Economizing tendencies and globalization effects have all made their mark on art institutions' structures and practices in a variety of ways. Academic disciplines - like Cultural Studies or Art History -, museums, private collections and exhibition venues have increasingly become the subject of both artistic and theoretical investigations in recent years, critically tracing the changes that have come about in this context.1

Recently systems of work have also developed in the institution of the art colleg testing critical forms of practice already as part of art education. Initiatives like "The Academy and Corporate Public" in Bergen, the Hamburg "Modulator" and "Wiederholungen wiederholen" ("Repeating repetitions") projects, the "Commune des Arts" in Cologne, the Leipzig "/D/O/C/K-Projektbereich" or the "Protoacademy" in Edinburgh use different procedures and perspectives, but they all see the academy as an negotiation space whose specific requirements and possibilities make it particularly suitable for questioning the prerequisites and conditions under which an orientation towards economizing and socially hierarchizing parameters within the art field takes place.:2 In this institution, which trains the future players in the art field, values, rules and criteria are sanctioned for further distribution, Here the first selection procedures take place that can determine possible entry into the centre of the field. And here tried-and-tested procedures meet experimental change with particular force.
It is between these two poles that changes, shifts of accent and reforms in art education took place from a historical point of view as well. One of the poles is defined by the academic tradition. The most striking example of this is the Académie Royale in Paris, founded in 1648, which established demands on art teaching that have persisted to the present day. Its educational maxims aimed at practising to acquire skills within an existing aesthetic canon. This in its turn was intended to guarantee acceptance into the hierarchized social structure of the officially recognized artistic community, whose members attempted to secure their status through formalized regulations about acceptance and advancement, the awarding of scholarships and prizes, access rules for exhibitions and the inclusion in and exclusion from rank and office.3 The other pole is determined by those tendencies that - as effects of industrialization and later of post-industrialization, - did away with the hierarchies established by academies whether such hierarchies related to the media, the arts, to art and craft, to the genders or to teachers and taught. It is not only the principles of imitation and release that confront each other between these poles, it is also here that ideas of the artist as an autonomous genius standing outside society meet the counter-image of the socially constituted and orientated cultural producer. Creativity, freedom and self-determination are values subsumed within different definitions in each case; the debate turns around nothing less than the question: what is art if one is supposed to be able to teach or learn it?
The model functions assigned to artists within the working conditions of the post-Fordist economy make such debates additionally relevant. Autonomy, authenticity and liberation are today considered to be components of new corporate strategies, if one follows Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello.4 Self-realization, self-determination and freedom, hitherto reserved mainly for artists, are linked with self-organization and -administration, or with the ability to make even paradoxical states of affairs productively useful and are in this form part of the job description for current economic production and management structures.5
The question about an art school's roles and potentials gains its currency against the background of such latent risks of economic instrumentalization. As an institution that is particularly involved in the continuation of individualization maxims, which for their part have entered the field of economics as the "standard of deviation",6 the contexts for which it trains - in the artistic and social field - can no longer be taken as read. On the one hand, it brings into view the economic and symbolic applicability of training of this kind, together with the naturalizations, hierachizations and artist role models bound up with it. On the other hand, it is necessary to reopen action spaces for critical practice that do not run the risk of immediate appropriation by institutions - an appropriation characteristic of the politics of cultural institutions in the early part of the 21st century, when the welfare state is increasingly being dismantled.
For this to function, an institution must be understood as a space in which different forces working on each other start to make themselves felt. Thus the model of the externally prescribed "apparatus", as defined by Louis Althusser,7 is juxtaposed with that of a relationally oriented "field". It is defined via the objective positions between the “acteurs” - both individuals and institutions - , who are struggling "with different degrees of power and thus prospects of success after (and in certain constellations also about) the constitutive practices and rules for this play-space for the acquisition of the specific profits that are at stake in this game".8 The key feature of the "game" that Bourdieu - emphatically differentiating between this and sociological game theory - uses interchangeably with his field concept, is that in it the rules of the game become part of the game themselves. As in any field internal and external references confront each other constitutively.9
In the art field the art school represents a sub-field that itself develops its specific rules, its logic and relative autonomy in relation to the art field as well as to other societal fields. All the protagonists acting within it - its teachers, students, and its individual institutions, the departments or the institutes - impinge upon each other within it and compete over the way in which they are involved in formulating the rules in each case, in evaluating criteria internal or external to the field, in defining the available profits and in fixing the field boundaries.
The different types of recognition are negotiable, and so are the qualities and qualifications for which they are granted. The fundamental question about whether art can be taught addresses one of the crucial rules internal to the academy field. It has been repeated with different emphases ever since the first academy was founded, and has still not lost its relevance to discussion about art today, as is documented by the programmatically entitled study by James Elkins "Why Art Cannot Be Taught".10 Inscribed within it is the notion of the artistic genius who can rely on his naturally given talents alone, and needs no external help from teachers to develop his excellence - a notion that has persisted ever since Giorgio Vasari's "Vitae" within the anecdotes of artistic biography.11 The charisma of being outside the everyday, which no longer needs proof, but can rely on confirmation by a community, is the assigned quality that distinguishes the talented artist.12 In this way his qualification ultimately denies examination or analysis, institutional tests or reports have no decisive effect on evaluating it.
Thus in the sub-field of the academy as well, charisma - in a specific form - is the particular good that is at stake, in the respect that is the capital that can be transformed into other kinds of capital, social, economic and symbolic, and that decides about power and thus about participation in endowment with meaning. For it to be assigned, the essential requirement is that of acting exclusively for the sake of art - quite independently of stylistic emphases or the degree of avant-garde orientation. Interests in economic or social success do not simply step back behind those of art itself, but have to be denied entirely, even if they are essential for the continued existence of the art field itself. As unselfishness pays, ultimately the protagonists follow double-barrelled strategies - both interest-driven and without any interest. This interest in the lack of interest in belief in the value of the game identifies the anti-economic economy that Bourdieu sees exemplified in all cultural fields, but to a particularly marked extent in the art field.13
