Work in progress...

By Ingrid Katrine Amundsen

Tate Gallery of Modern Art in London or colloquially; "The Cathedral of Modern Art", has a unique status within the art world as being a sacral place or site for exploring modern art; which should be met with respect and devotion or handled with care. The gallery houses key works from our modern art history, and the building itself is an innovative architectural masterpiece; a grand Cathedral, designed by the Swiss architects; Hertzog and de Meuron (2000-16), and the English architect; Scott (1940s). This gallery; in this city; has a major impact on the art world; particularly in shaping its conditions. The art institution's location; London, is not only regarded as a global financial capital, but also a strategic city within the art world; one of the spearheads of innovation within this system. London's diverse social identity expressions, its powerful milieu of Avant-gardes, its institutional attributes, its capitalist forces and its concentrations of different cultures, is what makes the city: a breakthrough place for new ideas! London is a metropolis were beliefs, judgements and convictions breaks, transforms, evolves and change. It enables and simultaneously constrains refractions of opinions, expressions and utterances, through natural selection processes, that are influenced by the Avant-garde, the capitalists, and art as an institution. The institutional art world; as a system, is; in sum, a phoenix of evolution, struggles, systemic functions and refractions. Through transformation from within or self-organizing; new arrangements of resources and new alignments of power, may occure. These radical system changes, may again turn into a reconfiguration of the institutional art world, as a whole, and affect the way our art world is heading; its directionality. In a reconfiguration of the institutional art world as a system or simply a change of direction; the cities; their Avant-gardes and artists, their art institutions and their capitalists, plays a key role: they act on behalf of the institutional art world. London is therefore a hotbed of powerful actors that may (or may not) encourage system changes -- births!

In this hotbed, I was on my way to Tate during a heatwave in London (15-20th of July 2016). I first dropped by Shoreditch to have my own personal moment as I was exploring the street art in Shoreditch, and the crowded Colombia Road Market. Running late to a lunch appointment at Tate Modern; I was forced into the tube, and listen to "contemporary music gone wrong". To be honest my scepticism was brooding before I even had entered the South Banks; my destination, and the site of Tate Gallery of Modern Art. It was a hot Sunday at 17th of July, and it seamed as though the whole city had headed for Tate, to cool their heads down. The hectic lot of people, didn't exactly facilitate a spiritual moment, but all of a sudden I was in front of the ONE most groundbreaking piece of art history since its origin; Marcel Duchamp's urinal, titled the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917). Suddenly I recalled why I once started studying art history, and why my scepticism for institutional art is expanding. Though, I am not the first person to pose questions on 'art as an institution'. Institutional criticism started out with Duchamp and the twenties Avant-garde. However; prior to the Avant-garde of the early twentieth century, the institutional art world and its modernist Avant-garde's offspring, was marked by core historical events and incidents of the mid and late nineteenth century, that enabled the Avant-gardes to emerge as a movement. However, the first out to mark a change in mindsets into the modern, was thus, eighteenth century Kant; with his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Critique of Judgement (1790). Nonetheless, significant scientific, philosophical works and inventions of the nineteenth century, were: Marx's Communist Manifesto (1848), Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), Clerk-Maxwell's Theory of Electro Magnetic Radiation (1873), and First movie camera patented (1891) (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996b, pp. 926-927). Peak artworks were: Goya's The Third of May (1808), Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People (1830), Courbet's Buriel at Ornans (1849), (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996b, pp. 926-927). Later came Manet's Luncheon on Grass (1862), A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1882), Rodin's Burghers of Calais (1886), as well as Cézanne's Mont Sainte-Victorie With Viaduct (1887) (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996b, pp. 926-927). (See Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, pp. 922-1018, for more details on singular art works, political and territorial dominance, and era in question). These inventions, scientists and artists mark the peak of transition; made step-by-step, into the modern world of art. The nineteenth century was also saturated with a war between science and religion, that had profound consequences for the transition into a modern and institutionalized art world (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996b, p. 929). It was, thus most of all; evolution and progress, shaped by core ideas of the 'survival of the fittest', the Marxist manifesto and Kantian self-criticism -- that shaped the intellectual and artistic progress into a modern art world (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, pp. 926-929). This era in the art world, was also profoundly shaped by a restless and flickering world of imperialism, racism and nationalism, according to Tansey and Kleiner (1996c, p. 928), in which the modernist Avant-garde had to take a stance.

For Europe, the nineteenth century was an age of rapid change during wich the modern world took shape. In a world experiencing population explosion of unparalleled magnitude, revolution followed revolution, a pattern punctuated by counterrevolution and conservative reaction. This was the erea in which the modern nation-state and accompanying ideas of nationalism was born. European governments extended their rule to virtually every part of the globe , spreading the influence of European culture [...], and clearing the way for influences back to Europe. The formation of empires abroad was supported by the enthusiasm of popular nationalism at home, and patriotism and imperialism went hand in hand (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996d, p. 928).

In the nineteenth century Germany had emerged as the intellectual and artistic centre. At the beginning of the twentieth century, two German movements had profound impact on the art world: these two movements were called; Die Brücke and Die Blaue Reiter. Die Brücke (the bridge), was established by a group of architects, in Dresden, in 1905, and among them were artists and architects such as Kirchner, Bleyl, Heckel, Schmitt-Rottluff, Nolde and Mueller. They set out to bridge the gap between the old craft traditions, and early twentieth century art. Though, it was up to a second German movement of artists, to cheer forward an artistic style in the art world; Primitivism. The movement; Die Blaue Reiter (the blue rider), was founded by Kadinskij and Macke, in München, in 1911. They sought to strengthen the influences of primitive art on; at that time; contemporary art. Both movements; Die Brücke and Die Blaue Reiter, ravishly influenced expressive art, to come. Nonetheless, at the turn of the century the gravity of power and influence in the art world, shifted from Germany to France. In the 1920s and 1930s France took the leading role; with Paris arriving at the frontline; as the most influential capital of art -- the new power centre in the art world. Aspiring artists and intellectual mindsets of the Avant-garde, gathered in Paris, to loosen up the boundaries of 'art as an institution'. It was, thus, the French Revolution that changed the foundation for artists and their art works: a divide between fine arts and crafts was prominent, and it was the Industrial Revolution, that had started to ruin the old craft traditions (Gombrich, 1995b, p. 499). It was, thus, the Industrial Revolution that resulted in a rise of modern cites and modernism:

The birth of modernism and modern art can be traced to the Industrial Revolution. This period of rapid changes in manufacturing, transportation, and technology began around the mid-18th century and lasted through the 19th century, profoundly affecting the social, economic, and cultural conditions of life in Western Europe, North America, and eventually the world. New forms of transportation, including the railroad, the steam engine, and the subway, changed the way people lived, worked, and travelled, expanding their worldview and access to new ideas. As urban centres prospered, workers flocked to cities for industrial jobs and urban populations boomed (MoMa, 2019e).

However, although the Industrial Revolution and the following modernism, started to ruin the old craft traditions; in contemporary art; the old craft traditions, has again seen its revival. Moreover, the artists of the twentieth century entered an uncertain era that ultimately resulted in two world wars. In this era of uncertainty, the artists had to choose to follow their artistic intuition, and develop a personal style, followed by a lack of economic security; or take missions; secure their economy, and loose respect from other artists (Gombrich, 1995b, pp. 502-503). The independent, uncompromising and sincere artist, stood in stark contrast to the use of clichés in the public style, created by conservative artists according to Gombrich (1995b, p. 504 and 511). The nineteenth century, nevertheless, laid the foundation for an individual and uncompromising art, in which the value of artistic autonomy, eventually came into the spotlight. The nineteenth century, therefore represented both a prelude to a progressive modern art world, as well as it also represented a potential lag of traditions, intellectual mindsets and societal compositions -- societal inertia or resistance to change. But, it was the modern society's rapid changes, that prompted the Avant-garde's alertness, criticism and made them riot against the misery and devastation's of wars, which was; in the view of the Dadaists; a system failure, executed in the name of reason (MoMa, 2019b). However, at the late nineteenth century, the artists started to question their own style and became more sceptical of given rules and virtuosity, Gombrich states (1995c, p. 551). They longed for a style that not just consisted of old tricks; a style that was more than just a style, and most of all originated from something powerful and fiery (Gombrich, 1995c, p. 551). However, not everyone accepted the doctrine of progress that had emerged in the nineteenth century (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, p. 930). The Avant-gardes of the early twentieth century, was thus, confronted with, took lessons from, adopted; and finally rejected the ideas of the nineteenth century, that could not withstand the tooth of time. The most progressive, experimental and radical thoughts, ideas and concepts of the nineteenth century, thus, gave a promise of something new in the work. The most promising artists started to experiment and proclaimed new directions and isms according to Gombrich (1995a, p. 557). What was stirring the pot, was rapid changes, vast upheavals and fierce counter parties, that clashed against each other. As a result; societal components, intellectual thoughts, and artistic ideas were shaken around and -- became more experimental, radical and progressive. Clair (2019b) further argues: "The war would be a purification for all, the tabula rasa of values which enabled belief in a whole new humanity". Tansey and Kleiner (1996c, p. 929) supports this view: a new understanding of 'human nature' emerged during the late nineteenth century; one which had grown considerable complex. And; "human nature was not a constant, but an organic variable, subject to natural forces and indefinite change" (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, p. 929) . Nevertheless, founded in an era of 'natural forces and indefinite change'; of which the late nineteenth century mindsets represented; the critical sense, the experimentation, the progressive ideas and the radical mindsets of the twentieth century modernist Avant-garde, started to awake, take shape and gain forces:

We find that the adherents and promoters of modern art, critics and artists alike, represent themselves as being in disagreement and conflict with their styles and tastes, and what is most significant, that they maintain that they are, unlike their opponents, representatives of progress. They lead the march into the modern world. They are its Avant-garde (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, p. 930).

