, , , , , , , ,

Part II: An Institution in the Making

Markus Miessen / 2010

Let’s start with a hypothesis: As it seems increasingly difficult to produce meaningful content within the institutionalized structures of major universities and academies, an ethical and content-driven approach to producing new knowledge can only be achieved from the outside – through the setting up of small-scale frameworks that are nestled on the margins. There are, of course, countless positive examples for such an approach, but it may still be worthwhile to outline the current situation by using an actual case.
As outlined in Beshara Doumani’s book Academic Freedom after September 11,1 the qualities of the academy, which are often taken for granted, have been exposed to a set of difficulties specifically after the September 11 attacks in the U.S., and, as a result, were endangered by a series of policy changes signed by the Bush administration. Although this has to be understood mainly as a U.S.-specific phenomenon, it has to be acknowledged that, in many universities around the globe, academic freedom and the notion of autonomous knowledge production has succumbed to a practice in which the academic professor is increasingly understood as no longer being a public intellectual, but an administrator and fund raiser, who –  through the politically correct and consensual politics of the given departments – becomes an income-generator for the university. Such an understanding fundamentally breaks from the idea of the academy as an external agent, uninterrupted by political and economic forces, and hence operating as a genuine center for intellectual production and a robust democratic public culture. It poses the question of how one can relate and intervene in complex situations today, when actually most time is being spent on administrative and fundraising purposes.
One could dismiss the following as a naïve and potentially idealistic notion, but academic freedom also includes critical perspectives on professional norms and the questioning of pre-established hierarchical power relations. The mission of higher education in this regard is also one that is focused on service to the public good, however one might want to interpret this. It seems that, as a result of the corrosive effects on the intellectual atmosphere in the academies, there needs to be a careful consideration and revision of whether turning universities into businesses is a model that sustains intellectual development, experimentation, and radical thinking. Most recently, one can trace certain practices through which a new model of academia is being rendered, one in which knowledge production is commercialized and sold as a product for the private good. In this context, the academy itself is often understood as a corporate service provider. It further raises the question of whether critical thought is able to survive in such corporative environments.
Alan Bloom’s prophetic book The Closing of the American Mind2 – though now dated – proclaimed as early as that 1980s that there was too much democracy within the American education, effectively arguing that the institution was leaving its direction to the students who did not know what they did not know. In 2005, the Rotterdam-based Berlage Institute recanted the clear leadership of Alejandro Zaera-Polo in favor of what they called at the time a curatorial board. A split within the gover-nance of the institution now delegated between Vedran Mimica (who would oversee content) and Rob Docter (who would oversee financial affairs). The split divorced architectural content from its economy, and was emblematic of what was to come.
Such a governing structure that effectively left the direction of the institution somehow between two parties not only left its direction at bay, but was also emblematic of an otherwise accepted, albeit unspoken, taboo within architecture: The exploitation and non-payment of the practitioners as fundraisers coupled with using students as service providers – what one could call an economic laundering of time – was perpetuated and propagated by the institution itself. This was exacerbated by the fact that the Berlage as a non-accredited -research lab became increasingly reliant on student -tuition to fund its endeavors, amidst rumors that it had been denied funding from the Dutch government. Students culled from the Asian upper classes who would pay the tuition (as opposed to European students who would opt for TU Delft, for example, whose program was accredited and whose tuition was less than one third of the Berlage’s) were not only at times grossly -under-qualified, but also could not speak English well enough to communicate verbally – the cornerstone of an education via critique, review, and discussion. Moreover, the faculty’s positions relied upon their bringing funding – i. e., a client – into the studio program. Hence, “You can teach, if you can fund” becoming the tag line and operating credo of the institution, which had by then been effectively turned into a corporation or a service provider for the client.
Bloom’s irony came full circle when the direction of the studio course was disputed by the students. Those who not only did not know, but also could neither understand nor communicate garnered the support of the administration such that the faculty was forced to redirect the studio according to their imperatives. The non-paid faculty was undercut by the split administration to grant governance of the studio to the paying students. On two levels, content was exchanged for economy. And educational democracy, it seemed, became an unwitting culprit, collaborator, and facilitator.
