INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE AND THE LECTURE PERFORMANCE

Manuel Pessoa de Lima

Lecture performance has been historically seen as a practice highlighting tensions between knowledge, art making, and institutional frames. This essay investigates this practice in the context of institutional critique, in an attempt to disentangle the aporia of its institutionalization.

Lecture performance became an increasingly popular format after the 2000s, featured in numerous festivals and exhibitions, with works like Jerôme Bel's Spectator, Rabih Mroué's Pixelated Revolution, the re-enactment by Bob Wilson of John Cage's Lecture on Nothing, works by the theater group Forced Entertainment, among many others. Although 'lecture performance' is a now generally recognized term, its practices vary so much that formulating a definition becomes a challenging task. Further, because lecture performance cannot be understood purely by defining it (and thus limiting its scope), it is approached here as a strategy to navigate institutional critique.

The first section of this paper confronts the problem of institutional critique's institutionalization. The second section then discusses the implications of the lecture performance's definition in relation to institutional critique. In the third and fourth sections, while resisting the temptation to define lecture performance, concepts of presence and permeability become central, allowing for further discussion of aspects of lecture performance in Foucault's concept of the power-knowledge articulation. Finally, in the fifth section, despite refuting a canonic notion of lecture performance, this article approaches its practice in a postmodern context to finally reflect on its possibilities and limitations in the present day.

There is no outside: the third wave of institutional critique

In 1989, Andrea Fraser performed Museum Highlights, in which she developed a persona named Jane Castleton, a museum guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Instead of commenting on the artwork, she would address the building, including the bathrooms, gift shop, and so on, with the proper tone of an art commentator. Fraser\'s Highlights became an ironic pointer to the institutional context in which art is inserted, and today, this performance is often mentioned when tracing a genealogy of lecture performance. In 2005, while discussing her work to ArtForum, she stated: "So if there is no outside for us, it is not because the institution is perfectly closed, or exists as an apparatus in a \'totally administered society,' or has grown all-encompassing in size and scope. It is because the institution is inside of us, and we can't get outside of ourselves."¹ In this sense, the critique enacted by Museum Highlights (1989) progressed to an awareness of the institutionalization of critique.

Now, more than ever, institutionalization is pervasive. Throughout history there is always struggle between artists and institutionalized powers, the anti-art positionings of Dada and Marcel Duchamp are a case in point. Despite a long past of disagreements between artists and institutions, institutional critique became a term to denote the practice of a specific generation of artists in the late sixties, identified as the 'first wave' of institutional critique, which established a clear opposition to the traditional exhibition spaces, along with the rise of performance art and its resistance to art commodification.

Later, a 'second wave' of institutional critique links to postmodernism, when the discussion of the institution went beyond the traditional space to encompass all social, economic and cultural implications of artistic production and reception. In each of these stages, there was an underlying legitimization crisis. Since Duchamp, there was a decreased belief in the emancipatory process by which the concept of art conceived as 'high culture' used to play a major role. Postmodernism and the rise of cultural studies in the nineties increased the perception of art and social context as indissociable. It is no wonder that institutional critique, or at least an awareness of the institutional sphere, became almost a necessity for the relevance of a contemporary artistic practice after the late eighties. Legitimation thus became linked to the power of art to highlight (and sometimes denounce) cultural conditionings and institutional frames.

A possible 'third wave' is outlined by Transform, a three-year research project of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies (eipcp) "investigating the relation between institution and critique,"² in response to the increasing internalization of institutional critique by institutions, curators, and museums. Gerald Raunig and Gene Ray later selected a collection of articles from this seminar in a publication with articles including ones by Hito Steyerl, Simon Sheik, Paolo Virno, among others.³ It should be noted that this historicization according to 'waves' used by Transform is a didactical scheme that not only highlights but, in fact, supports the inscription of institutional critique into the canonic art discourse.