Rooted in nineteenth century historical incidents and core scientific works and artworks, the early twentieth century arose and built upon the previous century's learning and rejected parts of it -- in a pure Darwinist spirit: the progress into the twenties modernist Avant-garde movement, was no sudden break, according to Greenberg (1960). It evolved constantly and smoothly; from an idiosyncratic pluralism of styles; in the nineteenth century, into a more complex and nuanced criticism of 'art as an institution'; at the early phases of the twentieth century; when modernism struck solid roots (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996c, p. 927). However, at the turn of the century, and into the twentieth century, other significant historical events and scientific works and art works, shaped the understanding of 'art as an institution'. Core influential historical events, inventions and scientific works were: Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), Max Planck's Quantum Theory (1900), First trans-Atlantic Radio Signal (1901), Wright brother's first flight (1903), Einstein's Theory of Relativity (1905-1915), Niels Bohr's Atomic Theory (1913), World War I begins (1914), Fascism in Italy (1920s-1930s), The Great Depression (1930s), Rise of Nazism in Germany (1930s), World War II begins (1939), and Jung's (1875-1961) Analytical psychology (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, pp. 1018-1019). Around the middle and later twentieth century other peak historical events and inventions were: Commercial TV begins (1940s), Existentialism (1930-50s), Atomic bomb devastates Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), Transistor invented (1948), Crick and Watson's Structure and function of DNA (1954), Sputnik I launched (1957), Computer chip invented (1959), Laser invented (1960), Corporation for public broadcasting formed (1967), Moon landing 1969), Personal computers introduced (1975), Vietnam War ends (1975), and The "Cybernetic Revolution" (1990s). Core events in the art world were: Die Brücke (1905) the Futurist Manifesto (1909), Die Blaue Reiter (1911), the Dadaist Manifesto (1916), Bauhaus founded (1919), the Realistic Manifesto (1920), and the Surrealist Manifesto (1924). In the later twentieth century; Postmodernism in art and literature took shape (from 1970s and onwards); in which the institutionalized art world became more politically oriented (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, pp. 1018-1019 and 1996b, pp. 1090-1091). The peak works of art and artists that shaped the institutionalized art world were: Picasso's The Girls of Avignon (1907), Matisse's Red Room (Harmony in Red) (1908-1909), Braque's The Portuguese (1911), Duchamp's Fountain (1917), Picasso's Guernica (1937), as well as Hopper's Nighthawks (1942) (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, pp. 1018-1019). Later came the art works of Stella's Nunca Pasa Nada (1964), and Tansey's Innocent Eye Test (1981). (See Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, pp. 1018-1090, and 1996b, pp. 1090-1154, for more details on singular art works, political and territorial dominance, and eras in question). The features of artists as independent, uncompromising and autonomous Avant-gardes, grew even stronger at the beginning of the twentieth century. Their resistance were displayed in the embodiment of art works; such as Duchamp's Fountain (1917); that went even further than the nineteenth century, in revolting and standing up against the more traditional and conservative forces, of the institutional art world. However, the early twentieth century Avant-garde was also inspired and shaped by earlier scientific works, such as the works of Kant, Marx and Darwin -- to form a highly Kantian self-critical, experimental and progressive, radical, evolutionary and Marxist core of intellectuals and artists -- at a time highly interrupted and shaped by the devastation and misery of wars. The early twentieth century and mid-twentieth century of European nation-states, were highly marked by two devastating and destructive world wars. These wars were accompanied by imperialism, racism and nationalism -- a capitalist and expansionist enterprise (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1020). The core phenomena of the early twentieth century and mid-twentieth century; imperialism, racism and nationalism, also motivated the two world wars (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1020). The First World War (1914-1918), spread misery, social disruption, and economic collapse (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1020). Prior to the Second World War, hatred of democratic institutions, civil rights, the personal autonomy of citizens and competitive capitalism, had rooted and swept across the world (Tansey and Kleiner, 2996a, p. 1020). The institutionalized art world was not protected from these societal currents and conflicts but had to face it. The Second World War (1939-1945), was basically fuelled by the progress in science and technology. Though, science and technology, in the twentieth century, was also stimulated by the Second World War (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1020). In this violent transformation of the globe; through the means of science and and technology, as well as war; each had to choose their allies, and seize the opportunities that new technologies and science, brought.

Nevertheless, science and technology and its achievements are understood to be the manifestation of progress. Science has made the modern world, and to acknowledge this and to live accordingly is to be authentically progressive, which in its very broadest sense, means modern. Modernity, the condition of being modern, rejects the past as having been passed by. To live by past ideas and values is to regress; those still living in premodern conditions are in a stage of underdevelopment and immaturity [according to the principle of modernism]. The centuries-old contest between the "ancients" and the "moderns" is now decided in favour of the moderns -- once for all (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1021).

The modernist worldview was, thus, incomplete and had inherent errors -- that gave the contemporary Avant-gardes something to work on (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1022). However, in a time of a dawning modernism, Duchamp was confronted with war, imperialism, racism, nationalism, and progress in form of science and technology, as well as an expanding competitive capitalism -- a society of rapid change and vast upheavals. All these characteristics of the early and mid-twentieth century shaped the modernist Avant-garde movement, which Duchamp was a part of. It was thus, in addition, a more personal conflict that caused Duchamp to turn against 'art as an institution'. It might seem natural to a man; such as Duchamp, that questioned his own identity; religious stance and sexual orientation, that he also would questioned the identity of 'art as an institution' (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, b and c). Duchamp's attack on art as an institution, was; with the Fountain (1917); 'a plain piece of plumbing'; a readymade; an industrial produced urinal; which he did not make himself. He only signed it under a pseudonym.

By the early 1900s, Americans were using the term “ready-made” to distinguish manufactured items from those that were handmade. In 1913, when Duchamp designated his first readymade work of art, he appropriated the term (MoMa, 2019c).

Duchamp's readymade, was executed by chance, which was familiar to Dadaist methods. Duchamp, during an interview, argued that the readymades was created in a "vague and accidental" manner "letting things go by themselves", he thereby explored the Dadaist method of chance and the Surrealist experimentation with the subconscious (Duchamp; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 146). He further stated that "life and art was a matters of chance and choice, freed from the conventions of society and tradition" (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1071). He, thus, confirmed the fundamental ability embodied in art -- to choose to test the rules of the given society, and be progressive. He looked forward, not back; as traditional and conservative artists did. To look back at past eras to create art, would be just another poke in the eye to an Avant-gadiste. There was too much at stake in the art world, to leave the faith and future of our visual culture, into the hands of conservative and traditional forces. The Avant-gardes choose the frontier of the future. It was boundless! It looked thrilling! It filled them with all the excitement there is, to be part of something new and unknown; a radical system change. In the pursuit of renewal and completely changing the fundament of 'art as an institution', the Avant-gardes of the modernist era, set their sails and steered the boat into unknown waters. But, while it was Marcel that took the leading role of inventiveness and innovation in the Surrealist movement, it was Breton that took the leading position of the Surrealist movement as the co-founder, core acting theorist and chief defender (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a. The Surrealist, but most of all the successive Dadaist movement, was, the movements, that Duchamp sympathized with and; claimed his adherence to, and gained inspiration from methodologically (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a). This showed off in his artworks, that most of all was created from subconscious chance, as mentioned priviously. While Surrealism explored the unconsciousness as a catalyst and source of inspiration to create; "Dada artists used chance, collaboration, and language as a catalyst for creativity" (MoMa, 2019b).

Dada’s subversive and revolutionary ideals emerged from the activities of a small group of artists and poets in Zurich, eventually cohering into a set of strategies and philosophies adopted by a loose international network of artists aiming to create new forms of visual art, performance, and poetry as well as alternative visions of the world. The artists affiliated with Dada did not share a common style or approach so much as the wish, as expressed by French artist Jean (Hans) Arp, “to destroy the hoaxes of reason and to discover an unreasoned order.”2 (MoMa, 2019b).

Participants claimed various, often humorous definitions of “Dada”—“Dada is irony,” “Dada is anti-art,” “Dada will kick you in the behind”—though the word itself is a nonsense utterance. As the story goes, the name Dada was either chosen at random by stabbing a knife into a dictionary, or consciously selected for a variety of connotations in different languages—French for “hobbyhorse” or Russian for “yes, yes.” (MoMa, 2019b).

The Dadaists, in the beginning of the 20th century, embraced the irrationality of chance, accident, and improvisation, as methods of creating art -- a counteraction and to revolt against systemic rationality or system failure, which resulted in the execution of wars, as mentioned previously (MoMa, 2019b). Marcel Duchamp, most of all, supported and participated in the Dadaist movement, though only sporadically, he may have wanted to keep his uncompromising autonomy of expression, through his artworks. He was, nevertheless, an inventive force and a pioneer of the Dadaist movement (Ades, Cox and Hopkins (1999a). Duchamp's; at times unconscious quest, of changing the institutional art world, was a rough journey filled with inventiveness and uncertainty, such as living a 'life on credit' (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d). He was a pioneer, he basically forecasted what 'art as an institution' could become, through his art work. Duchamp was ahead of his time. To look forward, he invented the readymade -- which represented a fresh breeze in the institutional art world, a fresh breeze of boundless possible choices, opened up to the Avant-gardes and the artists. Duchamp as an Avant-gardiste artist, took the authority and choose the readymade to represent him; on the behalf of the art world. The readymade was simply a "work of art without an artist to make it" (Duchamp; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 146). To understand Duchamp's artworks; according to Tansey and Kleiner (1996a, p. 1072), is, however, "an intellectual exercise that yields different and continually shifting "meanings" for each individual". Duchamp's attitude, the choices he made; on behalf of the art world, and the shifting meanings embodied in his art works, makes his art just as important for modernist as for postmodernist art (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996, p. 1072). The embodiment of his artworks also stand out as key factor; to understand Duchamp: the readymades were created privately in the atmosphere of the studio. And; according to Duchamp: it was up to the artist's choice to decide whether it was art, or not (Ades, Cox and Hopkins (1999d, p. 146).

Seeking an alternative to representing objects in paint, Duchamp began presenting objects themselves as art. He selected mass-produced, commercially available, often utilitarian objects, designating them as art and giving them titles. “Readymades,” as he called them, disrupted centuries of thinking about the artist’s role as a skilled creator of original handmade objects. Instead, Duchamp argued, “An ordinary object [could be] elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.” (Duchamp, MoMa, 2019c).

Duchamp's readymades were also an expression of anaesthetics and anti-art (Ades, 1974, p. 118-119, Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 122 and p. 131). Anti-art was imposed and initiated as the new and radical art, in which mass-produced artefacts, entered the art scene as -- art. As anti-art and anaesthetics, the readymades had a thrilling "absence of good and bad taste" and a clearly expressed "visual indifference" (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 154). Rather than emphasizing on esthetics, the artist's of the artefacts turned their readymades into mindblowing manifestations, and "In place of "taste" Duchamp gave ideas" (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996a, p. 1070). Bürger (1984) supports this view; he argues that the ideas of the Avant-gardiste, was turned into impressive manifestations. According to MoMa (2019d) "A manifesto is a public declaration, often political in nature, of a group or individual’s principles, beliefs, and intended courses of action".

Duchamp's ready-mades are not work of art but manifestations. Not from the form-content totality of the individual object Duchamp signs can one infer meaning, but only from the contrast between mass-produced object on the one hand, and signature and art exhibit on the other (Bürger, 1984, p. 52).

The Fountain (Duchamp, 1917) was, thus, not just a new and radical work of art or; an idea that stood out, but also a groundbreaking manifestation, that emphasized the importance of the artist's rightful choice (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d). Under a pseudonym; (as mentioned previously), the artefact was delivered to an exhibition; the Independents, organized by the Society of Independent Artists' at The Grand Central Palace in New York, US (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a). There were no rules attached to exhibiting: all artists who applied to exhibit and paid six dollars in fee, should in principle be invited to exhibit their artwork (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a). Nevertheless: the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), was refused to exhibit and was faced with the organizers censorship (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 128). The artefact, in fact, caused quite a scandal.

Styling himself a provocateur, in 1917 he famously submitted an urinal, entitled Fountain, to a nonjuried art exhibition, from which it was rejected. The work bore his first pseudonym, R. Mutt. This alternate identity would not be his last. Duchamp invented his best-known alter ego, Rrose Sélavy, in the early 1920s. Indeed, his attention to self-representation would become a hallmark of his art and would revolutionize portraiture, transforming it into a conceptual enterprise (Goodyear and McManus, 2009).

