. There are artists and illustrators who are extremely talented in drawing and painting, and they just want to use their talent to make money to support themselves, and they will go and take commissions from the client and then fulfill the client's tasks, and I think these kind of artists, their need to make money must be stronger than their need to express themselves as Essentialism would suggest. Therefore, the act of essentializing a profession must, in my opinion, be limited and extremely subjective.

Question: Do you think to establish the autonomy of art has to disavow the economy first? Do you agree Praznik’s suggestion of seeing artistic work as labor and subject to the economic relations? Why do you think Praznik’s attempts to convey that artists are not some ethereal beings that can live on thin air and create out of nothing don’t have much enthusiastic feedback from the public?

Challenge: I want to challenge the declaration of these Western bourgeois philosophers that art is a universal value and those who engage in such a noble occupation should not think of it as a money-making profession. I'd like to give an example of another universal value, which is religion. There are Temples in China that are making hundreds of millions every year from the tickets sales, like Lingyin Temple and Shaolin Temple. Temples are known for being the holy places for people to do religious or spiritual activities like worship and prayer. However, if a place as sacred as a temple can be so profitable, why shouldn't art practitioners see art as a lucrative career? At the end of the day, we all need to make money and survive. There's no such thing as one profession being more noble than another, we're all just doing our jobs and earning a paycheck.

Question：Merali states that we used to feel the necessity to listen to those scholars and now we only need to quote from these figures to think that we have an understanding. And he believes that hearing and quoting are two very different ways to understand academic positions. Do you agree with Merali’s take on citation? If you do then what do you think is a better strategy to cite the previous thinkers for researchers nowadays to show they actually have an understanding of the theories? What’s the difference between hearing and quoting in your opinion?

Summarizing Point: Merali and his other four partners co-founded a Panchayat after they met at Slade School of Arts. They recognized the importance of collecting and preserving ephemeral materials related to their cultural experiences in Britain and Europe. Panchayat aimed to create a collection and archive that would serve as a counternarrative to mainstream narratives. They documented small exhibitions and experiences to address the challenges of connecting multicultural communities in the absence of the internet. Panchayat, along with other organizations, sought to provide a clearer understanding of cultural activities in Britain and the evolving international landscape, particularly within the English-speaking and post-colonial world, reflecting on North American civil rights movements and their countries of origin. Merali and his partners are pioneers in noticing the importance of preserving archives and materials. Especially when photocopying is just about to emerge into the world. I respect the conduct that they start the collection as an experiment and then refined it step by step to make it have a real impact. I think this is an inspiration to all young artists and scholars who are struggling under the hegemonic system, because it represents the possibility of turning an idea into an experiment and eventually a reality.

Connection: Kobena Mercer's concept of vernacular realism, which involves artists constantly referring to their realities in their work, and the reference of Samena Rana remind me of “disability art” and some other artists with disabilities like Henri Matisse and Yayoi Kusama. Celebrated Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama, known for her bright and cheery works of art, has experienced mental health issues such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and hallucinations all her life – a result of having grown up in a chaotic home in which she was physically abused. Henri Matisse became a wheelchair user after having surgery for cancer. Matisse felt that this period as a wheelchair user allowed him to re-think his priorities and free himself to do and say what he wanted. Matisse adapted his artistic methods to suit his life in a wheelchair. He started making artwork out of colored paper shapes. Matisse would cut out the shapes and direct an assistant where to stick the piece on a large piece of paper mounted on the wall. Matisse also used chalk on the end of a stick to sketch out the initial pattern of the picture. These artists didn’t let their disabilities become the obstacles for their artistic paths, instead they use their unique experiences and perspectives to create more meaningful and innovative artwork, and provide fresh and unconventional viewpoints on the world, challenging traditional artistic norms. This underscores the significance of Mercer’s concept of vernacular realism and showcases the potential and power of “disability aesthetics”.