The charismatic notion of the artist may be trapped in romanticism, and the 60s reassessment of the functions of author, work and viewer has meant that the terms "cultural producer", "making" and "artistic work" have replaced "artist", "creation" and "work of art"; furthermore, in the past 15 years contexts of collective work and project work have entered the art education curriculum: but despite all this, in art academies in particular the hierarchies and privileges ascribed to the individual charismatically understood artist-personality have still survived. The best example are the appointment procedures tailored to outstanding artistic figures, but also the retention of the system of classes attached to one particular professor.
Within this structure, the charismatic logic is a crux for teachers as well as for students. Strictly speaking all they can do is take over a model function derived from their position in the field and from their status. But then - following the charismatic role - they cannot pass the qualities that brought them to the position on to the students as they were not learned, and thus cannot be learned. Additionally, the status of artists as teachers is problematical in itself, as artistic charisma is associated not with a secure positions and regular income, but with freedom and independence - as guarantors of exclusive artistic commitment - and with the risks that they bring.
But teachers can also acquire charismatic status, and that in reference to the respective orientation of their teaching. Here exponents of "pure" teaching are set against "worldly" or "political" teachers. In the scientific field, Bourdieu made a distinction between prestige, which is based on recognition by the like-minded community, and institutional and institutionalized power, which is linked with directing research institutions and departments, with the membership of commissions and committees, with preparing reports, and the power that this grants over the means of production. While the capital of the "pure" scientists, who contribute to the progress of science through inventions or discoveries, is always associated with something fleeting, indeterminate and hence again charismatic, the capital of "worldly", institutionalized scientists tend to be better supported in terms of bureaucratic structures. They acquire their "quasi-charismatic" status from the researchers who follow them, whose careers they were able to secure - on the basis of the power they have over the authorities and instruments of initiation.14
This distinction can also be applied to teachers in art academies to the extent that they juxtapose the internal teachers, oriented towards "pure" art and its progress, who ultimately do not need a written confirmation of their teaching practice and its dissemination in the realms of the everyday,15 with those who gain influence on the visibility and economic success of their preferred students through networking and involvement in commissions and juries awarding prizes, scholarships or exhibition showings. Their "quasi-charismatic" status is thus based precisely on the break with "pure" art, to the extent that they include the context in which art takes place in their thinking, and derive their own position not least from knowledge and strategic treatment of it.
Just as both types of teacher, the internally and the externally oriented, equally have a task and role within the art school field, both the subject matter taught and the institution itself are suspended between these two orientations running counter to each other. While craft skill, stylistic formulations or accents in terms of subject matter are central to "pure" teaching, they cannot - despite withdrawal into the studio - ignore the fact that they are accountable to their social circumstances and that ultimately the artistic work produced by their students is intended for public consumption, they need an audience in order to be registered, and reception is constitutive for art as art. Equally an art school, like all art institutions, creates a link between art production and the formation of its public(s),16 thus creating a continuous crossover between internal and external rulings and standards. Like commercial galleries or art associations and museums, schools and academies take on "gatekeeper" functions, enabling them to make decisions about inclusion and exclusion in the art field.17 Releasing students into the profession of artist after finals corresponds with the "rite of institution" that according to Bourdieu - comparably with the rites of circumcision, marriage or nomination to honorary posts - decides on the "significance of one person in relation to others".18
These space-time movements between internal and external demands and rules within the art field are constitutive components of the institution "academy" seen as a sub-field. Certainly it is dependent on demarcating external demands generated in different social fields in order to retain its relative autonomy, which at the same time secures its existence.19 But current economic developments, and the developments in educational policy associated with them, in Europe and especially in the German-speaking countries, are subjecting this autonomy to a test of its stability that has to be taken seriously. The heterogeneous features of the academy find themselves faced with appropriation tendencies that alienate them from the logic of their own field and help rules external to the field to become dominant.
For in fact encroachments from the commercial field go beyond the projected model function of artistic work and roles.20 If we consider the higher education reforms currently in train as part of the Bologna process, its tendencies towards bureaucratization in particular are turning out to be incompatible with field-internal regulation. Modularization – sub-division into internationally compatible teaching units – along with assessing them quantitatively and qualitatively using a credit point system, is all aimed at "efficiency criteria" that run counter to art education aimed at individualization and difference just as much as to the values freedom and self-determination that this discipline conveys. Targets relating to "quality management", a concept from commerce that has found its way into the vocabulary of reform,21 meet a field that "utterly rejects standardization, regulation disciplinary control etc.".22 Additionally, teachers too are increasingly subjected to demands of the kind faced by the employees of commercial concerns: individual departments competing with each other for markets and financial resources. With reference to the English higher education system, Charles Harrison points out that one of the evils of current higher education development is localized in the "proliferation of so-called internal markets (which induce colleagues to behave as though they were working for competing organizations)."23 Finally it is striking that commercial criteria are already making their presence felt in criticism of the "short-term market orientation" and "industrially bureaucratic logic" that underlie the Bologna process. If for example greater potential resistance by art colleges to the reforms in comparison with universities is justified by the international success of their graduates, which shows in the position of artists in the annual, quantitatively evaluated rankings by the "Kunstkompass" a variant of increased heteronomization betrays itself.24
Within this layer of development, evoking the charismatic artist model can become a strategy of resistance to reform: on the one hand it makes use of those ideas of artistic existence and practice that define the persistingly popularized role of artists as "others" within bourgeois society offered by the described model functions of post-Fordist work structures; on the other hand they emphatically illustrate the discrepancies between the technocratic educational structure that is being sought and the maxims of release and liberation associated with the institution.