Duchamp's indulgement in concepts, paved the way for conceptual art to come (MoMa, 2019). However, Marcel Duchamp's conceptual Fountain (1917) was criticized for being indescant, immoral, vulgar, offensive, "breaking social and artistic taboos", as well as for plagiarism (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, pp. 127-128). Questions aroused; "What is ART?", "Is he serious or is he joking?", and if it was recognized to exhibit; "Because it is exhibited must it be art?" (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999b, pp. 128-130). And further; should the organizers of the exhibition; as an art institution, decide what art was, or should the artist himself or herself, decide? A tug of war on who was in power crystallized itself (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 128-130). Duchamp's only editorial statement and defense of the readymade; under the pseudonym; Richard Mutt, was as following:

They say any artist paying six dollars may exhibit. Mr Richard Mutt sent in a fountain. Without discussion this article disappeared and never was exhibited. What were the grounds for refusing Mr Mutt's fountain: -- 1. Some contended that it was immoral, vulgar. 2. Others, it was plagiarism, a plain piece of plumbing. Now Mr Mutt's fountain is not immoral, that is absurd, no more than a bath tub is immoral. It is a fixture that you see every day in plumbers' show windows. Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not is of no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view -- created a new thought for that object. As for plumbing, that is absurd. The only works of art America has given are her plumbing and her bridges (Mutt; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 127).

Marcel Duchamp defended himself: “An ordinary object [could be] elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist" (Duchamp in MoMa, 2019b). In addition, a core member of the Dadaist movement came to his rescue: ”Norton […] defended the smooth curves of the urinal as real art, calling it a 'Buddha of the Bathroom'" (in Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, pp. 127-130). Others again, associated it with "Like the legs of the ladies by Cézanne" or Virgin Mary (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a). Nevertheless; was the urinal intended as an ironic mockery (familiar to caricature), or as serious art? perhaps both, Norton concludes (in Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a and c). As a twentieth century modernist work of art, its core ideas originated in late eighteenth century Kantian self-criticism (Greenberg, 1960, p. 5). Kant states: "Pure speculative reason has this peculiarity about it, that it can and should measure its own capacity". So should art; according to the twenties modernist Avant-garde (in Guyer and Wood, 1998, p. 113; Pissarro, 2009, p. 42). Pissarro (2009, p. 42), thus adds; for Kant "critiquing was a never-ending activity" embodied in reason. Reason should examine itself, test its limits and prevent itself from falling into illusionary traps (Pissaro, 2009, p. 42). The dawning modernism as a discipline; in a genuine Kantian spirit, was therefore characterized by criticizing the discipline in itself and; posing questions on 'art as an institution'. The Avant-gardes of modernism was, thus, more far reaching in its criticism than previously stated, Greenberg argued in 1960:

Modernism includes more than art and literature. By now it covers almost the whole of what is truly alive in our culture. It happens, however, to be very much a historical novelty. Western civilization is not the first civilization to turn around and question its foundations, but it is the one that has gone the furthest in doing so. I identify Modernism with the intensification, almost exacerbation, of this self-critical tendency that began with the philosopher Kant. Because he was the first to criticize the means of criticism, I conceive of Kant as the first Modernist (Greenberg, 1960, p. 85; Pissarro, 2009, p. 42).

Modernism rejected past traditions and emphasized the autonomy, self-value and Kantian self-criticism of the discipline (, 2018, Greenberg, 1960). However, each artist had to make their own interpretations of the Kantian self-criticism, seize the autonomy of their profession, and find what was "peculiar and exclusive" in their own work of art (their self-value) (, 2018, Greenberg, 1960, p. 5). Duchamp did this with his readymades; embodied with institutional criticism. His readymades, was in its nature a rebellious, humoristic and playful expression of institutional scepticism -- he revolted against 'art as an institution'. Schulte-Sasse (1984, p. xiv), thus, argues; "The historical avant-garde of the twenties was the first movement in art history that turned against the institution "art"". Nor did they take autonomy for granted. Schulte-Sasse (1984, p. xviii) further stresses the fact that; art does not necessarily communicate with the society but offers something in addition -- resistance. This artistic resistance, was boldly evident in Duchamp's flamboyant urinal: he did a reality check on the existing rules on power of the institutionalized art world. As a result; a shift in power and influence, was on its way. Nonetheless, it was not just appearance at art exhibitions, that played the key role in inviting artefacts into the the institutionalized art world as art. Several smaller radical art magazines had emerged; often created by artists themselves; that circulated in the Avant-gardes art milieus. These had a profound impact on the more traditional aspects of the institutionalized art world. The radical magazines were also part of the cultural infrastructure, that allowed the artists and their artefacts to become parts of the more radical sides of the institutional art world. The Avant-gardes contested the rules of the traditional and institutionalized art world -- they emerged as a new kind of power; in defining what art was. In emergency, all the goodness in the Avant-garde aroused; as a radical core of them, offered their resistance. Even though Duchamp himself had a strong sense of being a 'failure', they stubbornly defended Duchamp's Fountain (1917) (Clair, 2019). Because Duchamp's work of art was no epic failure; on the contrary: the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), was later taken to Stieglitz's studio to be photographed for the rather short lived radical Dadaist magazine; The Blind Man (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 129). The original photography of the Fountain (1917) reappeared with Harley's painting; the Warriors (1913), as a visual background (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999a, p. 129). The Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), was thus, not invited into the traditional institutionalized art world or; at least not into an art exhibition -- but the Avant-gardes exploited their exercised their newborn artistical power; protested, and invited it in; as a pure act of resistance. Because, the institutionalized art world consisted not only of art institutions: the core of the institutionalized art world; in modernism, was most of all its unpredictable; Avant-garde. And; this was not the last time in terms of the history of art, that the Avant-garde would sprinkle with their power feathers and unfold their inherent artistic power; for the sake of art. From the twenties Avant-garde and onwards: they are a force to be reckoned with! Since; the Avant-gardes started to explore their inherent power in the early phases of modernism; with Duchamp at the frontline; they; from then on, became fundamental constituent: fundamental constituents, that needed to be taken into account; in reflecting on the relationships of power and influence, in the institutional theory of art. Keep this in mind. But, what does the institutional theory on art, say?

Institutional Theory emphasizes that there is a social practice with rules and designated roles underpinning the presentation of such things and that the instantiation of these social forms and relations in the required way is crucial to the art status (Carroll, 1999: 232).

The institutional theory of art suggest that the art world consists of social rules and social roles, that have huge affects on its social practices, and how the art world is socially organized (Carroll, 1999). These social practices have again great impact on the status and nature of art created and initiated. Art as an institution states that it is within the capabilities of art, to function as "systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions"; an institution by definition (Knight, 1992, p. 2; Hodgson, 2006, p. 2). Other examples of institutions are, according to Hodgson (2006); language, money, law, systems of weight and measures, table manners, and firms (p. 2). However, art as an institution, have capabilities of structuring and organizing social practices, by its rule making.

The term rule is broadly understood as a socially transmitted and customary normative injunction or immanently normative disposition […] (Bhaskar, 1989, p. 80, p. 85, p. 112; Hodgson, 2006, p. 3). [...] The phrase immanently normative requires that if a rule is scrutinized or contested, then normative issues will emerge. [...]. Rules includes norms of behavior and social conventions as well as legal rules (Hodgson, 2006, p. 3).

Rulemaking is also influenced by power and authority; which underpin the art world's social organization, and serve as it's institutional attributes. Nonetheless, although rules seem hard to change, they are not absolute according to Bashkar (1986) and Hodgson (in Hodgson, 2006). When contested or scrutinized they might change (if normative issues has emerged). While the art institutions are more rule confirming, capitalists may either confirm rules through business as usual or innovate, the Avant-garde is, however, rule contesting. Rulemaking, happens as a result of an interplay between all three core actors -- a tug of war. This tug of war, is the core mechanism in the art world, which again have profound and groundbreaking effects on art as an institution. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the institutional art world as a social organization driven by rules; elaborated in institutional theory, is akin to Spencer's (1898) ideas on the society as a social organism: a living creature, just as the author herself (in Bánáthy, 2010). Living creatures confess their guilt, agony and despair, their sins and hopes in the Cathedral. They questions their souls as well as their purpose and meaning. In the heart of the Cathedral they release their inner thoughts and feelings and -- they question their Gods. Capitalism does not. An organism or a living creature, develops through evolution, such as by natural selection, variety, continuance and mutation (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). These terms are all core functions in evolutionary theory, embedded metatheoretically in 1920s Darwinism. The fundamental element of evolutionary theory, is to understand how, e.g. the institutional art world, can self-organize or transform from within, through its core evolutionary functions (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). This process of evolutionary transformation (from within) and evolutionary adaption is possible, in the institutional art world, because creativity, originality, knowledge and innovation never stays the same (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). Nonetheless, while Spencer (1898; in Bànàthy 2010) argued for a socialized Darwinism, Rigby and Essletzbitchler (2010) based their concepts on generalized Darwinism. Both socialized Darwinism and generalized Darwinism is rooted in evolutionary theory. While the former focus on social aspects, the latter highlights economic aspects of transformation and adaption. Both aspects will be applied, in this brief essay, to try to understand how art as an institution has a potential to renew itself through natural selection. While some art institutions strive to renew itself, other art institutions experience stagnation; hence they lack adaptive abilities. However, all art institutions are faced with great refractions that happens at different geographical scales, between different creative actors, at various places, between different creative classes, intersect vast constellations of power, and may also happen as an interplay between movements that each has its unique characteristics. Although the frequently used term refractions is somewhat abstract and hard to grasp, it may be simplified as; 'elements that breaks against each other', and in the breaking point between two elements (such as e.g. different movements, different classes, different expression, different geographical scales, different styles, different types of power), a new end result might emerge, so that the institutionalized art world continuously evolve, change and transform. Spencer's (1889) ideas of the social organism or the living creature, such as the human body itself is easier to imagine. It serves as a metaphor to explain how the art world operates: a meaningful social organism that breathes and digests, thinks and communicates, feels, consumes and questions. Does capitalism do that? Capitalists thus have power, so do the Avant-garde and the art institutions -- all in their own idiosyncratic ways. Power, in this brief essay, is thus, defined as the capacity to influence rulemaking, through the core social or economic evolutionary functions, and thereby promote system change and adaption in the institutionalized art world, in the form of novelties. The evolutionary account of power in this essay is therefore both social and economic. While Spencer (1898; Bánáthy, 2010) situates his thoughts on evolutionary social systems, or the society as a creature, Rigby's and Essletzbitchler's (2010) mindsets are anchored in conceptual theories of evolutionary economics, that has other premises. It operates by other rules: evolutionary economics is criticized for taking capitalism for granted (Schot, 2016). Capitalists seeks adventures, profits, market shares and competitive advantages through processes of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1943; Fagerberg, 2003, Mensch 1979; Tylecote, 1992). Living creatures seeks truth, meaning and love. The Cathedral open our eyes to the sky. In the heat of the metamorphosis darkness turns into lightness; material transforms into sacral; the secular converts into divine: if only for a brief moment in terms of history artefacts becomes -- art. The Cathedral is grand: you will be enlightened and empowered by its presence: the Cathedral is powerful!