Olafur Eliasson, in conversation with Daniel Buren - an artist often associated with the 'first wave' of institutional critique - speaks about what might characterize this 'third wave': "there is no outside. Even the works outside of the institution are now a part of the institution in that sense."⁴ This observation resonates with Andrea Fraser's remark that "the institution is inside of us and we can't get outside of ourselves." According to Fraser:

...it is internalized in the competencies, conceptual models, and modes of perception that allow us to produce, write about, and understand art, or simply to recognize art as art, whether as artists, critics, curators, art historians, dealers, collectors, or museum visitors. And above all, it exists in the interests, aspirations, and criteria of value that orient our actions and define our sense of worth. These competencies and dispositions determine our institutionalization as members of the field of art.⁵

In a chapter of the book Art and Institutional Critique⁶ that came out of the seminar Transform, Simon Sheikh also observes that "there has been a shift, then, in the placement of institutional critique, not only in historical time but also in terms of the subjects who direct and perform the critique---it has moved from an outside to an inside."

What is lecture performance and its definition?

At The Public School⁷, a course description defines lecture performance as a practice acting on "the relationship between art and knowledge, respectively, research, as well as art and its mediation. It operates as a space in potential, at which debates on the conception of the 'artwork' can circulate. Developed in the 1960s as a sub-genre of performance art the lecture performance has returned to the field of contemporary art during the last decade."⁸

Naturally related to the activity of artists who consider teaching a core component of their artwork (like Joseph Beuys and Robert Morris),⁹ lecture performance does not necessarily comply with the didactical prerogative of a lecture; on the contrary, most of the time it creates friction with its context: "at its best, it creates conversational spaces that interrogate the social conditions and processes of knowing."¹⁰ It enables the tension with institutionalized aspects surrounding the art world and academia, perhaps as a result of the increasingly corporate academic outlines¹¹ and professionalization of art festivals worldwide. When lecture performance acquires "a reading which tends to be canonical, [and] attributes the lecture-performance its own genealogy, history, range of action and key-figures, treating it like a specific and more or less autonomous genre,"¹² it loses its potential for tension with the institutional sphere. Indeed, "it is precisely such educational interpretations that appear to work against the potential of the lecture performance format, in many cases involuntarily promoting a concept of genre and media specificity, which seeks to keep a tight rein on the method of the lecture performance whose primary goal is precisely to work against such containment and frustrate the status of information."¹³

As it creates tension with institutional frames, the lecture performance resists definitions, and to define it is to embrace such institutionalization. Encompassing many different approaches, the term became popularized in the early 2000s when there was an internalization of institutional critique by art and academic institutions. While the practice of lecture performance occurs within institutional frameworks, it also enables a disclosure of that same institutional belonging by maintaining an unstable positioning within it. In this sense, its potential for creating an outside is importantly tied to this instability. Hito Steyerl prefaced a lecture by stating: "This is not Research. This is not Theory. This is not Art."¹⁴ While undefined, lecture performance becomes a transitory space, both in and out of the institutional context. And the outside, for Andrea Fraser, cannot be fixed: "There is, of course, an 'outside' of the institution, but it has no fixed, substantive characteristics. It is only what, at any given moment, does not exist as an object of artistic discourses and practices."¹⁵

It is clear why the lecture performance has gathered an increasing interest in the last decade, becoming a fashionable artistic platform among festivals, galleries, curators, critics, artists, and performers. While there are still very few longer publications that approach lecture performance, there are already several articles from diverse authors discussing its characteristics and even proposing genealogies. In recent years Tate Modern has held a conference incorporating lecture performance (named Characters, Figures and Signs), as has the Kölnischer Kunstverein and MoCA Belgrade, which dedicated an entire exhibition to lecture performance. Mark Leckey approached lecture performance as part of his installation Cinema in The Round which won the Turner Prize in 2007. In 2010, the Whitechapel Gallery inaugurated a video archive solely dedicated to lecture performance. Nowadays, anyone researching lecture performance online can find a lecture performance lineage with its roots in speech-based performances tracing back to the late sixties (for example, Robert Morris' Lecture 21.5, Joseph Beuys' How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare, David Antin's Talk Pieces and John Cage's Lecture on Nothing).