This amalgamation, paradoxical at first glance, of art-field specific anti-economic standards on the one hand, which acknowledge charisma as an essential capital at stake in the game, with bureaucratically efficient processes and commercial profits on the other hand, following the logic of the economic field and under post-Fordian conditions, causes the competing rules of different fields to square up to each other and the competing situation itself is set in motion, with all its conditions and effects. This conflict-charged, but dynamic and contingent handling of regulations and standards carries a resistant potential that can be brought into play to preserve relative autonomy’s institutional room for manoeuvre. In this respect it makes sense to set up a working context within the institution that can in itself illustrate and perform the conditions and qualities of the institution, confront them with each other and negotiate them, without itself becoming entirely subsumed within the institution.
This working context must be such that it is temporalized in its make-up, self-reflexive and orientated towards different publics that are understood democratically in each case. By orientation and constant matching to the needs, demands and conditions that define the institution’s relationship to its outside, the external and internal rules of the fields can meet here, overlap and cross-cut each other, and examine each other mutually within this encounter. The working context forms a space that is generated by its own use, through which one can "do" something with the place and permeate it with discursive and social movements.25 It is thus in a state of perpetual emergence. Within a dynamic through which it constantly recomposes itself from differently participating ”acteurs” – individuals and institutions, - manifestations, relational orientations, structures and practices, it is not just a space with transitory institutional characteristics, but itself appears, both internally to the institute of higher education and also externally, as an “acteur” that must continuously examine and define its own position in relation to the other “acteurs”.
Continuous linkage to an institution enables the installation of a "game within the game" of this kind to adopt the procedures of the artistic institutional critique and expand them at the same time. It takes up functions specific for the institution within which it is establishing itself, reflecting them symbolically in order to make them useful, when performed again, for the purposes of interventionist change. Then instead of leaving the place and seeking out a new, geographical distant object for examination, as is the custom in artistic practice, the space placed within the institution changes its co-ordinates, structures and components in order to direct the view towards other sub-aspects and sub-conditions and relocate itself in relation to the institution. In this way, it takes on self-reflexive analyses both for the institution of which it is part and also for itself, as a working context within the institution. Here what is meant is questioning the totality of requirements that make their presence felt within the game, in other words declaring the act, the game itself, to be the subject, and always also the object, of reflexive analysis.
Driven by this approach, this space addresses different publics, which all, following Raymond Williams’ definition, can be seen as "democratic", as they see themselves required to participate – unlike the "authoritarian", "paternalistic" and "commercial" public.26 Addressing the publics creates respective connections between internal and external demands of the field and allows for their potentially conflicting encounter. The very act of creating public quality at an art school contradicts charismatic logic built on withdrawal and secluded activity, usually leading to the admission of a public circle restricted to individual students and teachers. Discussing one’s own work – in a "game within the game" – in another circle and developing it further then implies also a discussion of the functions of charismatic logic. Teaching staff within the academy as well as outsiders – grouped according to their positions in the field and their status, their attitudes to traditions or styles, their roles, briefs, disciplines, gender, race, their professional, political or local commitments – can be addressed as publics, who, specifically in each case, lead to a confrontation of the institutional rules with external ones. The processes of forming publics thus turn into processes of negotiation.
To elaborate this, an example from the work of the Leipzig /D/O/C/K project space, in which I am involved myself: together with students and teachers from the Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst (Academy of Visual Arts), Christian Jankowski developed the "Self-positioning and self-presentation" project in 2000/2001.27 He asked the students to formulate their wishes about their later existence as artists, and to capture them in a dialogue with a prominent personality in the art or culture field who could contribute to realizing these wishes. The texts were then to be spoken in front of a running camera with the chosen dialogue partners, and included in a filmed work. In the course of the project, the different images of the "artist" were subjected to a number of refractions; the roles the students took up in relation to each other, to people employed by the school and to Jankowski as a guest changed many times, since the understanding of teaching and learning, of seminar and project work, of professors and students and indeed of the meaning of an artist who was known at that time and thus endowed with symbolic capital, with charisma, was also being tested. Hierarchies were repeatedly reformulated amongst all concerned, subject and object positions were switched, in just the same way that the relationship with the dialogue partners addressed – with Manfred Eichel, Mehdi Chouakri, Angela Schneider, Monika Grütters, Christian Jankowski and also with me – ran through various phases of articulation. The filmed dialogue situations portray the negotiation processes in text and constellation. Thus the participants were involved in a performative act on two levels, as on the one hand they were in fact producing a certain form of network in the field, one that had hitherto only been aspired to, and on the other hand they were staging patterns for whose continuing existence, or whose change, they were taking responsibility. For the different circles of addressees the participants performed individual subject positions, the conditions of an educational facility and the basic assumptions and rules that defined their own field. The negotiating process relating to the goods that were at stake here also formed the two versions of the end product: one is available as a video by Christian Jankowski called "Seminar – Selbstpositionierungen im Kunstfeld" (Seminar – Self-positioning within the art field) (2002) and is distributed by the Galerie Klosterfelde, the other is identified as a co-operative project between Jankowski and the /D/O/C/K-Projektbereich at the Leipzig Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst/ Academy of Visual Art. It eschews a didactic intermediate level introduced by a speaker in the style of a management seminar and pursues a non-hierarchical structure; it is published on DVD. The further extended public addressed by the two end products also meant that the charismatic artists’ aspects required by commerce became an integrated subject of the project.
The positioning of this project within the /D/O/C/KProjektbereich represents the aim of setting up a space like an institution at an art school and using this as an aid to creating the conditions needed to impact on defining the rules and standards applying within it. Temporalized, self-reflexive and directed at various publics, it is certainly always on the verge of instutionalizing itself, but without ever entirely becoming a fixed and established feature. It implements the relational, articulatory and communicative definition of a "new" concept of public, as proposed by Simon Sheikh.28 And by providing experience of the game and its performative effects, it sets the institution's rules in motion again.
Notes