By capitalist rules, artworks are classified as a commodity (Krause, 2011), which can be purchased and exchanged for a price -- a process which may be dehumanizing for the artists: they questions their souls! A commodity circulates in the capitalist system -- and by doing so it changes the original meaning and content of the artists' works. This circulation process is also saturated with power or influence -- capitalism select among the population of artists and decide who will succeed and who won't. But, can you put a price on the meaning and shared content embodied in art? And, can you calculate its cultural significance? As capitalism, living creatures also seeks power and influence, capitalists are also living creatures. Saturated in power and influence, the capitalists thereby have great influence on who's the one to watch and who's not. This implies that when an artwork circulate in these commodifying capitalistic processes, the artists loose control of their artwork; its worth, its meaning as well as its cultural significance: it stops breathing! Lynton (1995c), however argue; that by losing his/hers artwork, the artist and his/hers art work establishes a relationship with the society (p. 356). Adorno, thus, claims that in "late capitalism everything, living human activity included, is increasingly so determined by valuation for another (exchange-value) that its value in and for itself tends to disappear" (in Jarvis, 1998, p. 117). This phenomenon is understood as and discussed in Adorno's statement of art works as a; 'fetish against commodity fetishism' (Adorno; Jarvis, 1998, p. 117). Adorno (1998) is, nevertheless, criticized for a periodization of modernism and for being too pessimistic in his social analysis (Schulte-Sasse, 1984, p. xix). Nonetheless, Adorno's concept of art as a 'fetish against commodity fetishism' is rooted in Marx's theories on 'commodity fetishism':

Marx argued that the economic conditions of capitalism created the phenomenon of 'commodity fetishism', the tendency to ascribe to ordinary objects quasi-human powers and desires. Money itself, [as an institution], the symbol of all commodities, with its apparently unaccountable fluctuations in the market, continues to dictate human fortunes [; such as the artists' fortune] (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 161).

For Adorno, art offers a resistance to 'commodity fetishism' -- art may counteract with capitalism, and question its nature. In addition to Adorno; Krause (2011) also expresses his frustrations with the unpredictable and commodifying forces of capitalism, that shapes the contexts of 'capitalist profitability' versus 'created meaning' in the capitalist art market of commodities:

The arts currently serve the needs of the free market, not the needs of human beings. The central goals of the free market are accumulation and growth -- goals which the arts have been falsely forced to serve. The arts have other values -- from creating and sharing meaning [...] -- that are far more important than profitability (Krause, 2011, p. 11).

Krause (2011) does not take capitalism for granted. Nonetheless, he argues that the current situation of the Institutional art world, is a situation where the rules of capitalism dominates. This puts pressure on the artists' original intentions and purpose with their artworks. The artworks that are subjected to capitalist accumulation, are also affected by its processes of 'create and destroy' (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). Creative destruction claims that new innovations face out or destroy 'fossil' innovations and thereby drives or creates economic growth, progress or development (Schumpeter, 1942; Fagerberg, 2003, Caballero, 2017). This phenomenon is by Schumpeter (1942) understood as 'the essential fact about capitalism' (in Caballero, 2017). The process of creative destruction and capitalist accumulation, enables new innovations to be created, in the economy as well as in the institutional art world. Capitalism may thereby have great influence on the processes of which new artistic expressions are being created, just as well as it may constrain forceful creativity through its natural selection processes: it is enabling as well as constraining. Capitalist rules creates a (neoliberal) marked for art that is rough, challenging and selective, but also full of opportunities! The art market is, nevertheless, a segment of the neoliberal market, which Duchamp expressed his scepticism about: "Duchamp's provocation not only unmasks the art market where the signature means more than the quality of the work" (Bürger, 1984, p. 52). Duchamp's readymades, such as the Fountain (1917), may also be interpreted as a counterreaction or revolt against the existing social order -- in a genuine modernist spirit (Schulte-Sasse, 1984, p. xii). However; to separate 'art' and 'commodity', in the neoliberal art market, Duchamp, nonetheless, called a hypocrisy:

Through the encounter with the commodity object expressed in both the readymades and the notes, Duchamp also highlights the traditional hypocrisy of pretending that there is a contradiction between 'Art' and 'Commodity' and that aesthetic and commodity values are totally opposed to another (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 160).

To mark this statement, Duchamp considered to create advertisements for his readymades, such as e.g. Chocolate Grinder (Duchamp; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 160). It is, thus, fitting that; at the height of his activity with the readymades, they were to be exhibited in 'the heart of the consumer market'; New York, according to Ades, Cox and Hopkins (1999d, p. 166). No hypocrisy: Duchamp inventively united commodity and art, such as in the Rotoreliefs (Optical Disks) (Duchamp,1935). When commodity and art is united; innovations in the art market and in the culture industry, is created and destroyed; in the capitalist mode of production's view through two institutions; money and art. However; the institutional art world may also be influenced by capitalist investment and funding and public support to artists, in form of -- imperialism.

In additions to capitalists investments several acclaimed art critics, art curators and scientists, argue that it is; well-documented, that the Cold World's art institutional world has been subjected to imperialism, such as the CIA's strategically funding of the moderate left rather than far left communism; the stance of the intellectuals in Europe and USA (Anfam; Sooke, 2016, Guevara, 2018). Sandler, nevertheless, argue that "there was absolutely no involvement of any government agency" (in Sooke, 2016). This view is not supported by Anfam, Saunders, Kozloff, Sooke (in Sooke, 2016) and Guevara (2018). Saunders (1995) claim that the CIA was funding the Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF); an anti-communist advocacy group, (which operated in 35 countries), as well as a 'dizzying' number of art magazines and several core exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the '50s (in Sooke, 2016, Guevara, 2018). Links to New York's Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and Boston Symphony Orchestra, was also revealed (Saunders, 1995; Sooke, 2016, Guevara, 2018). Saunders (1995) even states that the CIA supported the exhibition; The New American Painting (1958-59), at Tate Gallery of Modern Art; the Cathedral of Modern Art (in Sooke, 2016). As Sooke (2016), and many other art critics, art curators and scientists continuously debates and questions: "Was modern art a weapon of the CIA?" (Sooke, 2016). Kozloff (1973) argue that Abstract Expressionism was a form of propaganda, supported by the political ideology of the Post-War American regime (in Sooke, 2016). Saunders (1995, 1999) notes that this was, altogether, a part of 'the cultural cold war' (in Sooke, 2016). She argues that the American wave of Abstract Expressionism was funded in more than 20 years (Saunders, 1995; Sooke, 2016). The American regime's controversial cover was, however blown in 1967, according to Guevara (2018). She (2018) argues that to CIA communism was equal to Nazism -- the far-off enemy. The art institutions reactions to the politically strategical investments of the CIA, has afterwords been to downplay politics and support abstract art, and the autonomy and freedom of the Avant-garde: a wise decision (Guevara, 2018).

Abstract Expressionism was bound with the concept of individual freedom: its canvases were understood as expressions of the subjective inner lives of the artists who painted them (Sooke, 2016).

By supporting Abstract Expressionism, the American regime, according to Anfam, wanted to embody or foster a view of art with an "America [as...] the land of the free, whereas Russia was locked up, culturally speaking" (in Sooke, 2016). While the dominantly funded style in the US was Abstract Expressionism; the official style of Russia was the Soviet Realist Style (Sooke, 2016). In addition to the iron curtain in the world during the Cold War, Wright (1956) argue, that there was also a colour curtain (in Guevara, 2018). Discrimination based on colour swept through the western societies. Discrimination was not just a phenomenon separate to the institutional art world, it basically intruded the atmosphere of the institutional art world. Taken together; capitalism, imperialism and discrimination integrated, are powers that might affect the freedom and autonomy of the Avant-garde and the artists, abstract art and art as an institution is, nevertheless, not an enemy -- capitalism, imperialism and discrimination, however, is according to Guevara (2018). Art is our hero! The Avant-garde is our safe harbor or free zone, and most of all a joyful, sober and bewildering free force. They playfully questions everything. An artist with a conscious relation to their artworks should, thus, be aware of and question their relation to their inheritance, how they innovate, and their core motivation -- as part of a (constructed) movement (Lynton, 1995a, pp. 9-10).

The story of modern art is usually told in terms of movements: [...]. It was as group events that developments tended to come before the public, and in some instances (Futurism, Surrealism) it is true that the art and its movement context fittingly went together. But in most cases the movement was a fabrication -- a convenient arrangement for artists of some similarity of direction but lacking the support that membership of an academy or well-established society would bring them, or just cohesiveness imposed from the outside (Lynton, 1995a, p. 10).

Example of modernist movements are; Fauvism, Surrealism, Futurism, Cubism and Expressionism (Lynton, 1995a, p. 10). Duchamp was found in the Dadaist and later, particularly Surrealist movement, in which exhibitions and meetings he attended sporadically -- these movements allowed Duchamp all the freedom he needed in his profession as an Avant-garde modernist artist, to form his own unique critique of art as an institution (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999). The notion of movements within modern art, thus, stresses the similarities of characteristics within the group, that breaks with other movements' characteristics -- refraction of movements. While the cradle of modern art movements was Paris, by the '40s to '70s London, and particularly New York, became the dominant art hubs. Berlin also took a powerful position. Marcel Duchamp was an eager participant in the New York's and Paris's Avant-garde milieus. (Lynton, 1995b). He gained a "super-heroic status as the Mephistopheles of the old modernism and the Messiah of a New" (Lynton, 1995b, p. 229). Along with Duchamp, it was the Second World War, that brought many European artists to New York and London.

The second world war marked the end of European world leadership. It marked also the end of Paris's artistic leadership. The suppression of creative art in the totalitarian countries of Europe, followed by the closing down of Continental Europe as German military control spread and many Continental artists and intellectuals fled westwards, gave special opportunities to America and in some degree to Britain also (Lynton, 1995b, p. 226).