Connection: Fatona states the significance of staying grounded and accountable to a community outside of the arts and academia to avoid becoming detached from the material realities of life and to maintain a deep sense of care and support for the broader community. This conduct reminds me of the idea of information cocoon, which is a concept proposed by Keith Sunstein. According to Sunstein, information cocoons creates an environment in which people only encounter voices that express opinions and ideas similar to their own. Such an environment—in which similar content is repeated and reinforced—is known as an “echo chamber”. I strongly agree with Fatona on breaking her information cocoon by keeping in touch with people in the community outside of her specialty to get to know each other and support each other. I think this helps a lot in one's professional studies, and it allows one to learn about different perspectives and insights of people outside of one's specialty. In the academic world, especially in the arts and culture, it is especially important and helpful to break out of one's information cocoon.

Summarizing Point: Fatona discusses the problem of the big "A" archive, which is often institutional and overshadowing the little "a" archive, which represents personal and everyday experiences shared through stories and photographs. Fatona emphasizes the importance of recouping the little "a" archive to give agency to everyday lives. The telling of personal stories provides a counter-narrative to the hegemonic norms and reaffirm the humanity, heroism, and resilience of those whose lives are often marginalized or devalued by societal expectations. Fatona underscores the significance of telling one's own stories to inspire and motivate continued resistance and self-expression. I agree with her idea of giving agency to the everyday, and I also think it is most true and touching to learn about a group of people through the stories of their daily lives and family history as described by the individual. Sometimes I think long-established topics and archives have been discussed and quoted countless times, and this kind of research is getting unproductive and anodyne, yet there are so many more authentic personal expressions and stories that are silenced and ignored.

Question: Fatona expresses her concern of the lack of art criticism and envisions something that can push against it. However, she is still uncertain about what this thing looks like. How would you envision this thing that Fotana think is possible. What are some possible steps or strategies that could be taken to begin exploring and shaping this new direction in art criticism, even if its precise form remains undefined?

Question: Hunter explains that his installation of television is regarding to his consideration of how the orientation of the television screen makes us think differently or engage differently with the work. Do you think the position of the screen can reorient the audiences, or it doesn’t have much effect comparing to what is being shown within the screen? If you agree with the former, then what difference do you think the orientation of screen facing upwards in Hunter's “Pélees Tower” make to the way you engage with it? And why do you think seeing the screen from different angles would make a change?

Connection: Hunter's idea of seeing his creative practice as a research process which initiates an undetermined ongoing conversation with others to learn together reminds me of Kameelah Janan Rasheed’s work which I read about in an article from my citation class. In “’Come Think with Me’: Finding Communion in the Liberatory Textual Practices of Kameelah Janan Rasheed” by Jehan L. Roberson, Kameelah believes the focus on process over finalized pieces of art evinces an ethic of ongoing-ness, unending conversing and interrogating a text and its infinite meanings. The texts in her works are an invitation to join her ongoing conversation with the intellectuals that she included. Her reading practice refuses all notions of fixedness. I agree with this concept of uncertainness that takes form in any sort of academic and creative practice. In my opinion, everything about the nexus of our knowledges and thoughts are unfixed. They are flowing within our works and possess the adaptability to absorb new ideas and unlearn any stereotypical false idea through this learning and exchanging process. https://web-s-ebscohost-com.ocadu.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=43726835-c96b-47d0-b85c-1091535ebfcf%40redis

Summarizing Porint: McKittrick and Hunter discuss the contradictions in Hunter’s work like combining tangible and distant elements. They explore the synthesis of opposing features in art, likening it to the juxtaposition in music, where DJs blend seemingly unlike tracks. Hunter aims to merge disparate objects in his work, like concrete and a TV screen, into a unified entity. McKittrick relates this approach to W.E.B. DuBois's concept of contradiction in black life, acknowledging the expression of blackness in art and how it reflects the paradoxes of black existence. Hunter aims to articulate these contradictions, re-investigate deeper into existing concepts and archives rather than introducing entirely new ideas. It is such an interesting and vivid juxtaposition of art making and DJ’s music remixing, testifies the interconnectedness of visual and sonic creations. I agree with Hunter’s aim to connect things that are seemingly opposed and to bring a language to these contradictions in his works. I think that great art is always about paradox. The synthesis of materials, concepts, and contents that can’t seem to co-exist really creates a tension and stimulates the desires for discussion and reconciliation, thus introducing spaces for new dialogues.