That is to say, rethinking academic freedom first and foremost entails the introduction of a counterculture set against the recent processes through which the academy becomes more and more homogeneous, consensual, and at the same time hegemonic: “The commercialization of education is producing a culture of conformity decidedly hostile to the university’s traditional role as a haven for informed social criticism. In this larger context, academic freedom is becoming a luxury, not a condition of possibility for the pursuit of truth.”3 Today, more than ever before, one should base responsible (academic) practice on a skeptical approach toward professional norms. This is precisely what lies at the very heart of what it means to be an academic. It claims the academy as a bastion or island of informed, independent, and alternative perspectives, a prerogative that emerges and should be able to thrive in a specific institutional context. However, is it still possible for such a prerogative to emerge in the given frameworks of today’s university structures?
There seem to be two essential difficulties that one is facing in such an environment today. One is the issue of administrative and economic exploitation; the other, and less obvious, is the misunderstanding that “real” knowledge is merely produced through professional competence: “As a result, whether a given publication or presentation is considered extramural or academic can be a complex matter, especially if what starts out as extramural activity within a given vocation turns out to constitute a separate area of professional competence over time (the case of Noam Chomsky is a good one).”4 The latter assumes that it is precisely the idea and practice of the professional that produces the most valuable results. However, the opposite seems to be the case: most surprising results and knowledge is being produced on the margins of such professional affectation. It emerges where “things,” existing and sometimes conflictual knowledge, start to overlap; not necessarily in a romantic trans-disciplinary way, but where professional, or better yet, expert thinking, collides with that of the outsider. Particularly in the U.S., the academy is recognized as a center for expertise. Sadly, such an understanding also demonstrates how, rather than being critically engaged, the academic practice is an isolated, long-term career plan.
In Paul Hirst’s seminal essay “Education and the Production of Ideas,” published in AA Files no. 29,5 he dismantles John Major’s rhetoric regarding the “cultural retreat with a defence of change.” Hirst argues, “Thus change is purely technical and economic, and our success in markets defines and circumscribes our modernity.” Hirst poses a relentless call for practitioners who are both willing to leave behind traditional modes of thinking and turn practice into a means of cultural and political involvement: “Above all, craft does not imply a retreat from the world, as do many of the academics who oppose the changes taking place within universities. If the university is to produce intellectuals capable of playing a role in political and cultural regeneration, it cannot afford to be cut off from the concerns of the people.” The academy should be able to offer a quasi-utopian space in which uninterested reflection, commentary, and research can be pursued. Such efforts should take place in either two ways: within an existing institutional academic body that, through its reputation and standing is able to raise the necessary financial framework for the execution of the research itself, or through an oppositional educational model, which is so small that no funding will ever disappear into the black wholes and untraceable institutional channels of the university. If the former model of existing university -education is being pursued, then the state should also assume its political role and responsibility of funding such educational activities. Given such a claim, one could argue for the recovery of a time when universities were smaller. An institution always exists as a set of echoes, in conversation with other bodies of knowledge. If such echoes can no longer be heard or even produced, it is time to move on and produce alternative modes of formalized knowledge production.