New York and London have kept their dominant position in the art world, mostly because artists in these two art hubs, are supported by a vast 'cultural infrastructure', such as non-profit organizations, artist-led initiatives, private foundations and state supported institutions, Harris (2013) claims. But it is important to note that large scale, medium sized and smaller art institutions differs in its characteristics and capacity to influence the art world. While the authority of large scale art institutions have greater range of power and influence on the conditions in the art world internationally, the medium sized and smaller art institutions are far more capable of capturing the pulse of the art world (Flatø, et al., 2018a and b). In cities, such as e.g. in Oslo; medium sized and smaller art institutions, are capturing the pulse of the art world locally, and are recognized for inviting young artists or debutantes into the institutional art world (Flatø, et al., 2018a and b). Large scale art institutions are; at times, more recognized to exhibit artists that already have an international reputation, and an established artistic career. Art institutions at different sizes, thus, fulfills different roles and functions, in the institutional art world. While Flatø's (et. al., 2018a) object of inquiry is medium sized art institutions in Oslo, their report may have relevance for art institutions of similar sizes in e.g. New York and London. These cities adds vital institutional components to the 'cultural infrastructure'. The 'cultural infrastructure' of the art world, is the spine of the institutional art world, and it enables artists to grow artistically. Nevertheless, medium- and small-sized art institutions have an inherent size-bound capacity, to react to urgent issues of the institutional art world, in a more dynamic, progressive, experimental and radical manner. They adress urgent issues of the institutional art world more frequently, and they support artists collaboratively, such as e.g. UKS in Oslo, Norway, exemplifies with their annual applications for grants to young and upcoming artists. They are simply more in touch with up and coming artists, and they offer artists to take part in their collaborative practices, in which the artists are in charge. Artists, however, react to human made or caused incidents from the universe to the body. As a result; the knowledge and insight of the human puzzle, is continuously expanding. We need our Avant-garde; our safe harbor (or free zone), to test everything from the most subtle, to the most explosive sides to human nature. Lynton (1995c) notes that "Some art speaks, some art shouts, but the best art needs to be questioned a little and listened to a lot" (p. 358). We also need the nature of art, to question and contest our rules. We need to be asking; are we on the right track? continuously: where is the world heading? All the ideas, opinions and concepts embodied in the social and organizational insight and nature of human beings, are thoughtfully represented, uttered and contested by the Avant-garde masterpieces. The Avant-garde should therefore; in an ideal state, represent the world.

The Avant-garde as a safe harbor, intersecting with Spencer's (1898; Bánáthy, 2010) ideas of the society as a social organism, thus, fills me with hope. Spencer's (1898; Bánáthy, 2010) thoughts suggests that the art world can be regarded as a social organism -- an institutional framework or environment that is vibrant and dynamical -- it is alive! Though; not completely in power of or resistant to capitalism's and imperialism's investments and funding or discriminating forces. The Avant-garde is, thus, more resistant, free and autonomous; sometimes unaware, and at other times susceptible to the powers in their back. From their origin they are in power of their artworks, though, they are not entirely in power of its continuance. When the artists or the Avant-gardes have completed and exhibited their artworks, it's up to others to define its status, and search for its meaning in a cultural or historical context. This process has huge effects on the continuance of the art work; its cultural significance, its created and shared meaning, the artist's career, and our understanding of art as an institution. Art as an institution, suggests that those with particular knowledge, experience, and understanding of art works are selected and possess the power to define the artefacts' potential art status -- on the behalf of the art world (Carroll, 1999, p. 230). In line with this argument the art world as a social organization can be seen as a natural selection environment, that decides who has influence on defining the status of art: who counts and who doesn't? As an institution and natural selection environment, the institutional art world operate in a landscape of social rules, social interaction, social roles, and commodifying processes, that underpin the notions of power and natural selection. In this social context of variety and natural selection; the art world as an institution, as well as capitalist actors, cannot separate themselves from the notion of power and authority. And, it is of these very same reasons that this theory by critics, has been regarded as an elitist, inequal and anti-democratic view of the art world (Carroll, 1999, 230): the creature is imperfect. The art world as an institution simply states: "If a wrong person [...] puts forward an artefact, he will not possess the capability to confer appropriate status upon it, and the object will not be art" (Carroll, 1999, p. 231). To cut it down to the core; this theory is crystal clear: if you do not have the right qualifications, you are in no position of power or authority, to define whether an artefact is genuine art or not. But; who defines who's right or wrong? The notion of an institutionalized art world implies that there are core configurations of power and authority, that needs to be revealed to understand the process of how some artefacts are defined as art, while others are not. These natural selection processes are governed by power and authority, by art institutions, the artists and the Avant-garde and the capitalist actors. The power and authority, these actors possess, are unevenly distributed in the institutionalized art world -- socially and politically, economically and culturally, as well as geographically. But, what does this inequality of access to power and influence, stem from? There are power centres in the culture industry and in the institutional art world -- places in which meaning, resources and power configurations are reproduced, such as London, New York, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong: places in which the internationalization of the art world, have profound impact on, or places that act on behalf of the art world (Guevara, 2018). The internationalization of the institutional art world is, thus, a result of the increased qualitative globalization in our world in general (Dicken, 2011, Guevara, 2018). The cities and power centres mentioned, are also global financial cities, from which financial investments and economic resources becomes unevenly distributed, globally. Dicken (2011) states that "contemporary processes of [economic] globalization have been accompanied by a rise in global inequality"(p. 478):

At the global scale, the development gap is stunningly wide. The developed countries are clearly 'winners'. They continue to contain a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, trade, investment and access to modern technologies [...]. The 20 per cent of the world's population living in the highest-income countries have well over 80 per cent of the world income, trade, investment and communications technology. The 20 per cent of the world's population in the poorest countries have around 1 per cent (Dicken, 2011, p. 478).

This inequality also affects the access to power and influence in the institutional art world: the rules of capitalism have huge impacts on the culture industry, in rural as well as in urban areas. Since the percentage of inhabitants living in urban areas has passed the 50 per cent tipping point; it was at 54 per cent in 2014, and this percentage will most likely rise to 66 per cent by 2050. Global cities based on economic diversity will therefore, most likely, continue to grow (United Nations, 2014). The fact that global cities are growing, and that most of the core art institutions of the art world are situated in global cities, also makes these cities power centres, nodes or art hubs, in which concentrations of power accumulate. There is therefore an inequal access to power and influence attached to culture, institutions and place: this implies that the the culture you are raised in, the institutions you are related to, and the place you come from really does matter, whether it is from a rural area or an urban art hub (Dicken, 2011). Because, Reed (2018) reminds us; although talent can be found everywhere, opportunity; cannot. Harris (2013) thus argues

The editors of "Art Cities of the Future: 21st Century Avant-Gardes", [...], say that the notion of what defining an art capital needs to broaden, as artists lay down roots far beyond the traditional power bases (Harris, 2013).

Massey supports this view that there is more to the geography of art than a simple rural/urban power base dichotomy. Power constellations are more comprehensively dispersed geographically, than previously assumed. Massey therefore stands for a more 'progressive sense of place' -- a stance that favors opportunities, change, as well as adaption (in MacEwan and Daya, 2012, p. 278). She

views places as the complex intersections and outcomes of power geometries that operates across many spatial scales from the body to the global. [...There are] multiple, intersecting social, political and economic relations, giving rise to a myriad of spatialities. Places and the social relations within and between them, then, are the results of particular arrangements of power, whether it is individual and institutional, or imaginative and material" (Massey, 1991, 1994, 1997; Hubbard, et al., 2002, p. 17).

Massey (1994; MacEwan and Daya, 2012) further argue that "the tension between the local and global" is unified, which allows for both cultural differences and cultural uniqueness (Massey, 1991, 1995; Duncan, 2000; Hubbard, et al., 2002, p. 18).

This involves people being more cosmopolitan (free of prejudice and tolerant of difference). Increasing interconnectedness means that boundaries of local cultures are seen to be more permeable, susceptible to change, and difficult to maintain than in the past (Massey, 1994, p. 151; MacEwan and Daya, 2012, p. 280).

The cosmopolitan way of being, is embedded in the hearts and mindsets of citizens in global cities such as London, Hong Kong, Berlin, Tokyo, Paris and New York. In their urban scenery a new form of artistic expression is created continuously, social identities are molded and cultures occur, are merged, collide or diminish. The interconnectedness of culture and cosmopolitan attitude at these sites, suggests that art as an institution is free of prejudice and tolerant as well as it possess abilities to adapt to new contexts. Though, there may be hidden discriminating, capitalist and imperialist forces, that has great impact on art as an institution, they influence its past, present and future path. The Avant-garde, as mentioned, promote freedom, autonomy and playful questioning; simply resistance. The institutional layers of the art world affect all geographical scales from the singular global to the more intimate local scale. They are interdependent, but the changes are also deeply embedded in what Florida (2002) calls a "shift from an industrial to a creative age" (in MacEwan and Daya, 2012, p. 273). Florida (2002) argue that "40 per cent of people in the US and UK economies [are] now working in 'creative' sectors of science, technology, culture, arts and entertainment" (in MacEwan and Daya, 2012, p. 273). Marcuse (2007), nevertheless, argue that Florida's concept of the creative class and creative age and the usage of art to promote economic growth, are two prime example of instrumentalization of art and producing regime culture, that reinforce existing power regimes. Marcuse (2007, p. 15) claims that the US is a striking example of these two types of instrumentalizations of art, which both are empowered by processes of globalization. He therefore argues; that in a globalized art world, art is produced by specific groups or subjects -- art becomes an instrument to reinforce power configurations, without permission from the Avant-garde (Marcuse, 2007, p. 15). In this context a more nuanced analyze of the term 'class'; should be invited into the debate, that also considers the Marxist view of the notion. Hadjinicolaou (1978/1987, p. 243) argues that style is an expression of social classes, there is therefore class struggle, as well as style struggle in the history of art. He (1978) stresses that "...this 'struggle' takes place more often between visual ideologies of the ruling classes and the dominated classes". Instead of being repressed, the Avant-gardes offers resistance; in form of artworks; to the power of the dominating class' of a society's utterances, actions and behavior.

The institutional art world, therefore, consists of struggles between different religions, movements, classes, styles, different sexual orientations and ideologies at different geographical scales, from the individual level to a global scale, in which power intersects. The powerful Avant-garde of the creative age may, however, be found in all creative sectors. The struggles in the institutional art world is, thus, not just multi scalar, but also consists of struggles and refractions between different creative sectors, in which processes of natural selection, intervene. The creative age, the cosmopolitan attitude and the interconnectedness of the global art world as an institution, allows for changes to happen, as well as it is affected by its previous and current power constellations. There are natural selection processes and power centres embodied in the institutional art world, that causes inequality in the culture industry. To problematize this claim, Adorno's thoughts can be applied to present the evident opposition in the culture industry (in Jarvis, 1998). Two camps in the culture industry; popular art and high art, are competing, with Avant-gardes in each camp. While Adorno sought to bridge the gap between art history and the philosophy of art, the author has taken an interdisciplinary stance to understand the complex relations of power and influence in the institutionalized art world (in Jarvis, 1998, p. 91). This, the author has sought accomplished, by emphasizing on three core actors; the Avant-garde, the capitalists and art institutions -- to gain a greater understanding of art itself or art as an institution. Now, let's return to Adorno's thoughts and theories. His attack on the culture industry is that it favors popular or 'light' art over 'serious' or high art (in Jarvis, 1998, p. 72):

Light art has been the shadow of autonomous art. It is the social bad conscience of serious art. The truth which the latter necessarily lacked because of its social premises gives the other the semblance of legitimacy. The division itself is the truth: it does at least express the negativity of the culture which the different spheres constitute. Least of all can the antithesis be reconciled by absorbing light into serious art, or vice versa (Adorno, 1944, p. 157; Cumming, pp. 135-136; Jarvis, 1998, p. 73).

