The concept of the art institution as a space of neutrality, where art is free to simply be  art  has been debated and challenged by avante garde artists throughout the century.  In Kirsi Peltomaki’s article “Affect and Spectatorial Agency: Viewing Institutional Critique in the 1970s” Pelomaki recounts this dialogue between artist and institution, where the institution becomes a space for self-analysis and criticism.

In the article, Peltomaki describes, analyzes, and explains the installations of Michael Asher in the Claire Copley Gallery in 1974 and its ultimate affects upon the spectator.  Asher removed any material or artified “objects” from the gallery space and removed the dividers and walls that separated the spectator from viewing and witnessing the everyday actions that occur in the running of a gallery.  This created an almost psychologically induced social experiment, where the spectator and the gallery director were on “display.”  Many of the critics described their immediate feelings as irritation, embarrassment, and uncertainty.  As one critic stated, “For this reviewer, the absence of a dividing wall, along with lack of “that stuff on the walls,” produced a situation that viewers negotiated through a cadre of affective responses: hesitation, uncertainty, irritation, and outright alarm at the reversal of viewing relations” (Peltomaki 38).

Asher’s installation forced the spectator to engage with and contemplate the act of looking in order to realize that the viewer has an engaged and participatory role in the function of art institutions and in the artwork itself.  The spectator is not engaged with passivity. Looking is a very active state.

In addition, Asher’s installation created an awareness of the social and ideological implications and hierarchies that under-pine the institution.  In effect, the institution is driven by a cultural legitimacy, which not only imbues the artwork with meaning, but also colors the way in which it is perceived and interacted with.

Pelotmaki’s analysis brings up a number of important and relevant factors that need to be considered in regards to an understanding of art institutions.  However, my initial thoughts on Asher’s installation at the Claire Copley Gallery were more on the lines of Matthew Ghoulish in his “39 Microlectures.”  By unveiling the people and actions that are behind the scenes, Asher is pointing to the question of “where does an artwork begin and end?”  What does art encompass?  Similar to Ghoulish’s position in his “Microlectures,” I see Asher’s installation as a testament to an artwork’s inclusiveness.  In other words, an artwork is not merely its material.  It encompasses the art institution (and all that is associated with it), the gallery director, the receptionist, the personal narratives and experiences inherent within each and every individual spectator.  The artwork is within the whole.  What makes Asher’s installation so poignant is in its ability to create an experience that is non-dualistic.  Its affects create a transformative experience, where the spectator is created anew.