On March 8, 2010, e-flux journal launched issue 14, -co-edited by Irit Rogoff.6 In it, the reader is exposed to a series of urgently needed positions and theses regarding a reevaluation of contemporary models of education, considering how forms of learning and exchange can take place within flexible, temporary, and unstable configurations:
“All around us we see a search for other languages and other modalities of knowledge production, a pursuit of other modes of entering the problematics of ‘education’ that defy, in voice and in practice, the limitations being set up by the forces of bureaucratic pragmatism: a decade of increasing control and regulation, of market values imposed on an essential public right, and of -middle-brow positivism privileged over any form of -criticality – matched by a decade of unprecedented self-organization, of exceptionally creative modes of dissent, of criticality, and of individual ambitions that are challenging people to experiment with how they inhabit the field, how they inhabit knowledge.”7
Rogoff dwells on the dangers that are inherent in a model of education in which education itself is becoming a market economy geared toward profit and revenue. She points at the fact that, within the mainstream prevailing system of education, students are increasingly being treated as paying clients, whose access and conditions have worsened considerably. One of the major forces she holds responsible for this development is the Bologna Accord, which, she claims, drives an -education policy that attempts to fuse and streamline the former heterogeneous educational models and -realities of the former East and the former West into one knowledge tradition, “erasing decades of other -models of knowledge in the East and producing an -illusion of cohesion through knowledge economies and bureaucracies.”8
Florian Schneider, whose crucial thinking on collaboration was introduced in the chapter 69, further investigates the notion of disciplinarity and the problematic circularity that such an isolating and hermetic notion fosters: “It comes as no surprise that bodies of knowledge have been called ‘the disciplines.’ The disciplinary institutions have organized education as a process of subjectivation that re-affirms the existing order and distribution of power in an endless loop.”10 Schneider argues for an urgent need to revaluate the concepts of institutions and their opponents: “networked environments, deinstitutionalized and deregulated spaces such as informal networks, free universities, open academies, squatted universities, night schools, or proto-academies.”11 He introduces the term “ekstitutions” to distinguish between the need for both organizing practices (ekstitutions) and un-organizing them (institution) as a means to argue for an overdue concept of exclusivity: “By its very nature, the institution has to be concerned with inclusion. It is supposed to be open to everybody who meets the standards set in advance, while in ekstitutions admission is subject to constant negotiation and renegotiation.”12
To return to the Berlage Institute, which, under new leadership, claims to “provide the next generation of architects and urbanists with tools to better comprehend and intervene in the complexity of contemporary life.”13 But within a few years, the school has deteriorated from a once-challenging hub for critical thinking and extra-disciplinary production into what could be described as an industry-led environment in which teaching is only granted to those professors who bring in more money than they get remunerated for to teach. Such a framework is coupled with a series of double standards, which only speed up the deterioration of the institution. The highly problematic change in policy – toward a more business-friendly and corporation-supportive pedagogy – was also commented on by the Dutch government, which, as a result of the Berlage’s clear lack of criticality, severely cut the institute’s public funding. What is the value of a publicly funded institution that only caters to the industry, attempting to generate profit through the politics of employment? Its agenda is simple: more money. Economy is the primary concern, while pedagogy comes later.
In 2010, two of the Berlage’s studios were financed by two external companies, which is at the time the way in which the two directors saw the institution moving (note: the leadership of the institution has since been assumed by Jean-Louis Cohen). Such third-party funding is nothing particularly special or unheard of, especially in the U.S. However, if external funding and a severe lack of responsibility and pedagogical interest from the side of the academy mean that, consequently, students are simply being hijacked and used as free labor, then something within the sphere of education and responsibility has gone critically wrong. It becomes particularly problematic when such a development goes hand in hand with an unclear goal of the studio, a lack of content in terms of education and projects, as well as an active role of the external company in the definition and formation of the program. At the Berlage Institute, this practice has gone so far as to not only jeopardizes the autonomy of the academy, but also uses the students and program to fabricate products for the company. These products thereby produce a secondary economy for the client – for example, a book that can be used to promote the company to potential clients. At the academy, the company has effectively replaced the educator. They decide what has to be done, when, and how. The professor’s role has been turned into that of an administrator, an institutionalized manager for the client, someone who is expected to contribute his or her personal and professional contacts, and provide a certain amount of voluntary workers. In such a context, students pay 25,000 euro for a two-year program, but are actually misused to deliver free labor to corporate clients just so the institution can secure its existence.