Although the Avant-garde operate in many creative sectors, as mentioned previously, their link to high art is particularly emphasized in the creative sectors, and by Adorno (1944; Jarvis, 1998, p. 73). Jarvis (1998), nevertheless, argues that the "culture industry offers a false reconciliation" between popular art and high art (p. 73). While popular art seems to dominate the culture industry, high art may in many instances represent the edge of creativity, innovation and originality within the institutional art world. The popular arts however seems to grab a disproportionate amount of the economic resources tied to the culture industry, this causes inequality of access to power and influence in the institutional art world. Instead, the fact is, thus, that it is impossible to calculate the tremendous contributions the artists and Avant-gardes of high art, has made to our visual culture and our societies, throughout the centuries. This art form's cultural significance; in form of releasing opulent ideas, fierce creativity, and highly potent innovations, is beyond reach. Adorno; in a letter to Benjamin, expresses his frustrations on the uneven relationship between the two competing camps: high art and popular art are "torn halves of an integral freedom, to which however they do not add up" an unevenness which; in the cultural industry, seems to favor popular art (Adorno, 1938, p. 26-52; Jarvis, 1998, p. 73). In many cases these two forms of art intermingle, join forces and united create what is called crossover culture (Jarvis, 1998, p. 73). In other instances the artists and the Avant-gardes of high art's limitless freedom of expression, continuously seems to clash with the more popular aspects of the culture industry, that colorize the conflictual character of the institutional art world. Since Adorno, we have nonetheless, experienced a violent refractions of the arts: various ideas and beliefs, behaviour, utterances, actions and opinions that breaks against each other. These refractions results altogether, in a continuous move from figurative art at one end of the continuum, to abstract art at the other end -- the current state of art as an institution (Guevara, 2018). The Avant-garde, nevertheless, represent the forefront in bringing fourth new ideas, new concepts and original opinions, and are therefore leading contributors to the characteristics of our Zeitgeist, and prevalent currents in our global society. The art world's institutions may, however, have challenges to keep up with the new frontiers, seriousness and originality of the Avant-garde. But, how original is the Avant-garde, actually? In 1975, Benjamin stated that we have entered another shift, it was the shift from originality to the age of reproduction in the art world. While reproduction enabled mediums such as photography and film to reach the masses (democratization of art), it also questioned the originality of singular art pieces, or pieces of art with only a few reproductions, such as e.g. graphics. The introduction of the notion; reproduction, implied one fundamental issue: the very essence of the Avant-garde; their originality was scrutinized; the Gods were questioned!

Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence (Benjamin 1975/1987, p. 218).

Benjamin (1975/1987) argues that authenticity; or genuineness and originality, is not reproducible. Moreover, Benjamin's (1975/1987) concept of reproduction points out the difference of art being created directly by the artist himself or herself, and artworks that are reproduced by someone else; even in another style; which was the case with the Avant-gardiste Rodin's sculptures (Krauss, 1985, pp. 67-82). Nevertheless, Benjamin (1975/1987, p. 220) stresses the fact that art had moved from an authentic and spiritual ritual, to interfere with a quite other practice -- politics. His (1975) concept of reproduction, thus, touches a rather hot issue in the institutional art world; the origin of the artworks versus originality. Krauss (1985) argue that the origin of the artworks becomes an integral part of discussing and thinking about originality. Heidegger (1935, p. 9) explains that the process of thinking about art is a circular movement beyond our logical comprehension. On one hand; if we question the origin of the artworks we simultaneously question the originality of the artist and so on, on the other hand; more positively framed; if we recognize the masterpiece, we greatly exalt the Avant-garde originality, which contributes to understanding the nature of art. An extract from Heidegger's philosophical works, on the origin of art, elaborates on the relationships between the artists and their artworks, and art itself (1935/1971). It is presented in the following paragraph:

Origin here means that from and by which something is what it is and as it is. What something is, as it is, we call its essence or nature. The origin of something is the source of its nature. The question concerning the origin of the work of art asks about the source of its nature. On the usual view, the work arises out of and by means of the activity of the artist. But by what and whence is the artist what he is? By the work; for to say that the work does credit to the master means that it is the work that first lets the artist emerge as a master of his art. The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither is without the other. Nevertheless, neither is the sole support of the other. In themselves and in their interrelations artist and work are each of them by virtue of a third thing which is prior to both, namely that which also gives artist and work of art their names -- art (Heidegger, 1935/1971, p. 182).

Pedersen (2019), nevertheless, argue that we cannot separate Heidegger's philosophy from the fact that; he sympathized with anti-Semites in Nazi Germany (Pedersen, 2019, p. 5). His attitude towards human beings was far from being tolerant and emphatic, though this did not necessarily show off in all his written philosophy: however; it became evident in his philosophical lectures and particularly in his notebooks or diary from the Nazi time; Die Swartzen Hefte (Safranski, 2016; Heidegger, 1931-1975). In short; Heidegger clearly showed lack of acceptance for human beings, he did not embrace the core values of humanity -- human sensitivity (, 2019). Elke Heidenreich (in Safranski, 2016), argue persistently that one should be doubtful of reading Heidegger's notebooks, and clearly position ourselves against Heidegger's philosophical project as a whole, as well as his lectures and written notebooks; since his mindset was characterized by a careless intellectual complacency, and an inhumane, anti-Semitic and Nazi human vision (Lind, 2019, Heidenreich, 2016; Safranski, 2016; Heidegger, 1931-1975). In addition to this obvious nonchalance and disturbing view on human beings, his notebooks showed clearly variable written qualities according to Heidenreich (in Safranski, 2016). Of these reasons; in a German literary club, Heidenreich refused to continue reading Heidegger's notebooks (Heidenreich, 2016; Safranski, 2016). One should, hence, be aware of and warned about the deep lack of human sensitivity (, 2019), and the vast human pitfalls that might be encouraged, by an involvement with Heidegger's diary and lectures, and at times also his philosophical project. In sum, Heidegger's lack of human sensitivity, can be defined as the lack of ability to show equal and rightful respect, empahty, altruism and compassion, tolerance, acceptance, and care for all human beings (, 2019). The problematic fact; that Heidegger shows lack of human sensitivity, and the at times weaknesses and lack of coherence, in Heidegger's philosophical project as a whole, is why Pedersen (2019, p. 18) stresses the fact that we should try to think with Heidegger to understand him, and then move forward and away from him: we should consider leaving Heidegger behind; and create something new (Pedersen, 2019, p. 18). We also must ask a legitimate question: with such obvious and fundamental human flaws; can we put our trust in Heidegger's philosophical project; his truths? In short; Heideggers lack of human competencies, might make him incomplete or even incompetent; not just as a human being, but also as a philosopher. However, in the pursuit of criticism and truths, art can be recognized as a genuine and powerful tool; to make a critical eye on the past, the now and the future (Lind, 2019). The Norwegian artist; Lind's brave critical eye on Heidegger and his art; "problematizes historical writing, public memory and the collective memory", and he has been a significant artistic political voice since the 1970s (, 2019). Art may hence question political and institutional power relations, and given truths, such as Duchamp (1917) and Lind (2019) does: art must engage in criticism, power relations and politics; and search for truths ahead. This issue or conduct, is dealt with in "The Question of the Technique" (Die Frage nach der Technik) (Klostermann, 2000, p. 65; Pedersen, 2019, p. 7 ):

Because the nature of the technique is not a technical one, the essential thought of the technique, and the decisive settlement with it, must occur in a domain which, on the one hand, is related to the nature of the technique, on the other hand, however, is fundamentally different from it. One such domain is art (Klostermann, 2000, p. 93; Pedersen, 2019, p. 7).

In this manoeuvere or turnaround to find truths; art as a domain may play one of the leading roles of moving away from Heidegger's thoughts, and create or add new thoughts to our common mindset. The pathways to truth are however multiple (Pedersen, 2019, p. 9). Art is simply one way of finding truths (Pedersen, 2019, p. 7). Finding new truths is, however, an highly familiar activity of our contemporary artists and Avant-garde and; it is one of the fundamental reasons of why we look to contemporary artists and Avant-garde, when all other fields has failed us. They are our first and last frontier. The Norwegian artist; Tandberg (2019), nonetheless, questions of what business art deals with: does art have a responsibility to bring fourth new truths and new thoughts? Her answer is -- no. Since art (and literature); in her view is form, as it was understood as in modernism, it does not pose philosophical questions, or asks to be interpreted, other than form-related questions and interpretations. Art has formal attributes such as; lines, rhythm, circularity, color, dots or repetition -- it is not solely content-related according to Tandberg (2019). Tanberg (2019) further argues that content-interpretation is not needed. She eloquently argues; content-interpretations can be misunderstood, but form has clearity. However, if we should choose to argue that art is form and content combined, the situation is quite different. And, if we ambitiously look upon our artists as our first and last frontier, the expectations to the Avant-garde to act upon their originality, pose difficult questions and express the very nature of art itself, is more important, necessary and questioned than ever: they have responsibilities to be uncompromising, act out their vivid imaginary and -- create. Krauss (1985) expresses what the Avant-garde originality really is all about: "More than a rejection or dissolution of the past, I perceive avantgarde-originality, a beginning from point zero, a birth" (Krauss, 1985, p. 83). This essence and originality is now being questioned. Is it possible to achieve such a new birth -- a phoenix -- in the age of reproduction? Bang Larsen points out the difference of reproduction and reinventing in the realm of the (art) institution, where concepts and ideas about art is open to the imaginary:

The institution is the realm of the possible. On the other hand, words and concepts that carry our intuitions and ideas about art open up to the imaginary. When the possible and the imaginary intersect, the world can either be reproduced or reinvented (Bang Larsen, 2019).

From the realm of the possible to the nature of art: what is real art? And, equally as important to reflect upon: what is real research? These are questions that contemporary thinkers inspired by institutional theory on art should problematize. And, rather than asking; what real art, real research and real institutional theory is, what can it become? Marcel Duchamp discussed the first question: what can art become? Simultaneously his artworks playfully questions our institutions, and can be used as an example to scrutinize the foundations of the institutional theory of art. He questions our institutions, not just art as an institution, but also other institutions, such as e.g. our measures in 3 Standard Stoppages (Duchamp, 1913-14). This brief essay, thus, questions what real methodology and research is and what it can evolve into -- its becoming. Nevertheless; all these reflections started rolling and rumbling because of one magnificent and cleverly thoughtful piece of art; the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917). This has inspired the author to invite fiction into the field of methodology and research. This brief essay is, nevertheless, most of all an academic essay, but it is also a confessional essay. This is expressed in the essay's flourishing opulence and ravish use of adjectives and fictional elements; such as metaphors, that makes the essay stand out as a narrative, that is beyond a mere objective analysis. Because, there is indeed, a genuine confessional story expressed as undertones to the fictional elements, and the academic analysis. I lean on a confessional story underneath the fictional expression and objectiveness of the intellectual discussions, that enlightens and strengthens core arguments in this brief essay, in which the narrative moves from modern art to the foundations of the contemporary institutionalized art world: the Cathedral of Modern art, thereby, becomes a cradle or origin of contemporary art, as we know it. In this cradle; the confessional story, is a narrative of the common man being contraposed to the powerful Cathedral. In the Cathedral the ordinary man encounters something greater than themselves; that has been subdued, and comes to a point where the hidden thoughts and feelings freely unfolds itself to the maximum, when faced with the grand Cathedral. It is a moment of catharsis -- a moment where suppressed or extreme thoughts and feelings are released and flow freely, and cause empowerment, strength and enlightenment; through experiencing or being faced with works of art, literature or music. Catharsis may, therefore, be perceived as a purification of emotions that through experiencing art, comes into realization or into a clarification (, 2019). More precisely catharsis; through being faced with art; such as e.g. a tragedy, can have humanizing effects and strengthen the spectator or reader; through a sympathetic identification (, 2019). The reader or spectator sympathetic identification with the leading character of the tragedy, or the artist of the artwork we consider; or the artwork in itself (, 2019). This may cause an enlightment (, 2019). Because, this experience makes us become part of something greater than ourselves (, 2019). Our perspectives, thereby, becomes enlarged and fuelled with new insights -- an illuminating enlightment and empowerment (, 2019):

The interpretation [of catharsis] generally accepted is that through experiencing fear vicariously in a controlled situation, the spectator’s own anxieties are directed outward, and, through sympathetic identification with the tragic protagonist, his insight and outlook are enlarged. Tragedy then has a healthful and humanizing effect on the spectator or reader (, 2019).