1. In the German language context these include Sebastian Conrad/ Shahalini Randiera: Jenseits des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 2002; Irene Below/ Beatrice von Bismarck: Globalisierung/ Hierarchisierung. Kulturelle Dominanzen in Kunst und Kunstgeschichte, Marburg 2005; Christian Kravagna: Transkulturelle Blicke. Repräsentationsprobleme außereuropäischer Kunst, in: Christoph Tannert, Ute Tischler (ed.): Men in Black. Handbuch kuratorischer Praxis, Berlin 2004, pp. 98-104.


2. For the projects mentioned cf. Stephan Dillemuth (ed.): The Academy and the Corporate Public, Bergen/ London 2002.; Sabeth Buchmann et al. (ed.): Wenn sonst nichts klappt: Wiederholung wiederholen in Kunst, Popkultur, Film, Musik, Alltag Theorie und Praxis, Berlin 2005; for the work of the /D/O/C/K project space at the Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig cf. Beatrice von Bismarck/ Alexander Koch (ed.): beyond education. Kunst, Ausbildung, Arbeit und Ökonomie, Frankfurt am Main 2005; for the "Commune des Arts" cf. ibid. also Stefan Römer: Sind die Vulkane noch tätig? Zur künstlerischen Selbstorganisation an Kunsthochschulen, S. 23-34.; Eran Schaerf and students at the Hochschule für Bildende Kunst Hamburg developed an "action space for transmitters and receivers in role-play" under the title "Modulator", cf. press release on the exhibition "Akademie. Kunst lehren und lernen", Kunstverein in Hamburg in co-operation with the Siemens Arts Program, Hamburg 2005; for Protoacademy cf. www.curatingdegreezero.org/protoacademy/protoacademy.html.