This evidently has an effect on the way that professors teach: Their interest in no longer in what is being produced in the studio, but in the relationships established through it. Reviews of student work are used as presentations for clients. The so-called juries are staffed with more corporate representatives than academic or otherwise critical and intellectually guided staff. Furthermore, these presentations can no longer be used as a fruitful and highly needed intellectual and critical exchange, as the company is present and treated with white gloves in an intellectually callous and consensus-driven manner. If the client is happy, everybody is happy. But what is the learning experience for the student? What is the educator’s point of engagement? What does the institution gain apart from securing its own existence and the replication of corporate research? Some staff members, as well as students, were, from the beginning, against such a studio model, but nevertheless remained unheard. Moreover, the institution now finds itself in an incomprehensible practice of promoting double standards by, on the one hand, wanting to work on “real” projects, while, on the other, refusing to acknowledge what this entails. It goes without saying that such protocols and concepts of education are damaging to the institution, disrespectful toward the educators, and unacceptable in terms of the institution’s “concept of the student.” A carrot-and-stick practice is used in order to persistently increase the studio’s economic output, stringing the educators along as long as they provide the academy with capital; otherwise, they are dropped like a hot potato. Educators should not be personally vested in funding the studio they are teaching, nor should their salary be used to provide speakers, critics, student travel, and so forth. Interestingly, in the corporate environment, which this school mimics, the Berlage Institute’s conduct of employment would be understood and treated as illegal practice. Since there is no commitment to professors any longer, and educators are only ever given semester-long contracts, there is neither security in carrying out worthwhile research projects or inquiries, nor the possibility to really concentrate on the work. Since educators have become exchangeable due to economic considerations, no serious and in-depth research methodologies can be developed anymore.
It seems that, out of this crisis, at least at the moment, there are only two possible ways of exiting this vicious circle. One either commits to a conventional university, which takes on the responsibility as a place for education, and is also willing and capable to economically support education – meaning that they are able to both pay for their employees as well as to simply run their everyday activities, such as lectures, seminars, or workshops. Alternatively, another possibility is to set up externalized, small-scale structures, which allow for a process of constant reform, as envisaged by Schneider’s notion of the “ekstitituion.” This issue of scale as a crucial mode of practice is also problematized in Nicolas Siepen’s and Åsa Sonjasdotter’s e-flux contribution “Learning by Doing: Reflections on Setting Up a New Art Academy,”14 in which the authors distinguish two basic formats of education: state-run art institutions (or privately funded ones for that matter) and so-called self-organized structures, between “pre-existing positions to be filled, and unstructured, continuously reinvented positions.”15
While self-organized models often question and transform the way in which their participants learn and practice, it is standard that the way in which state universities or privately run institutions “suffer” from under-funding is not connected to the funding of the actual content-driven studios or research undertaken within the academy, but a lack of smart decision-making when it comes to the overbearing bureaucratic structures that these institutions have put upon themselves. Their “real” problem is management and profitability: “Perversely, a self-organized institution’s lack of funding is both its woe and its pride! In other words, when state institutions don’t function, they shut down, while self-organized “institutions” thrive, precisely because they “don’t function” [are not managed] to begin with.”16 However, there is, or at least should be, another clear distinction between a formalized institution and a self-organized structure. In the latter, one works for the sake of propelling research while probably being paid little or not at all. The former suggests a job description: If one is employed as a professor or educator, he or she should also be remunerated accordingly, as one is providing a clearly defined service, i. e., X amount of students per studio; X amount of lectures, tutorials, and reviews; X amount of hours per week; X amount of weeks per term. Ironically, the Berlage Institute was established as the latter: an unaccredited laboratory that was granted certain freedoms to operate outside the confines of the academy, and yet succumbed to the same pitfalls of the academy, which were paradoxically exacerbated by their somewhat unofficial status.