In the middle of catharsis; a moment cut to the core of what it is like to be a vulnerable and sensitive human being, the Cathedral arise in front of us with all its spacious grandness, and open our eyes to the sky or the glimmering, radiating and twinkeling stars at night-time: we have suppressed the very nature in ourselves, we have lost faith in ourselves as evolutionary living creatures. This arises a legitimate question: have we become alienated to nature? In the Cathedral, awareness of being part of something greater than ourselves, arise: we are all results of a Darwinist evolution, dependent on nature to survive -- we have to start believing in humankind, and act as we belong to an evolutionary ecosystem. We simply have moved away from nature: it's time to confront the catharsis moment, and rejoin with nature. In the quest of improving technology and science: we have suppressed our evolutionary functions as living creatures; the nature within us. In the name of reason, and in the name of nationalism, imperialism and rascism, as well as by the means of science and technology; we have fought wars against ourselves; we have created wars against humanity (Tansey and Kleiner, 1996d). We are on the edge of a climate breakdown and an ecological breakdown (Thunberg, 2019). It's time for a system change -- a phoenix! It's time to start acting as we are part of nature; as we are part of culture. Rather than the linear, "take, make, dispose" economy of capitalism, we must engage in an circular economy that favours an ecosystem in balance. Because whilst

The linear ‘take-make-dispose’ model relies on large quantities of easily accessible resources and energy, and as such is increasingly unfit for the reality in which it operates. Working towards efficiency alone—a reduction of resources and fossil energy consumed per unit of manufacturing output—will not alter the finite nature of their stocks but can only delay the inevitable. A change of the entire operating system seems necessary (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012, p. 24).

The circular economy differs from the linear capitalist economy of perpetual growth, in fundamental aspects:

The circular economy refers to an industrial economy that is restorative by intention; aims to rely on renewable energy; minimises, tracks, and eliminates the use of toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design. The term goes beyond the mechanics of production and consumption of goods and services in the areas that it seeks to redefine […]. The concept of the circular economy is grounded in the study of non-linear systems, particularly living ones. A major consequence of taking insights from living systems is the notion of optimising systems rather than components, which can also be referred to as ‘design to fit’. It involves a careful management of materials flow (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012, p. 24).

The circular economy is, therefore, rooted in the wisdom of nature itself: circularity. Nature are alike culture, both have -- inherent healing capacities for nature and humankind. So, we should not be superior to or above nature; nature cannot be all about us; all about human beings, neither are we superior to culture. The fact is, nevertheless, that we are in charge of the Earth's destiny, this phenomenon was discussed by Crutzen in 2000, which he defined as the age of the Anthropocene. However, nature and culture should be united. Because, we are part of a greater ecosystem that must be kept in balance; to do so, we must search for faith and balance in ourselves too. The moment of catharsis and window of opportunity is created; when we are faced with culture (art) and nature. Furthermore, the author has created three levels of fiction; to express the message of this brief essay. This is done to enforce this existential moment of potential relief, enlightenment and empowerment, of being faced with these existential catharsis experiences and start acting; in favor of humankind and nature. The author; at the first level, suggests three metaphors; the Cathedral, the phoenix and the human body itself (the living creature); the next level is the Fountain (1917/1964), and then; at last comes the subjective dramatization. The meaning of the metaphors of the Cathedral, the phoenix and the living creature is expressed successively, throughout this brief essay. The Fountain (1917) tells a genuine story of Duchamp's masterpiece, represented by a reminiscence (the Fountain, Duchamp, 1964), that creates a space for learning, and makes us realize what art can become, when thoughts, feelings, ideas and concepts are not subdued, but are given the freedom to flow freely. This free flow of thoughts and feelings, ideas and concepts is expressed through the Avant-gardiste or artists, such as through chance creations, e.g. collage, photomontage or assemblage (MoMa, 2019a). These are methods familiar to Dada (MoMa, 2019a). Mercel Duchamp worked with chance creations and can be interpreted as having his own personal catharsis moments: he was by Breton; the cofounder of Dada, admired for being higly intense (Ades, 1974). Duchamp's artwork is an expression of resistance, experimentation and inventiveness; a rightful freedom of creation; a metamorphosis; a catharsis, that results in -- art. However; in the subjective dramatization, some facts have been strengthened, changed, modified or rearranged, to enforce the message of the academic, fictional and confessional narrative. This brief essay, is also an expression of what an academic essay can become, when we step outside the ordinary methodologies and theories -- the fixed box, that has been handed over to us, from existing textbooks on theory and methodology. It enters an academic discussion, that has transformed itself from an ordinary objective intellectual discussion into; a radical theory discussion, and a realization, that existing objective theories and methodologies are inadequate. It is based on human sensitivity, basic human abilities and human vulnerabilities -- sensitivities, abilities and vulnerabilities, that we all possess as human beings. It is therefore a confessional, academic, fictional, radical and a people-centered academic essay -- in one. It also addresses the fact that objectivity is a myth, and that all science are constructed narratives or fictional stories created by human beings -- a practice of great storytelling or not (Harari, 2017). This basic fact also applies to art. Fountain (1964) is a prime example of this essential fact, but so is the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917). Both the original and the replica, are fictional stories or represention of something genuine, that has originated from the artist himself -- as a human being -- alike the rest of us. Duchamp's Fountain (1917, 1964), is therefore, an expression of humanity; the power of being a human; the pool of abilities, sensitivities and vulnerabilities, we all tap into to create something greater than ourselves, whether it's an constructed academic narrative or -- a work of art. To work to its optimal, both academic narratives and art must seek to exceed the fixed box; the spatial container; the white cube, that the institutional art world or academic theory and methodology, suggests; to face impossible challenges; such as system changes. If so, we may overcome our limitations as human beings and overcome the limitations of the organizations we have created. We have to contest the given rules of the system -- in order to change it. Because, the irony is that; in most cases; to be worthy of being exhibited in a Cathedral, the artwork must prove to question the very existence of the Cathedral and -- its God(s), or question the existing foundations and nature of the institutional art world -- in itself. Art must continue to ask difficult questions; the existential questions; on the nature of 'art as an institution'; on the nature of our societal system; on the nature of capitalism; on the nature of belief; and on the nature of human beings; as part of an ecosystem at the edge of a greater and continually expanding universe. If the Avant-garde and the artists; through their art, starts to mess with one or more of these hot issues; at once, unintended or provocatively, its effects may also result in testing the given institutional limits, the given truths and the given taboos -- of humanity. And, the results may prove to be -- groundbreaking! Artworks provided by the artists and Avant-gardes, can, thereby, have effects beyond the local range; be systemic in its influence, and contribute to radical system changes, such as e.g. the repercussions of the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917) did. These artworks may also affect or transcends into other societal domains, of our global society. Transcendence can be defined as a "existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level" (Dictionary, 2019). The artwork of the artist simply stands out as something greater and larger than the artwork's physical appearance in itself. It is a result of nature at work through the means of human beings: experiencing it becomes -- spiritual and sacred. Pissarro (2009) argues

Kant established the radical finitude of subjectivity in the first chapter ("Transcendental Aesthetics") of his Critique of Pure Reason [from 1781] by defining sensibility (aesthetics, meaning Greek "sensibility" or "sensitivity" as the capacity to be affected by the outside world (Kant; Pissarro, 2009, p. 42).

Transcendence in art may happen through personal processes of catharsis, in which the Avant-gardes, the artists and the spectators or readers experiences with art, brings new insights or novelties. Their substance as human beings or physical apperance, thereby, becomes more powerful than themselves, as priviously mentioned. They become part of a greater spiritual system of experiencing art, in which art may affect the outside world and be affected by it; through its transcendence. By the perspective of a human being; nature and culture, are therefore, both affected by moments of catharsis and trancendense. But, while catharsis is a psychological experience on an individual level for the artists or the Avant-gardes and the spectator or the reader, transcendence is a spiritual experience that exceeds the physical persence of human beings. Both, exceeds the fixed box. It; transcendense and catharsis, deals with all the losses and gains -- all the faccetted experiences of being a human being, faced by the grandness of -- nature and culture. Since Duchamp was drawn between belief and an agnostical stance towards religion, he was also drawn towards the spirituality of art. This spirituality was particularly shown in his paintings, but also well known by art critics and fellow artists (Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999b). Marcel Duchamp; according to the essayist, polemicist, art historian and art conservator; Clair (2019b), had a

taste for spirituality and theosophy; in fact, he had once been unconsciously preoccupied by “a metarealism…a need for the ‘miraculous (22). […] Similarly, after the war he spoke of the artist as a “medium” in a famous declaration, often cited (23), and of art as a means of accessing “non-retinal” reality (Clair, 2019b).

However, psychological experiences of catharsis, such as Duchamp's intense feelings, may, thus, have spiritual transcendent effects, and vice versa. These experiences and explorations of nature and culture, are; most of all, rooted in the seeds of human beings -- our nature and our culture. It is spiritual, personal and sacred, at once. It also allows the creation of artworks and experiencing them to inflict into other societal fields, such as the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917) proved to do. With its surprising provocation; the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), exceeded our expectations to 'art as an institution' and to the human being; the artist himself. It left us puzzled in shock. Because, Duchamp, as mentioned previously, did not only questioned his religious stance; his God(s); his spirituality; his nature; his identity, he also questioned his sexual orientation; and; most of all; shook the pillars of 'art as an institution'. Not suprisingly; too many taboos for the common man at his time; provided in one artistic career -- one shot.