3. For the role of the Paris Academy in developing art in France cf. for example Harrison C. White/ Cynthia A White: Canvases and Careers. Institutional Change in the French Painting World, Chicago/ London 1993 (1965) and also Albert Boime: The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century, New Haven 1986.


4 Cf. Luc Boltanski/ Eve Chiapello: Die Arbeit der Kritik und der normative Wandel, in: Marion von Osten (ed.): Norm der Abweichung, Zurich/ Vienna/ New York 2003, pp. 67-68. Boltanski's and Chiapello's essay, first published in the "Berliner Journal für Soziologie", 4 (2002), sums up the principal theses of their study "Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus", Konstanz 2003 (French original 1999).


5 Cf. Thomas Lemke/ Ulrich Bröckling/ Susanne Krasmann: Gouvernementalität, Liberalismus und Selbsttechnologien. Eine Einleitung, in: Ulrich Bröckling/ Susanne Krasmann/ Thomas Lemke (ed.), Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen, Frankfurt am Main 2000, p. 30; cf. Siegfried J. Schmidt: Kreativität – Innovation - Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie, unpublished lecture manuscript, pp. 4-5. My thanks to Siegfried J. Schmidt for passing on the manuscript.


6 Cf. Marion von Osten (ed.): Norm der Abweichung, Zurich/ Vienna/ New York 2003. To justify the title of the publication (Standard of Deviation) it says here, p. 7: "If dissidence, criticism and subversion as the engine of modernization become the very conditions that they once started to undermine, abolish or at least to denounce, then the relationship between standard and deviation is reversed."


7 Cf. Louis Althusser: Ideologie und ideologische Staatsapparate. Aufsätze zur marxistischen Theorie, Frankfurt am Main 1977.


8 Pierre Bourdieu/ Loïc D. J. Wacquant: Die Ziele der reflexiven Soziologie. Chicago-Seminar, Winter 1987, in: Pierre Bourdieu/ Loïc D. J. Wacquant: Reflexive Anthropologie, Frankfurt am Main 1996, pp. 95-249, here p. 133.


9 Cf. Pierre Bourdieu: Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes, Konstanz 1998, pp. 25, 33.


10 Cf. James Elkins: Why Art Cannot be Taught. A handbook for art students, Urban/ Chicago 2001, esp. pp. 91-110.


11 Cf. for the handed-down artistic anecdote and the resulting image of the artists see the seminal account by Ernst Kris/ Otto Kurz: Die Legende vom Künstler. Ein geschichtlicher Versuch, Frankfurt am Main 1995 (1934).


12 For the charisma concept cf. Max Weber: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen 1922, pp. 140ff, 654ff. For the award of exceptional status by a community of like-minded people cf. Marcel Mauss: Soziologie und Anthropologie (vol. 1: Theorie der Magie. Soziale Morphologie), Frankfurt am Main/ Berlin/ Vienna 1978 (1959), p. 156.