Though it may seem that lecture performance is, therefore, already institutionalized, its reflexive nature and flexible format might still be capable of subverting its formalizations. While its critical potential bears, (as with authoritarian voices), the same weapon -the spoken word- the discourse alone will not create the same level of institutional friction if a 'neutral addresser' disconnected from personal subjectivity delivers it. This subjectivity, with its singularity, can blur propositions, imploding an institutional outline. The institutional sphere becomes a personal matter as it became internalized within ourselves, or as Andrea Fraser puts it:

Finally, it is this self-questioning - more than a thematic like 'the institution,' no matter how broadly conceived - that defines institutional critique as a practice.¹⁶

While a definition of lecture performance incurs in an institutionalizing impulse, it is still necessary to delineate its features to be able to comment on its potential to defy or deflect institutionalization. An alternative to definition and genealogy is the idea of 'gaze,' which "is not the act of looking itself, but the viewing relationship characteristic of a particular set of social circumstances."¹⁷ In this sense, the most tedious exposition on a symposium can be perceived as a lecture performance if one notices how its form articulates an institutional positioning. This gaze is not just directed at the performative qualities of a lecturer, but also at how their performance is inscribed in the institutional context to which it is supposed to belong, and how it conforms to or creates tension with it.

The embracing of the quotidian in the art world encompasses this gaze. Since conceptual art's establishment, context, meaning and purpose, including political engagements, institutionalization, and biographical, processual and quotidian aspects, have become a familiar set of problems confronting artists. When approaching lecture performance, Rike Frank refers on how David Antin's practice as an art critique informed a diverse 'lecture sensibility,' where it would be impossible to think of a lecture without its performative and contextual implications. This new 'lecture sensibility' is part of broader historical context since the late sixties in which the blurring of boundaries between production and reception shaped new approaches to practices of exhibiting.¹⁸

The 'legacy' of questioning legitimation discourses and meaning in the arts, since Duchamp, also comprises a contextual ground to enable any artist to approach lecture quite naturally as an art form. Joseph Beuys is an emblematic case of the incorporation of teaching as art. In an interview by Sharp Willoughby on ArtForum he declared:

To be a teacher is my greatest work of art. The rest is waste product, a demonstration. If you want to explain yourself you must present something tangible. But after a while this has only the function of a historic document. Objects aren't very important for me anymore. I want to get to the origin of matter, to the thought behind it.¹⁹

Many artists post-1960 have assumed a public discourse -in interviews, workshops, forums, and so on. This ubiquity of this discourse has paved the way for many approaches combining lecture and performance. On the one hand, this diversity allows the term 'lecture performance' to have many instances and practitioners, and on the other hand, it further obfuscates any coherent definition.

However, when speaking of this specific practice of lecture performance, several works are commonly referred to. For instance, Dan Graham's Audience/Performance/Mirror (1967), a piece in which he delivers a continuous explanation of his own body and disposition to an audience while looking himself in a mirror, producing an explanatory feedback loop. Similar manifestations in dance are in Xavier Le Roy's Product of Circumstance and Jêrome Bel's work. Jêrome Bel developed two performances that are explicitly linked to speech: Veronique Doisneau (2004), where the performer speaks directly to the public about her last solo, and A Spectator (2009), where Bel talks directly to the audience about his own experience with dance. Robert Morris' lecture 21.5 (1964) is an important reference, as an early lecture performance example, in which he lip-syncs to a 1939 lecture on video by the art historian Erwin Panofsky. These are just some examples of a practice that has already included dozens of historic performances. One element most of them share is the importance of presence. When there is "no outside," the idea of presence becomes a starting point to dismantle institutional cooptation from within, and remains a fundamental concept for lecturing and performing.

Presence as a way out of a feedback loop

The 'total proliferation of the institution\' is reflected in academia as a kind of anti-academic feedback: the anti-academic as an academic discourse. "The call to move beyond the University outside academicism is not a response to an act of repression by the University; it is a response to the repressed of the University itself...The wish to get out of the confines of academe is a wish structurally situated within those confines."²⁰

Lecture performance incurs the risk of endless feedback, as does the anti-academic as academic practice, or institutional critique absorbed by institutions. Another manifestation of this feedback is the hermeneutic circle. The hermeneutic circle is the never-ending interpretative activity of interpreting interpretations. It reproduces in the field of short narratives, embracing all sorts of associations and producing more 'knowledge,' in the form of publishable articles, symposia, and so on.