Connection: This situation of lacking qualities and characteristics within the newly built public space and it is being served as incentive for more profit-motivated market objectives instead of for the public, reminds me of the museum boon phenomenon in China, in which the local government funding to build these museums not really for its content that can engage the public; it’s more about using it as a tool for real estate development to get themselves more benefits like promotion or more funding. I used to think this kind of issue was confined solely to the Chinese soil, and while it’s true that the problem is most prevalent and serious in China, I now realize that this predicament transcends borders and is, in fact, a pervasive challenge within the art industry on a global scale. It necessitates a reevaluation of our approach to public spaces and art institutions worldwide, emphasizing the enrichment of society over profit-driven motives. https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/11/new-chinese-museums-construction-boom-opening-money-cant-buy-culture-china/

Summarizing Point: One problem of public art is the pursuit of wide relevance, which can lead to art that avoids controversy and caters to the majority, undermining the investigative nature of art. The inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process for public art is seen as problematic because it implies an adversarial relationship between local and general public interests. This phenomenon often results in a form of "psychological ownership" over public spaces. Public art has shifted toward a "minimum-risk" approach to avoid controversy, which limits its ability to engage and provoke public discourse. The example of Richard Serra's Tilted Arc highlights the importance of controversy in public art. The avoidance of controversy is seen as constraining artistic thinking. The concept of "defensible space" has influenced the design of public spaces and, in turn, the mentality surrounding public art. Phillips suggests that public art has the potential to reconstitute the idea of the common and foster spirited dialogue, but the focus on avoiding controversy has hindered this potential. I think the problem still revolves around the art’s autonomy and heteronomy. I believe that public art should not be judged by the criteria of a particular community, instead it should focus on what the artist is trying to communicate to the public, the meaning of the work and the subjects depicted in it, as well as the general public, otherwise it is not public art, but a decorative installation piece that is designed for a particular community. I fully recognize the potential of public art to help citizens and communities exchange information and discuss public issues, and we should utilize public art to rebuild common platforms to help advance our democratic progress, rather than wasting the enormous medium of public art by turning it into a machine that produces repetitive and mediocre artwork out of shallow fear of losing job opportunities, creating controversy, or offending others.

Question: In reference to “The New Urban Landscape” exhibition held by Olympia & York, Phillips states the capabilities of temporary art and the opportunities it brings, but also shows the concerning trend of this art being utilized for marketing and manipulation. Out of concerns for the long-term impact and development of public art exhibitions, and the incorporation and institutionalization of public art, what long-term vision and strategies are necessary to ensure that temporary exhibitions in public spaces truly animate those spaces and generate valuable discussions about art, space, and urban life? What strategies and policies can be implemented to ensure that public art maintains its significance as a tool for social engagement and urban development, rather than becoming a mere marketing or public relations tool?

Connection: The conflict between the tendency of rebellious young writers and artist to see the writer as critical social conscience and the Revolution’s evolving ideas of culture as a collective activity gives me a sense of alignment with the tension between art’s autonomy and social intervention in “The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents” by Claire Bishop. It seems like this issue of balance between art’s autonomy and heteronomy is ongoing and existing everywhere in the art world and I hold a deep sympathy for these intellectuals who get punished for trying to stand critical narrative to society in their works. I personally don’t consent with the policy of one-size-fits-all and contend a more flexible policy that aim to establish a middle ground between the two extreme positions.

Question: The Havana Biennial project has always been organised by the same group of staff from the Centro Wifredo Lam. This way of organising can keep the discussion coherent and help advance the progression through constant self-evaluation. Conversely, the other biennials have permanent administrative structures but continually changing artistic leadership, it might not have the same amount of continuity in the workflow and self-inspection, but in my opinion, with the alternation of artistic leader in each exhibition, it brings more new narratives into the discussion, and more opportunities for scholars and creatives to participate in this cultural exchange. Comparing these two operation structures, if you are the director, which model would you employ?

