Ambiguous Exhibitions, Ambiguous Institutions

The institutional theory of art seeks to answer the question “what is art?” with the following ambiguous formula: something is art if conferred the status art by an art world. This position eliminates the issue of the ambiguity of art status by establishing a clear framework within which artefacts are considered art. Accordingly the concern of institutional theorists, such as Danto and Dickieet al,has been directed towards outlining those institutional apparatus of the art world such as galleries, museums and critics that confer the status of art and frame meaning. Once the institutional framework is accounted for, the ambiguity concerning art status is considered resolved. Although Howard Becker describes a pluralist vision of art worlds, art is still understood to be whatever is deemed art within such frameworks.This approach however, in overlooking the key role and changing nature of the institution itself, is problematic. Specifically the ambiguous nature of the art institution is missed. Using the relationship of graffiti and installation to the art institution I will discuss what could be called “ambiguous exhibitions”. These art forms maintain an unclear relationship to the established art world yet instances of exhibition and institutional structure are often visible. It is this realty that posits the problematic of the ambiguous nature of the art institution. The issue of what counts as an exhibition heralds a new debate concerning institutional aesthetics and ambiguity. In short it shows that there is scope for ambiguity in the meaning of the term “art world”. Instead of ambiguity operating on the level of art status, it is here operating on the level of institutional status. Consequently the ambiguous nature of such exhibitions brings back into the play the nature of the curator, the gallery, the critic, the museum, etc.