CHANGE: Culture Under Pressure

The theme of “Culture Under Pressure: Censorship, Pivots, and Alternative Practices” has, unironically, made me feel pressure. Yet, nearly all of us have engaged with alternative spaces - either by running one, exhibiting in one, or simply visiting... a basement, garage, a window, the trunk of a car, an apartment, or a back/front yard. You name it. It's clear that alternative and DIY practices are embedded across artistic communities. I'd like to think this is partly because we seek ways to experiment, showcase, and realize ideas beyond institutional constraints when those frameworks fail. One can trace a line of ideas that move from policed or censored institutions (that often rely on funding that carries external constraints) to all types of spaces, especially alternative ones. While DIY and alternative spaces are celebrated for their autonomy and innovation, they exist within a society marked by systemic inequalities. Recognizing who historically had access to resources, networks, or safe spaces helps us appreciate those who carved out alternative spaces despite these barriers. So, what is (and is not) an alternative space? Spoiler alert: I can't answer that.

I like to think of alternative spaces and practices as Autonomous Zones, a concept developed by David Graeber (although, it has many names with many theorists as authors). An Autonomous Zone (AZ) is essentially a space of temporary freedom, outside of formal control, without interference from state, corporate, or institutional authority. AZs embody self-sufficiency/autonomy, ephemerality, resistance, accessibility, direct participation, and flexibility. They function as both response and antidote to how museums and cultural institutions censor ideas, revealing these institutions' role as gatekeepers to legitimacy, and protectors of established hierarchies, rather than innovators and cultural drivers.

This tension between institutional rigidity and flexible practice resonates strongly with painter and critic Manny Farber's distinction between White Elephant Art (monumental, institution-driven, and rigid) from Termite Art (values scalable, detail-driven, iterative processes over finished products). In the 2018 exhibition One Day at a Time: Manny Farber and Termite Art, curator Helen Molesworth uses Farber's practice within the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles (MOCA) to show how institutional structures may dilute artistic intent, highlighting the tension between process and rigidity within bureaucracy. [1]  By contrast, alternative spaces are flexible and responsive, able to pivot and evolve with their communities—reflecting the logic of AZs and Termite Art.

One compelling example is in Cortney Cassidy's essay, “A soft manifesto”, where she describes her practice's agility based on her ethos of community, care, and anti-capitalism, letting feedback and context shape both process and output. [2] Like an AZ, her work prioritizes relational, participatory, and emergent forms over fixed products, adapting to the needs and contributions of those involved. This is also reflected in Olivia Laing's book, Funny Weather: Art in an Emergency. [3]  Laing explains how artists under conditions of censorship often turn to practice as a form of survival, solidarity, and sometimes a temporary place to project their voice. [4] Alternative practices become a sanctuary for imagination, dissent, and experimentation.

These examples expand the idea that Autonomous Zones are purely physical spaces. They are, at their core, practices. They are ongoing, evolving, learning-centered and rooted in community and communication. During my preparation I found endless articles and examples of alternative spaces and practices. This brings forward the case to defend “pressure” – as it rarely kills culture, it forces a pivot. Artists and communities pivoting to AZ's like apartment galleries, underground shows, zines, mutual aid, DIY collectives, essays, free schools…all attentive to detail, connected to community and providing something that is necessary.

Thinking about this topic, which touches so many practices, I came up with an inexhaustive list of questions:

• What are the expectations we're taught to have of institutions and museums (or large format cultural drivers)? Why do we hold onto these expectations?
• How can we hold them accountable for presenting culture/being custodians of conscience while also expecting them to be innovative and reflect contemporary urgency?
• Do we give institutions too much cultural responsibility?
  • Does expecting them to present historical/archival shows alongside innovative and challenging exhibitions produce the pressure we're reacting to?
  • Alternative spaces as defined by the conditions of the institution: What else can we define alternative spaces by?
  • Is there another, more appropriate name for such spaces?
• Is there a solution to having these spaces be more sustainable, so they also have inherent legitimacy by way of longevity?
  • Should these spaces thrive over time? What are the pros/cons?
  •  Is it possible to balance artistic integrity with financial sustainability?
• Is it possible to say that alternative spaces are not supplements to but necessary experiences that are symbiotic with institutions?
• Is it possible for an institution to honor Termite Art in its true form?
• What role does community involvement play in the success of DIY art spaces? What are best practices?
• Can we share our favorite DIY/Alternative spaces and practices in a shared spreadsheet?