“Institution as a Solution?” — Agata Kok

Camillo Golgi’s image of a dog’s olfactory bulb from his Sulla fina anatomia degli organi centrali del sistema nervoso, 1885. Via: The Public Domain Review. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

In Living a Feminist Life, feminist scholar Sara Ahmed (2017) states: “When you expose a problem you pose a problem. It might then be assumed that the problem would go away if you would just stop talking about or if you went away,” noting that the act of naming injustice is often treated as the source of disruption rather than the structures that produce it (Ahmed 2017). This insight resonates strongly with Anne Breure’s approach to institutional critique from within, particularly through 100 Dagen Huis (100 Days House). The project emerged after Veem Huis voor Performance in Amsterdam received only one-third of its annual budget. Rather than compensating for this shortfall or continuing operations as usual, Breure chose to run the institution for only one-third of the year.

100 Dagen Huis did not aim to offer a solution – instead, it formulated a statement regarding the issue at the core: chronic underfunding and budget cuts in the cultural sector. By materializing scarcity instead of smoothing it over, Breure’s action made the consequences of funding decisions tangible, demonstrating how abstract policy choices directly shape the conditions under which culture is produced. In this sense, the project operates not only administratively but also performatively. It foregrounds institutions not as fixed entities, but as processual formations, continually produced through institutionalizing practices.

At the same time, Breure recognizes the deep embeddedness of cultural institutions within larger frameworks such as neoliberal capitalism. Even when critical gestures succeed in generating visibility and awareness, they do not necessarily result in structural change. Capitalism’s capacity to absorb and neutralize dissent—to commodify critique and strip it of its disruptive force—often renders such gestures ineffective over time. From this perspective, 100 Dagen Huis can also be read as reproducing the very logic it seeks to resist: adapting to diminished resources, continuing to function, and remaining productive despite systemic erosion.

This tension resonates with Audre Lorde’s much-invoked statement “For the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” (Lorde 1984). While such tools may allow temporary gains within existing structures, they cannot bring about fundamental transformation. Breure’s project therefore raises a persistent question: to what extent is meaningful institutional change feasible from within the institution itself? Alternatively, might a more viable form of institutional critique lie in a parasitic relationship to institutions, as proposed by a Polish artist Arek Pasożyt in Manifest Pasożytnictwa (Parasite Manifesto)—extracting resources in order to sustain alternative artistic practice without attempting to rehabilitate corrupted systems that may be structurally beyond repair (Pasożyt 2010)?

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2017. Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Audre Lorde. 2016. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press.

Pasożyt, Arek. 2010. “MANIFEST PASOŻYTNICTWA.” Pasożyt. 2010. https://parasite.pl/pl/manifest-pasozytnictwa/