In commenting that "the wish to get out of the confines of academe is a wish structurally situated within those confines,"²¹ Bill Readings points to a similarly circular problem. The radical type-like postures of the late 1960s align with the corporate high education business -identified by Readings as "the excellent university"- encouraged "incorporating campus radicalism as proof of the excellence of campus life or of student commitment."²² As a way out from this circle, Readings pays tribute to presence -in this case, to the presence of the teacher. In his view, the teacher should not be regarded as, or expected to be, a neutral addresser in a linear sender-receiver relationship. This neutrality makes the teacher simply a mechanism for 'administering' students through expositions, tests, and evaluations. The presence of the teacher is not there "to recenter [teaching] but to decenter it ... Pedagogy cannot be understood apart from a reflection on the institutional context of education."²³

The idea of presence, also crucial for the emerging of performance art in the sixties, encompasses the personal (private) sphere within the institutional (public) sphere, including the institutional context of education. It can evoke a critical position without falling into 'academic feedback.' The notion of presence creates an alternative to the anti-academic discourse that can become absorbed in the academic environment.

Presence thus naturally links to an idea of singularity, opposing generalizations. In the same way that anti-academic discourse is absorbed into academia, the institution also absorbs multiculturalism. Broad categories (race, gender, class, sexual orientation, nationality etc.) have become integrated as cultural capital of distinguished schools,²⁴ while being conformed into the credit system. Opposition to these general categories invokes the concept of singularity. The idea of singularity, borrowed from Deleuze and Guattari, implies that "there is no longer a subject-position available to function as the site of the conscious synthesis of sense-impressions."²⁵ One is perceived by one's singularity and not by the categories to which one might belong. In this way, the lecturer escapes being a 'category representant' and can act in the specificity of personal questionings. While the 'professionalization of teaching' asks for the avoidance of an excessive exposure of personal matters, in the lecture performance these can become legitimate source material.

The lecturer's singularity, no longer acting as a mere mechanism for delivering information, also enables a way out of the hermeneutic circle. Not surprisingly, many lecture performances refuse to deliver a clear message, refute their didactic prerogatives, or obscure information, thus allowing them to highlight the context in which they are inscribed. This is not, of course, the only approach to lecture performance. In fact, its approaches are extremely diverse and include such a variety of media that the sole common thread is one of permeability. While presence can halt a hermeneutic cycle, permeability allows a dialogue with an 'outside' that has no fixed characteristics.

Permeability and the power-knowledge articulation

In lecture performance, the potential for defying institutional frameworks is closely related to the possibility of integrating diverse art forms, contexts, and practices to the point where there is no precise distinction between lecture and performance. For example, Xavier Le Roy's Product of Circumstance combines movements and speech in such a way that it is hard to discern if one would characterize it as a lecture intercalated with dance movements or a dance performance intercalated with speech.

This connection between multiple media and the notion of presence is fundamental to the emergence of performance art in the late sixties, and its claim against the 'commodification of art'. The paradox is that, by being established as a field, it became at the same time commodifiable and acquired its own 'membrane.' Even though performance art works across media, it seems to have acquired borders.

Defining lecture performance then becomes a question of navigating its autonomy as a practice and its hybridism. In any case, as a critical practice, a concept of lecture performance needs to be more than just the understanding of lecture as a performative act. The ideas of presence and permeability encompass the critical potential of the body in relation to a binomial frequently used by Foucault: power-knowledge.

While institutional outlines are always 'language games,' the lecture can reflect and invert its propositions while at the same time keeping the 'non-verbal' instantiation of the body as an active player in the effort to destabilize context. Presence, singularity, and the body can be seen as nodes from which speech can create tension and highlight a power structure. The power-knowledge formulation, after all, is exercised by, and indissociable from, the body.

This system of tensions, however, is not binary, even if tension presupposes the existence of opposite poles. It is possible to think of lecture performance as a string-figure game, where presence, body, singularity, power, and knowledge can produce the most diverse configurations. A very similar operation is performed by Foucault when looking through the history of prison,²⁶ madness,²⁷ and sexuality.²⁸ Foucault de-centers narratives by looking at how body, power, and knowledge perform myriad dispositions. By identifying these dynamics, he is not only disclosing the past but also rethinking history as an academic discipline. This same decentering attitude can enable the institutional critique in contemporary artistic practices; a focal point to this attitude is the body.