Summarizing Point: While Llanes emphasized a more administrative and unmediated approach to the exhibition, Mosquera was a dynamic and enthusiastic leader, shifted the Biennial to a curatorial and thematic format, integrating Afro-Cuban cultural elements and supporting young Cuban artists. These emerging artists challenged ideological constraints and brought fresh perspectives to Cuban art. Their inclusion created tension between Llanes, who saw it as a distraction, and Mosquera, who viewed it as vital. Despite these differences, they both agreed on the Bienal's social-public vocation and the need to position it in relation to the Western art system for credibility and prestige. They actively worked to attract major international figures to the event. The paradoxical situations of the Havana Biennial are multifaceted and interesting. The paradox between how the director and her lead curator conceived of their curatorial project, and the paradox between the Biennial’s opposition to the mainstream Western art-world and the aspiration to develop credibility in that world. I appreciate the Havana Biennial's flexibility in the face of complex contradictions. They provide a worthwhile paradigm. By establishing agreements based on common objectives and their strong flexibility, they balanced the paradoxes that many other art organizations would consider as insurmountable. This also proves the significance of being flexible according to the purpose for which the project was ultimately intended.

SP5: The criteria of socially engaged art sees the self-sacrifice of the artist as successful. Through the self-sacrifice, the artists are expected to renunciate control of the aesthetic and focus merely on the social praxis of the work. However, according to Jacques Rancière, the system of art is based on a confusion between art’s autonomy and heteronomy, and the authorial presence is integral to the autonomy. The authorial aesthetic plays a crucial role to think of the contradiction between autonomy and social change and doesn’t need to be sacrificed for social change as it contains the promise of amelioration. In reference to Lars von Trier’s film, Dogville, Claire Bishop addresses a terrifying implication of self-sacrifice. The good intention of artist is not a reason to avoid critical analysis. A good socially collaborative art project should be able to address the contradiction between autonomy and social intervention, and reflect it through authorial aesthetics and the participants, more importantly, it should lead us to the serious thinking of our issues and predicaments.

SP2: Although the collaborative projects are less focused on a relational aesthetic than the return from the social collaboration, we still need to think of them as art and analyse them critically. Such critical evaluation is crucial for understanding the artistic merits and shortcomings of these projects. During this process of inspection, it is essential for us to find a common ground between standards of traditional artistic aesthetic and social engagement.

Q&C: Why do Oda Projesi consider aesthetic as “a dangerous word” and should not be included in the discussion? Do you also think aesthetic is “a dangerous word”? If you do, then do you agree with Oda Projesi that aesthetic should not be brought into discussion, or it should be further interrogated? My personal take on Oda’s statement is the inclusion of aesthetic is involving guidance of authorship. Oda Projesi believe that an appropriate social collaborative project requires the artist to renunciate authorship and to give equal rights to the participants who may have no artistic training or advanced understanding of aesthetic during the creation of the work. In this case, the artist should no longer be concerned with the aesthetics of the work but rather the social engagement and impact. In the creating process in Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument, the participants from immigrant neighborhood are only there to help him fulfill his aesthetic vision and get paid, more like temporary construction worker hired by him than co-creator, which is an exploitation of marginalized groups work forces. http://www.thomashirschhorn.com/bataille-monument/

SP4: While judging the collective art based on an ethics of authorial renunciation and intentionality, we should also pay attention to the risk of implementing a generalized critique standard onto the whole art industry, including individual artists. The social collaborative art project and the traditional individual art project should be judged under each of their own separate and independent criteria. For instance, an individual artist shouldn’t be praised for authorial renunciation as if s/he is a collective artist. Kester’s theory concerns too much about ethical aspects which aligns with the intellectual trends of identity politics lead to a rejection of art that might be offensive but enlightening. In fact, such discomfort and frustration are crucial elements of aesthetic impact that can bring new perspectives and they are not in conflict with the social/political engagement.

SP3: The turn of contemporary art into social engagement has also caused an ethical change in art criticism. The critics become more focused on the process as how these artists execute the collaborations properly than persisting the capitalistic preference of the final presentation of the product. Under this new model of judging criteria, artists need to be more cautious and conscious on how they engage with the participants in a directive or mutually consentient manner, in other words, the balance between authorship and collaboration, otherwise they may be accused of being egoistic and exploitive.