13 Cf. Pierre Bourdieu: Die Regeln der Kunst. Genese und Struktur des literarischen Feldes, Frankfurt am Main 2001 (1999), pp. 227-249, 270-279. For this cf. also the formulation on the similarly defined field in science, same author (1998), loc. cit., pp. 26-27.


14 Cf. Bourdieu (1998), loc. cit., pp. 31-35.


15 Cf. Gert Melville: Der geteilte Franziskus. Beobachtungen zum institutionellen Umgang mit Charisma, in: Joachim Fischer/ Hans Joas (ed.): Kunst, Macht und Institution. Studien zur philosophischen Anthropologie, soziologischen Theorie und Kultursoziologie der Moderne. Festschrift für Karl-Siegbert Rehberg, Frankfurt/ New York 2003, pp. 347-363.


16 Simon Sheikh refers to art institutions as "the thing in between, the mediators, conversation partners, translators and locations of the meeting between art production and the formation of its "public"", Simon Sheikh: Öffentlichkeit und die Aufgaben der „progressiven" Kunstinstitution, http://republicart.net/disc/institution/sheikh01_de.htm. Starting with the political importance of the " in between", a programme organized by the Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst examines the perspectives of visual politics within dynamic border areas, cf. Beatrice von Bismarck (ed.): Grenzbespielungen – Visuelle Politik in der Übergangszone, Cologne 2005.


17 For gatekeeper functions cf. Raymonde Moulin : L´artiste, l´institution et le marché, Paris 1997 (1992), p. 48.


18 For the concept of the "rite of institution " in Bourdieu cf. Werner Fuchs-Heinritz/ Alexandra König: Pierre Bourdieu. Eine Einführung, Konstanz 2005, pp. 213-214.


19 On the scientific field, Bourdieu writes in relation to the risk of sacrificing the autonomy of the field as a result of external demands: "But it is certain that with increasingly incomplete autonomy for the field and increasingly marked distinctions between its worldly and specific hierarchies, the possibilities offered by its worldly powers to intervene in specific conflicts as well, especially in its powers of disposition over posts, money, contracts etc", same author. (1998), loc. cit., p. 36.


20 For the model functions of artistic work cf. in more detail Beatrice von Bismarck: Kuratorisches Handeln. Immaterielle Arbeit zwischen Kunst und Managementmodellen, in: von Osten (2003), loc. cit., S. 81-98.


21 For the consequences of the Bologna process and the implications of "quality management" for the development of higher education cf. Spillmann: Von Bologna nach Pisa. Ein Ausflug in die aktuelle Bildungslandschaft, in: Beatrice von Bismarck/ Alexander Koch (ed.): beyond education. Kunst, Ausbildung, Arbeit und Ökonomie, Frankfurt am Main 2005, S. 219-231.


22 Cf. Ulf Wuggenig: Es ist angerichtet. Der Bologna-Prozess im Spiegel der Sozial- und Künstlerkritik, in: Texte zur Kunst, (special issue: education), March 2004, 14/ 53, pp. 53-60, here p. 56.


23 Cf. Charles Harrison’s commentary as part of: Umfrage. No Guru No Method No Mater. Zur Methode und Zukunft der Lehre, in: Texte zur Kunst, (special issue: education), March 2004, 14/ 53, p. 127.


24 Cf. ibid. p. 56-57.


25 Cf. Michel de Certeau: Berichte von Räumen, in: ders.: Kunst des Handelns, Berlin 1988, pp. 218-219.


26 For the division of publics in Raymond Williams and a study of site-specific approaches relating to this classification cf. Miwon Kwon: Public Art as Publicity, in: Simon Sheikh (ed.): In the Place of the Public Sphere, Berlin 2005, pp. 22-31.


27 Involved in the project were Sylvia Bernhardt, Beatrice von Bismarck, Andreas Böhmig, Waling Boers, Stef Burckhard, Mehdi Chouakri, Manfred Eichel, Ulrich Gebert, Monika Grütters, Esther Hoyer, Francis Hunger, Christian Jankowski, Renate Jankowski, Alexander Koch, Alexej Meschtschanow, Regine Müller-Waldeck, Angela Schneider, Sascha Schniotalla, Juliane Wenzl, Diana Wesser, Thomas Wulffen, Arthur Zalewski.


28 Simon Sheikh: Anstelle der Öffentlichkeit? Oder: Die Welt in Fragmenten,