Observing how the body is inscribed within a system of forces becomes a strategy to decenter narratives. When reflecting on the birth of prison in Discipline and Punish Foucault speaks about the Panopticon, an architectural structure that illustrates how the adoption of a 'centralized model' is in the genesis of the modern prison, schools, and a model for controlling and managing bodies in general. The Panopticon embodies the authority of reason over the bodies supposed to be surveilled. Lecture performance tends to destabilize the panopticon-model in the same way some of Foucault\'s writings do, by highlighting its mechanisms and playing with its structures.

Lecture performance and postmodernism

Historically, while manifestos, spoken interventions, or lectures like Duchamp's Creative Act speech were an essential part of modern art, they were not practices and acknowledged as creative work because the technological, social, and institutional contexts were "not yet in a position to accept the lecture as an art form."²⁹ In this sense, such lectures or manifestos were not themselves the target of an institutionalization process; rather, they were its enablers: acts aimed to 'institute' a modern artistic practice for posterity. If one considers the lecture performance as an anti-institutional practice, it is then almost opposite to the manifesto. The lecture performance can be easily aligned with a postmodern sensibility because it does not necessarily advocate for something.

The proliferation of information in the internet age further dissolved notions of centralized or absolute knowledge, opening up a legitimation crisis.³⁰ This crisis now extends beyond epistemological questions to permeate the political sphere, including democracy and its institutions. Lyotard navigates this postmodern condition³¹ underlining the Wittgensteinian concept of language games. Instead of a univocal legitimating discourse, there is a myriad of types. Scientific discourse is approached as one kind of discourse among many others, encompassing specific language games, operating on denotative, prescriptive, and other kinds of utterances. The institutionalization of knowledge does not become tied to a notion of knowledge per se, but instead to a perception of knowledge legitimated by the market and supported by an economic system. The language game of academia is tied to its economic dynamic. At the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, a second generation (or 'second wave') of institutional critique was already absorbed into a landscape where capitalism became a reality permeating institutions and causing them to progress to 'the absence of an outside.'

As a postmodern expression, lecture performance can be understood as "meta-lecture," or event that discloses its conditions, highlighting the implications of the production of knowledge. Xavier Le Roy in his lecture performance Product of Circumstances declares:

I was learning the importance of publication and that publishing articles is the scientist's best way to create and protect his position in society...I was learning that research has to follow and use the methods of capitalism. I was asked to produce science, and not to search.³²

The emulation of 'academic language games' also became a way to criticize institutional contexts of knowledge, as in the V-Girls performing The Question of Manet's Olympia: Posed as a panel discussion with all the typical rituals of mediation and public exposition.³³ By emulating a panel discussion, their performance operated as a metalinguistic practice commenting on this specific language game.

Postmodernism itself is a term with multiple connotations. Within this article postmodernism is understood as reflected upon in Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, where he points to the shift of status of knowledge, the multiplicity of language games and finally the decline of the grand narrative -a teleological sense of historical development.

For Lyotard, the coexistence of multiple language games is tied to this decline of the grand narrative in favor of short narratives. This perspective resonates with Foucault's notion of the micropolitical. The presence of the lecturer in its performative singularity, which at times includes a great degree of personal and confessional aspects, positions the lecture in a micropolitical context as a node within the texture of multiple short narratives.

Conclusion

So far, this paper has tried to outline some relevant questions concerning the potential of lecture performance for institutional critique and the risk of its own institutionalization. If lecture performance remains a powerful critical tool, it is because it always operates with some sort of deviation. Its impact, most of the time, is related to its twist on an established context. It is like a trick or surprise enabled because of its context -the institutionalized context- is powerful enough to produce tension when altered. Ironically, as its practice becomes more disseminated, it may become harder to maintain its vitality. In the long run, the transgressive power of a lecture performance operates to accommodate a reality where this transgression may turn out to be simply conversational.

In its tensioning with established contexts, the lecture performance generates a dialectic, circling a binary -institution-X-transgression- but its development leads to the dismantling of a dialectic towards the dialogic, a concept borrowed from Bakhtin.³⁴ With an audience increasingly informed and aware of the blurring of boundaries between art and knowledge, the institutional critique gives way to a multitude of "institutional mutations." To say that lecture performance is already institutionalized would be an oversimplification of the co-opting mechanisms of the art and academic markets, but, of course, lecture performance is not immune to its own valorization.