Given this framework, to return to the hypothesis, it seems increasingly relevant to produce other formats of educational engagement, coupled with alternative forms of learning, which still consider that institutional affiliation, prestige, and accreditation are part of what the student buys and, in all candor, needs.  Structural change will most likely be achieved from the outside rather than the inside. The small-scale frameworks nestled on the margins of state-controlled or privately funded education are more agile, flexible, and intelligent to generate content-driven approaches, and also create and participate in local projects as well as self-initiated collaborations. These are environments in which participants and contributors learn how to unlearn, critically consider the differences between practice and professionalism, develop a socio-political reading of their surrounding, and insert a criticality into the territory in which they operate. This was the driving force for me to initiate the Winter School Middle East, which will be articulated in the next chapter. Nicolas Siepen and Åsa Sonjasdotter pose the crucial question much more effectively and clearly than I ever did in the past: “For whom or what reason is this institution here?”17
In 2008, I initiated and eventually directed a roaming, small-scale, self-organized institution – or “ekstitution,” as Schneider would call it – in order to answer Siepen’s and Sonjasdotter’s question, which had not been asked yet: For whom or for what reason is this institution here? The school was supposed to be a first step toward a localized but nomadic engagement with critical environmental topics in the region.
At the time, the influx of U.S. and EU outsourced campuses in the United Arab Emirates, and more specifically Abu Dhabi and Dubai, had just geared up to the next level. Major U.S. universities and Ivy League schools were either already represented or on their way to opening up a campus in the Middle East. Interestingly, this was not so much the result of a sudden interest and content-specific endeavor in the region; on the contrary, it was an economic decision resulting from the September 11 attacks. After 9/11, many U.S. universities suffered from a lack of Middle Eastern graduate students, as their parents decided to no longer send them to the United States. Because of the way in which the U.S. university system is funded, such a collective decision made by a huge group of potential “clients” from the Middle East forced universities to move to where the clients are. What resulted was a huge development of academic collaborations, -cooperation, and outsourcing of campuses.
The first two years of the Winter School Middle East were executed in structural collaboration with the Architectural Association, London. Based on the belief that, through this different, smaller, but holistic scale of engagement, one could produce an alternative dimension to the large-scale educational export models that were implemented in the Middle East. Instead of bringing in teaching staff from only the West, we are interested in fostering a pool of local knowledge, driven by expertise from the wider region. In the first year, we gained local political sponsorship from the American University in Sharjah, together with the Third Line gallery in Dubai. This political sponsorship was necessary in order to carry out such a model in the UAE.
The first workshop comprised a body of forty-four students from countries and backgrounds as diverse as Lebanon, Italy, Iran, Germany, Palestine, Egypt, the UK, Korea, Bahrain, Greece, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Singapore, Mexico, Iraq, Latvia, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. At the onset of the twenty-first century, which is characterized by rapid processes in urbanization, it seemed relevant and necessary to foster an architectural culture that went beyond the practice of developing architectural and urban proposals, and furthered a discourse that would allow for unforeseen and surprising processes to take place, for uncertainty in practices that are often described through certainty and control, and that would generate conflicts where most practitioners would consider the solution to “problems.” This was not understood as a colonial necessity of moving in, as is the case with large-scale universities and campuses, but as a way to open up critical formats and small platforms to a pool of local practitioners and educators, who share an interest in working beyond the scale of the academic institution. Instead of delivering a mere critique, the Winter School engages locally and fuels a critical practice of involvement, discussion, and a culture of debate. Without fostering any neo-colonial attitudes, we attempted to pro-actively tackle some of the issues that are usually critiqued. It is only through direct involvement that we can interrogate spatial realities in a serious and lasting fashion: to be political outside the realm of politics. The first Winter School dealt with the issue of migrant labor, specifically investigating Dubai’s labor camps (“Learning from Dubai,” January 2008); the second Winter School, which took place in January of 2009, investigated the issue of “Spaces and Scales of Knowledge.”
