Endnotes

  1. Andrea Fraser, “From Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique,” Artforum, (vol. 44, no. 1, September 2005).
  2. A question that frequently arises in a lot of writing about MFA programs is whether their value is at all “educational,” meaning the specifics of faculty time, crits, classes, etc, rather than simply a form of gatekeeping, or pedigree. If by education we mean this process of forming subjects with an ingrained sensibility for the field of art then it is true that the curricular aspects are just armatures for this intangible process, which isn’t so much extra-curricular as a spectral curriculum, somehow beside the explicit educational structures. The field of art is structured by this act of recognition, a form of acknowledgement based on an almost instinctual knowledge of what constitutes contemporary art. However, this is not thereby less “educational” in our sense, though it may fall short of pedagogical standards, because it is a sensibility created by the density of an MFA program.
  3. Franco Berardi, The Soul at Work, trans. Francesca Cadel and Giuseppina Mecchia, (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2009), p. 200.
  4. J-F. Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections on Time, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 3.
  5. Franco Berardi, The Soul at Work, trans. Francesca Cadel and Giuseppina Mecchia, (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2009), pp. 75-105.
  6. Stephano Harney and Fred Moten write that we fail to become proper subjects by “allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood.” The Undercommons, (New York: Autonomedia, 2013), p. 28.