The challenge posed by its own acknowledgment is the one of 'opening up for questions,' which is, in fact, the natural development of most lectures. Development comprises a first stage where ideas are demolished and constructed, where a landscape is constituted, and a second stage where finally an active audience is recognized. The tension with the institutional sphere operates within a dialectic between the performer and an established context. This dialectic enacts collisions, transformations, and inversions. But in the end, when the result comes forth and the situation is established as a performance, the performance demolishes the lecture and, as a result of this process, the performance context loses the ambiguity capable of creating institutional tension.

This is a similar problem to the interpretative feedback of the hermeneutic circle. As elaborated above, this feedback can be dismantled only by letting go of meaning and embodying presence, or through a kind of 'psychoanalysis' of the feedback system. One strategy is non-discursive, and the other is over-discursive, but both are dialectic. When the result of this dialectic is achieved, when there is a sense of closure or accommodation, this establishing of the new context becomes nothing more than a point in the loop -a loop that could infinitely lift and implode, in a sequence of alternating frames.

At this point, it is interesting to form a distinction between lecture performance and performance lecture. Considering that lecture performance has no canonic definition, the differentiation between lecture performance and performance lecture serves only to highlight the loop resultant from the dialectic between performance and lecture. If a lecture performance is the tensioning with the context of a lecture, the performance lecture could be understood as the establishment of a regular lecture as a performance. In this sense, a TED Talk could figure as an example of performance lecture, where there is an accommodation of a performance context over a lecture context, but the lecture itself is not deconstructed and does not carry any metalinguistic feature. The information in a TED talk aims to entertain an interested audience by exposing them to a dynamic and scripted 15-minute talk----a well-performed lecture. The lecture performance, on the other hand, is a performance that uses the 'language game' of a lecture to tension or plays with its context.

Ultimately, to retain its inherent ambiguity, lecture performance has to fail. Failure, in this case, should be understood as a softening of the lecture performance's own purpose, i.e. creating tension with an established context. That does not mean resolving tension, but is rather an attempt to keep it unresolved, to encompass dissent, highlighting the gap between lecturer and audience to give way to a dialogic model.

To elaborate his notion of the dialogic,³⁵ Bakhtin claims that the person receiving a message modulates it and constructs it. Bakhtin proposes an alternative to the dialectic process based on the presupposition that language operates between neutral recipients. The shift from a dialectic model to a dialogic refers to not only what lecture performance might be, but what pedagogy might be. As Bill Readings states:

First of all, the scene of teaching should be understood as a radical form of dialogue ... In this respect, I am evoking the dialogue form in order to refuse the modernist privileging of the sender over the addressee, to refuse the figure of the lone artist who synthesizes reality through either a rational understanding or a romantic effort of will.³⁶

Finally, the opening of a dialogical horizon, the softening of contexts, and the embracing of failure can facilitate the moment when the lecturer opens for questions. Hopefully, some of them will be left unanswered.

Works cited

Badiou, Alain. Being and Event. Translated by Oliver Feltham. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson. Revised ed. edition. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Homo Academicus. Translated by Peter Collier. 1 edition. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Fraser, Andrea. From the Critic of Institutions to an Institution of Critique. Artforum. Vol. 44, Iss. 1, Sep. 2005, p. 278-285.

Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. Production of Presence. Stanford (Calif.): Stanford University Press, 2004.

Habermas, Juergen. Legitimation Crisis. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. 1 edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975.

Le Roy, X. Product of Circumstances; in: Klein, G. and Sting, W. (eds.) Performance:

Lippard, Lucy R. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Reprint edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois, and Fredric Jameson. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. 1st edition. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 1984.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Arthur C. Danto. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Revised Edition. Translated by Marion Faber and Stephan Lehmann. Lincoln, Neb: Bison Books, 1996.

Readings, Bill. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Rike Frank; When Form Starts Talking: On Lecture-Performances. Afterall 33 (2013), Web. 1 November 2013.

Sheik, Simon. "Notes on Institutional Critique", Transversal Texts, 01, 2006. Web

Vietri, Gabrielle. An investigation of the lecture in and as art. Master thesis. Monash University, 2013.

Footnotes