Imagine a city without people. If Dubai’s immigrant population left, this is the scenario we would be facing. Over the past three years, critics’ favorite theme has been Dubai’s migrant workers, and particularly those in the construction industry; in short, the men who enable the emirate to develop at such a rapid pace. When I first visited Dubai, I was struck by the way that Western journalists, thinkers, and writers would continuously criticize the city’s ambitions – always falling back into the same mode of critique. But what was often forgotten or not mentioned is that, as a city and mode of cultural production, Dubai has been forced through modernity within less than two decades. This makes it an unprecedented phenomenon and place. What took almost a century in Europe, or in the “West” at large, happened, and continues to happen, in Dubai within the span of a couple years, regardless of the recent financial crisis. This development has created situations that are often difficult and challenging, and require an incredible amount of belief, ambition, and effort to deal with. A lot has happened in the last five years. While many journalists still criticize the treatment and conditions of the large construction labor population of Dubai, the first labor unions have been established. Although these processes do not happen over night, one could witness the changes beyond the physical envelope of the city, but also, and more interestingly, the development of what could be called a civic city and the ways in which new small-scale institutions and project spaces would, for the first time, emerge. Instead of approaching Dubai as a place that is purely read through the black goggles of pessimism, the Winter School’s method was to thoroughly investigate the urban structures and frameworks of civil society, while critically proposing environmental alternatives through direct but externalized involvement.
Based on a relentless belief in architecture as the tool for modernization, the spatial ambitions of Sheikh Al Maktoum are exhilarating. The city is constantly churning out superlatives, but none of the kind favored by the West. While Kassel’s documenta 12 discussed “what is to be done?” Dubai just does it and worries later. An armada of international construction consortia has put up an archipelago of exception, ranging from the world’s tallest structure to the world’s largest shopping mall. The 2007 Sharjah Biennial witnessed a shift, which has taken on unprecedented social and political issues. Instead of presenting a set of self-referential objects, it addresses excessive urban development, pollution, unilateral politics, and the misuse, abuse, and exhaustion of natural resources. Here, it seems that artistic and spatial practices managed to do what politics in the region are often incapable of: outright critique. As Rem Koolhaas writes in the introduction to Al Manakh: “The recycling of the Disney fatwa says more about the stagnation of Western critical imagination than it does about the Gulf cities.”18 The scale and speed of urbanization, particularly in Dubai, even dwarfs similar operations in China and India. But what can be learned from the accelerated urbanism in the Gulf? It seemed urgent to understand the Gulf’s transformation in a different light. Not with the goggles of pessimism, but with a genuine attempt to understand and utilize its dynamics, to take serious what is too often ridiculed.
According to Anselm Franke, the space of artistic production acts as an enabler: it is a space of possibilities and autonomy. Such a freedom creates a state of exception that inhabits a potentiality; it is confined to the individual rather than society at large. Franke criticizes Doug Aitken’s call for immersive image-worlds, Expanding the Image, Breaking the Narrative,19 as a longing for something that avoids direct conflict with context, social frameworks, and political protocols. He points at Aitken’s book as somewhat symptomatic of a missing registration and the danger of understanding the space of artistic production as neutral, and therefore does not have to react to its contextual framework. A similar intellectual operation needs to be undertaken when trying to understand today’s practices in the Middle East. We must no longer read, write, or act as if the framework didn’t change. Instead of critiquing or celebrating the images that these territories offer, we must try to understand and immerse ourselves in its multifaceted accounts, and hence try to break the image and expand the narrative. This arguably naïve ambition was introduced critically in the local context of Dubai, combining our own critical networks with local and regional intelligence. The intensive, workshop-based program was operated on the basis of a series of content units, each developing its own set of approaches toward the meta-agendas of “Migrant Labor and the City” (2008) and “Spaces and Scales of Knowledge” (2009). The individual, tutor-led units investigated different aspects of the emerging spatial realities of the Gulf region, with a local focus on Dubai. Units focused on the imagery of Google Earth as a strategic tool for the city’s global representation, the spatialization and location of migrant labor camps within Dubai’s urban fabric, an oral history archive of immigrants ranging from Bangladeshi construction workers to Russian sex workers to Korean informal mobile phone dealers to Eastern European architects to the German cultural consultant and the Sheikh. It is this transient nature of the city that the Winter School attempted to come to terms with. Several collaborations, including those with the Third Line gallery, Traffic design gallery, and Bidoun magazine, ensured that the results of the workshops would not evaporate, but instead build the starting point for an ongoing debate that would, optimistically speaking, also enable and generate effects on local and regional practices in the long run.