SP1: Collective art project is harder to market and profit comparing to the works of the individual commercial artists. However, the appearance of these collaborative projects is becoming more and more obvious and common in the social aspect due to the expansion of the biennial and the emergence of the new model of the commissioning agency that aspire to create experimental engaged art. Through the practice of social collaboration in these projects, the intersubjective space is made for further artistic investigation, the creativity is toned up, and an avant-garde art is formed to blur the boundary between art and life.

C: Epistemic Disobedience means to delink from the illusion of the zero point epistemology. Colombian philosopher Santiago Castro-Gómez (2005: 18) introduced the term “the hubris of the zero point” epistemology to refer to the construction of knowledge from the perspective of an observer who “observes without being observed” (que observa sin ser observado) or represented. In this case, the observers are the Eurocentric art institutions. They have been structuring and framing art system under their perspectives for years without any inspection or supervision. To disobey their epistemology is to delink from the colonial matrix of power.

https://philosophy-question.com/library/lecture/read/271970-what-is-the-zero-point-epistemology#0

C: I never know artist can borrow and use the pre-existing collection of a museum as part of his own art. Lasch and Wilson’s works inspired me, I have a bold proposal, if there could be a collaboration between the curators, the indigenous and minor artists, and the institutions to help further the institution decolonial agenda. Granting the indigenous or minor artists access to the collections and archives and allowing them to re-contextualize, thus restore indigeneity within the genealogy of the institutions.

Q: If including oppressed histories systematically is not sufficient and may lead to tokenism, what are the other ways for curators to include the abandoned histories? Should we aim to change the colonial structures first?

SP: ANNPAC is a unique and dynamic structure that brings together artists and museums in Canada. It goes beyond being just a union of artist-run centers. ANNPAC has a "connective tissue" formed by the interactions and exchanges among artists and museums. It is depicted as a scene that thrives on the tensions and dynamics of its members. ANNPAC is not limited to physical characteristics; it is described as an abstract and energetic entity, often referred to as the "living museum." It embodies a pattern of contradictions, inadequacies, and irrelevancies, reflecting the diverse nature of its artists and their unconventional attributes. It is a self-defined structure with its own unique qualities and characteristics.

Q; Why is the AGO not a real museum for the author? Why does the author see Frank Stella as a real artist and see Harold Town as not?

C: Burroughsian dream reminds me of reading the experimental novels by William Burroughs who is the key member of Beat Generation. The Beat Generation was a literary subculture movement started by a group of authors in the 1950s to reject literary formalism and the American culture built on capitalism and materialism. Both General Idea and Beat Generation are rebelling against the cultural structure of their times and using their artistic and literal creations to establish their goals.

C: The Canada Council is a Crown corporation established in 1957 as an arts council of the Government of Canada. With the funding and support of official government, the Canadian artists made their own art scene, overcoming the obstacles such as the lack of Canadian identity, cultural domination of American media, and lack of real art market, etc. The travel grant’s contribution to the Canadian art scene shows that traveling around, participating in the global art events, and exchange of ideas really help foster the progress of creating an art scene. It also shows how much could change if government is enlightened and in supporting for the nation’s art scene instead of putting restraints over the artists and the creatives.

C: “Counter-hegemonic projects are rarely understood.”, “To my knowledge, not one critic has yet noted these gross disparities.” And “We are living and working in an art world that cares little about racism and sexism,” My assumption is that maybe a lot of people like curators, and critics don’t even try or want or care to understand the project because they are benefiting from the current hegemonic system. They pretend to not understand the project and claim these exhibitions to be controversial, by hindering the progress, they can keep living in the comfort zone.

SP: Mainstream curators and art critics play a crucial role in changing this oppressive discriminatory hegemonic art world. Every mainstream curator today needs to do introspection on the way they are representing an exhibition, and every art critic should be able to point out the disparity within any representation. They must see and acknowledge the existence of inequality and bigotry that manifested through the curatorial malpractice.

Q: Regarding to the questions that the author initiated about mainstream curators, what strategies and approaches can be implemented to encourage mainstream curators in the art world to actively address and rectify the persistent issues of gender, race, and sexuality representation in their exhibitions and collections?