The Winter School is the direct result of realizing that the most relevant form of participation in the politics of local educational frameworks is a small-scale nomadic institution. In many ways, its approach is the reverse of the large-scale education export models of Western universities, where educators with little to no experience in the Middle East fly in on rolling contracts, and tend to leave after two to three years, only for their successors to arrive on the same contracts: little knowledge is left behind and little is continuously built up. The Winter School aims to critically build up momentum, which can then be claimed, taken over, and hijacked by locals in order to develop it further in their own right. This microcosm presents a starting point for alternative modes of production. The environment of the workshop – where information and knowledge are shared, where the production of space is not driven by political or cultural hierarchies, but a genuine belief in experiment through investigation – suggests a different way and model of working and learning, one where educators often learn as much from their students as their students do from them.
It is in this fashion that the Winter School will continue its efforts. Without falling into the trap of consensus-driven politics, it attempts to create and inhabit an alternative middle ground, one that produces a discursive space for a new and productive discussion to emerge, a space that inhabits the gray area between criticism and celebration.

Dieser Text ist eine abgeänderte Version von: Markus Miessen, „The Gray Zone between Criticism and Celebration: Winter School Middle East“, in: Ders., The Nightmare of Participation, Berlin 2010, S. 219–226.

1.) Beshara Doumani (Ed.), Academic Freedom after September 11. New York 2006.
2.) Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. New York 1988.
3.) Doumani, op. cit., p. 38.
4.) Op. cit., p. 125.
5.) Paul Hirst, “Education and the Production of New Ideas,”  AA Files, 29, 1995.
6.) Irit Rogoff (Ed.), e-flux journal, 14, 2010, http://e-flux.com/journal/issue/14 [10/27/2014]
7.) Irit Rogoff, “Education Actualized,” in: Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
8.) Ibid.
9.) Markus Miessen: „The Gray Zone between Criticism and Celebration: Winter School Middle East“, in: Idem, The Nightmare of Participation, Berlin 2010.
10.) Florian Schneider, “(Extended) Footnotes on Education,” in: Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
11.) Ibid.
12.) Ibid.
13.) See www.berlage-institute.nl.
14.) Nicolas Siepen, Åsa Sonjasdotter, “Learning by Doing: Reflections on Setting Up a New Art Academy,” Rogoff 2010, op. cit.
15.) Ibid.
16.) Ibid.
17.) Ibid.
18.) Rem Koolhaas, “Introduction,” in: Rem Koolhaas, Ole Bouman, Mark -Wigley (Eds), Volume 12: Al Manakh, New York/Amsterdam 2007.
19.) Doug Aitken, Broken Screen: Expanding the Image, Breaking the Narrative, ed. by Noel Daniel New York 2006.

[Dieser Text findet sich im Reader Nr. 2 auf S. 224.]

[Es sind keine weiteren Materialien zu diesem Beitrag hinterlegt.]

Markus Miessen

(*1978), Architekt und Autor. Er arbeitet zu Fragen kritischer Raumpraktiken, zum Aufbau von Institutionen und zur Raumpolitik. Studio Miessen arbeitet aktuell an Projekten für und mit EACC Castellon, Artsonje Seoul, Hamburger Kunstverein, Istanbul Biennale, Bergen Assembly, Witte de With, Kosovo National Gallery, und der Künstlerin Hito Steyerl. Zusammen mit Nikolaus Hirsch veröffentlicht er die Buchserie Critical Spatial Pratice (Sternberg Press). 2008 gründete er die Winter School Middle East. Er war Professor für Critical Spatial Practice an der Städelschule Frankfurt/Main und ist derzeit Gastprofessor an der HEAD Genf und der USC Los Angeles. Web: http://www.studiomiessen.com/


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aitken, Doug  ·  Chomsky, Noam  ·  Cohen, Jean-Louis  ·  Franke, Anselm  ·  Hirst, Paul  ·  Kolhaas, Rem  ·  Miessen, Markus