C: I like the term “the relaxation of institutional structures.” Relaxation of traditional institutional structure and curatorial practices is what I’m pursuing in my own research project. In my ideal art space, I expect to construct a pure relaxed atmosphere for artists and audiences to have open communication and engagement with one another. This relaxation doesn’t mean we are going to ignore serious controversial issues but address them on a relaxed and transparent platform which allows everybody’s voice to be shared and heard through various art events, creating a comfortable learning environment.

SP: Jonas Ekeberg’s idea of New Institutionalism is a new form of “curatorial practice” that is transcended the norm of traditional exhibition. We can see it as a social project with adaptable formats that aims to gather the institutions, examines, redefines, and transforms them by establishing a new branding that focuses on the social engagement and function of the contemporary art institutions.

Q: Why are Lippard and Szeemann being criticized for becoming an artist as a curator? What is triggering the argument here? If a curator can bring cultural, social, and aesthetical development through the arrangement and presentation of his/her project, with a message that he/she is trying to convey and can speak up for those who have no voice, this whole curatorial project becomes a work of art created by the curator. This transformation should not be criticized, on the contrary, it should be set as a goal for all the curators reminding them to treat the curation as a meaningful art project. If a work of art is produced in the encounter of the demands of the place and the methods of producers, why can’t curation be seen as a work of art if it is produced in the encounter of the demands of the art world, the society, and the place and the methods of curators?

Connection: Acquiring famous artists’ works, not just impressionists, is the best way for newly founded museums in China to attract consumers and to use it as their promotions. The founders, their investors, and the politicians care more about the financial profit and impression on their governmental officials than the cultural aspects. Some might even believe they can automatically have culture by spending money on building and purchase of artworks. They build the museums not for engagement with the public, but for real estate development as a way to gain more funding and profit.

Summarizing Point: Decolonization of museums is not only about employing a transcultural approach on temporary exhibitions, but also need to focus on the ways and policies of how the museums acquire their collections, their financial partnerships, and how they recruit and treat their labors. It’s important to solve the issue from its root, the event might only be the stunt of these institutions and their partners in order to cover up their colonial acts. To concretely decolonize the institutions, we must consider both theory and experiences.

Q: Should art institutions be independent from their capitalistic partner like banks? Are their partners and stakeholders going to affect the perspective of the museum in terms of collecting, exhibiting, and educating? Why do museums have to build up partnership with these companies, is it because of insufficient funds or personal interests? If so, what can we do to avoid these situations as much as possible?

Q: Why can’t we figure out a form of postcolonial pharmakon and panacea that is not in conflict? Does the panacea have to be inversion of power, in other words, turn a binarism into another binarism? Can there be an egalitarian form of equally distribution of power instead of opposition between two groups?

Q: Most of the traditional museums categorize their collection by their time periods and cultural regions. Why is the context of this type of presentation see as stationary. Can there be a solution for the traditional museums to retain the classification by artifacts’ time periods and regions, but with a new arrangement to make the context flow? I think that the definition of an exhibition’s context is fluid or not is subjective based on individuals.

C: I see no wrong in involving museum or gallery in the contemporary entertainment industry. I see my artworks as something to bring people pleasure, solace, and resonance. It would also bring me joy if my works can do that. I strongly agree with the thermalization of the museum, and I believe this is the future of art exhibition that would attract engagement of the new generation. There should be a new form of curation and experimentation on how to present a show.

Q: Just by seeing an actual piece of ancient artifact in front of me is giving me shock and goosebumps. If the public art museums get replaced by virtual archives, where should people go see the actual artifacts? Despite the advantage of a virtual archives on cost and efficiency, I believe that virtuality cannot and should not replace reality, especially in the fields of historical artifacts.

SP: The main difference between a traditional exhibition and a contemporary curatorial project is that the traditional exhibition is just eternal artworks placed in a space which can be at any other places, on the other hand, a modern curatorial project tends to inscribe the artworks into the space in order to combine the artworks, the space, the spectators, and every details of the project together as a whole event and convey a common message from the curator, endowing every parts a meaning. A curatorial project is ought to step out the comfort zone of curating, and challenge the norm, the traditional exhibition narrative, and even the previous curatorial projects. It’s a metamorphosis from spaces for permanent artworks into stages for the flow of art events.