To support Duchamp and further enhance my scepticism and frustrations with the notion of 'art as an institution'; the original Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), was refused to be exhibited (as mentioned), and the original work of art is lost! How Duchamp would react to a copy or replica of his original art work being exhibited, would only result in uncertain or dubious speculations. Nevertheless; Duchamp told Schwartz, that he hoped that the proposed; Fountain (1917), had escaped 'from conformity', that 'demanded art to be hung on the wall or presented on easels' (Duchamp; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 151). By art historians and art critics, the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), is regarded as a 20th century major landmark of art. It made us pose one simple questions: what is art? When this question is discussed in context of the institutionalizm of art, this simple question matters, and it suddenly became overwhelmingly intrusive to me. Although I was mesmerized by the beauty of this "Cathedral", I could not leave my scepticism by the grand entrance. Even though, my scepticism is real, I still have great respect for genuine artists, whether their art exists within the institutionalized art world or at the streets. Genuine artists gives me chills, in a good way: they make me pose questions. They make me think. They make me feel. Exactly that's what happened! There is something brooding in me: something is about to change and I think I am not the only one exploring the potential of this change of gravity: the center of gravity for innovation within the art world is changing, and it is on the stage of the streets the future of groundbreaking new artistic expressions will manifest itself. Nevertheless, I think in most Londoner's mindsets and hearts; "The Cathedral of Modern Art", has a particular meaning, function, status and position among the other major flagships of institutions within the art world, as being sort of a holy place -- not to mess with. Though; being "A Cathedral of Modern Art", is not necessarily the same as being "innovative"; and surely not the same as being "contemporary". However; Tate is highly innovative within its historical scope. This "Cathedral of Modern Art", has left us key works within our visual culture, contributed to empower the artists and the Avant-gardes, and shaped the nature of art as an institution. These artists have inspired our mindsets tirelessly and they have questioned the very existence of the gallery as an institution! Now; it is my turn to enhance this scepticism. Art should not be displayed within institutions it should be "out there": As a "break" in the lush, crowded and noisy street; colouring the subway tunnel; lighten up an alley or enrich the walls by a cool canal; under a bridge; among the trees in a city park or at the silos by the windy harbor. Art should be free for everyone to exhibit or explore. Art should be displayed where people live their everyday; whether it's in the cities or at more rural places: Art should not belong to "Cathedrals"! Art should not be hidden away in some storage!

Seriously; "Ingrid"? You are about to have a "heatstroke"! As I was lining up in a que at the South Banks to even reach the grand entrance: I Guess 17th of July 2016; on a hot Sunday at late lunch time; in the peak of the holiday season in London; wasn't the right day or mental state to encounter a Cathedral of Modern Art! I met my company, excused myself, and headed home for the roof terrace and; decided to return a couple of days later; to restore my mental state.

20th of July 2016: most institutions within the art world will do their outermost to enhance the potential of arising artists; such as Tate. Tate Modern has truly embarked upon nurturing the very existence of emerging innovative modern art: it is unique! This Cathedral has an important and socially including potential to open up the possibilities for a spiritual moment with modern art. Maybe it is my own "outdated" notion of an art institution as sort of a 'spatial container' or 'white cube' that constrains the art world, which still troubles my imaginary, and makes me sceptical. But, the fact is that institutions can act as endogenous (open) frameworks; in the way they have a capacity to evolve belief systems; through institutional reforms and change (adaption), just as well as they may act exogenous (closed) frameworks; with binding rules which constrains the individual artist (need satisfaction only) (Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 3, Brousseau et al., 2011, p. 4). On one hand; while "institutions and practices to survive in the long term […], must be functional (in the sense of being adaptive), […] institutional arrangement comes about, stabilizes and evolves through trial and error" (in Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 3). On the other hand; Malinowski, claimed that there was "a direct relation between human needs and sociocultural institutions that satisfied them", hence, "the institutions excised to satisfy needs" only (in Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 3). Hylland Eriksen (2019, p. 3), thus, supports the adaption perspective on institutions. But adds; as Wilson stresses; that; although the view of the one unifying and adaptive force; 'The One Culture'-vision, may bring new insights and is encouraging, the vision does not come without challenges and implications (Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 2, Wilson in Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 2). (Although the idea of one unifying and adaptive culture is challenging and filled with implications, it becomes an; all the more intreaging and tempting nut to crack, for the author). Taken together; art institutions may act as open, inclusive and adaptive (functional), or -- act as closed, non-inclusive and only need satisfying (in the author's view: dysfunctional; in evolutionary terms). Though; artists might fight back against this dysfunctionallity with resistance and with magnificent utterances, their most forceful creativity and their genuinely sobering originality! This makes me question: what are the next rules to be broken by the Avant-gardes? Which protest has not yet stunned and paralyzed the contemporary art world? Whom are the next aspiring artists to shake the pillars of this solid Cathedral? And ultimately; who is this century's next Marcel Duchamp?

As I entered Rothko's Room in Switch House, I suddenly recalled one question: what is art? Since Duchamp's productive period, there has been a shift in power within the art world: while in Marcel Duchamp's era; the power of defining the notion of art were mainly in the hands of the art institutions; with Duchamp's Fountain (1917); something has changed. This work of art represented a groundbreaking transformation of the power relations within the institutionalized art world: Marcel Duchamp made us scrutinize and question the power of art institutions. Let us not forget his spirit. The Avant-gardes of the early twentieth century, challenged the art institutions' power monopoly; with Marcel Duchamp at the barricade; as the front figure of inventiveness; leading the attack. A new type of power materialized itself; one which became more complex, fragmented and split among the actors in the game. In this process; Duchamp was the spearhead of inventiveness: he simply changed the rules of the game! In the nineteenth century, the art institutions were in power of defining the status of art. During the early twentieth century, radical changes in the distribution of power in the institutional art world, transpired. With Duchamp at the tip of the spear, the Avant-gardes paved the way for a new system of influence within our institutionalized art world; with multiple actors and complex relations of influence -- the transformative refraction of art -- in which the artists became more powerful. The core result of this refraction; was that; the power of defining art in our time, is increasingly in the hands of the artists and the Avant-gardes, and the distribution of power has become more complex, fragmented and comprehensive -- new actors have entered the game. Nevertheless; while the art institutions might be more characterized by an institutional inertia; a resistance to change, the artists express a dynamic, progressive, radical, free and autonomous change. In other ways, the art institutions may appear as stable and potential supportive and permeable actors, that also confirm socially transmitted rules, and secure artists rights (need satisfaction): however, they also possess a groundbreaking potential to move towards more progressive and radical reforms and transformation, and fight against stagnation and inertia (adaptive abilities). The Avant-garde are, nevertheless, agents of rapid change, that contest rules -- freedom and resistance. They favour disruptive mutations of ideas, at the expense of stability and continuance (evolution). Art as an institution is, hence, dependent on collaborative processes and stability, that ties together multiple geographical scales, and more rapid transformative forces that the artists represent -- to co-evolve as a system (transformation and adaption). Collaborative actors; such as the art institutions, and the Avant-garde, as well as the artists, therefore has to co-evolve and co-create, to secure the future of our visual culture. To understand these potential collaborative processes, there is a need to make a system analysis of the institutional art world, to unravel its systemic change potentials.

First, let's start out with some core systemic terms from system theory, deriving from theory on socio-technical transitions. Reallocation, realignment, redistribution, reconfiguration and directionality, are terms frequently used and recognized in theory on system change; embedded in institutional theory, particularly emphasized in sociotechnical transitions (Schot and Kanger, 2018, Geels, 2005, 2004, 2002). The author will, therefore, appropriate these core system terms, and apply them to the global institutional art world. Because, the collaborative processes of the institutional art world can be understood at a system level: system change in the institutional artworld must make account for structural refraction of power, where incumbent parts and actors of the system must reallocate (reassign resources among actors differently) through an realignment (core actors recoordinate their resources). The aligned participants or authorities, contribute to systemic changes of the institutional art world's comprehensive networks, through rearrangements of the resources they possess -- a redistribution. Redistribution is to change the distribution of power and resources among the actors differently. Geels (2005, 2002) applies his system terms on the transition from e.g. horse-drawn carriage to automobiles (Geels, 2005), and the transition from sail ships to Steamboats and other socio-technical fields (Geels, 2002). These transitions took approximately 50 years, according to Geels (2005,2002) He, therefore, argues that system changes or transitions are long term enterprises. A system change or transition; in the institutional art world, may therefore, take approximately 50 years, give or take. But, as far as we know, system changes; in the institutional art world, may already be on its way, and on schedule; such as a transition towards a more fair distribution of power and resources, between the actors in the game in the institutional art world, or move in the direction of more openness, less inequality, more democratization, more fairness, less elitism, and a more widespread acceptance of inclusiveness. But, while resources are more easily measurable -- power is not. However, the long term duration of transitions may cause vast challenges, when time is scarce. This is the case for the climate crisis and the potential ecological breakdown. We most certainly do not have 50 years to adapt, transform and change radically, into a more ecological and climate friendly system, within the given schedule of a sustainability transition, based on scientific findings (Geels, 2005, 2004, 2002). Second, Meadows (1999) argue that every system has leverage points. These are places in the system, that when intervened, will ease the transition from one system to an improved system changes, such as e.g. through evolutionary path creation (See: Meadows, 1999, pp. 1-19). A path creation may e.g. come into being by the establishment of a new artistic movement, based on new artistic manifestos. But, movements may also build upon existing knowledge -- evolution. Path creation is a result of self-organizing or transformation from within, a start from point zero, that has an evolutionary capacity, mentioned in the section on evolutionary adaption (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). Path creation; as an evolutionary function, is highly relevant and may also apply to 'art as an institution', and can; in this brief essay, be understood as the phoenix of system change in the institutional art world. Path creations may accelerate the rapid changes from one system to another -- it is a favourable short cut. From the metaphorical phoenix and back to the core system functions: although the three first mentioned system functions' overlap, they are easily distinguishable. Reallocation focuses on the change of arrangement of resources, realignment emphasizes on the change of coordination among the actors, and redistribution pays attention to the changed distribution of resources and power among the actors. Reallocation, realignment and redistribution, would hopefully elude into a systemic change -- a reconfiguration of the system in itself, where the institutional art world as a system takes a new organizational form. More percisely explained; while alignments deals with the core actors of the institutional art world and how they choose to organize themselves as authorities within the institutional art world, allocation is simply a change of how the resources are arranged, redistribution, thus, ties together core actors and their resources and power, through connecting alignments and allocation of resources. Reconfigurations is, therefore, to change the arrangement of different actors, power and resources; in a novel way, so that the institutional art world, may take a new form or structure, through inherent innovations of the system in itselves. These system functions are therefore appropriated from Geels (2005, 2004, 2002) original usage on sustainable transitions, and applied to the institutional art world, by the author. In these reconfiguration processes, aligned actors take on new positions, and coordinate the distribution of resources among them differently, so that new power relations arise. Since power follows resources, an excellent way of redistributing power, is to redistribute the resources in the institutional art world, tied to various actors in the game, such as the Avant-garde and the artists, the art institutions and the capitalists. New power relations may, thereby, emerge, and inequal access to power tied to different geographical locations may even out, and the access to power may become more democratic, among the core actors in the game. Furthermore; new combinations of actors, power and resources, may recharge the institutional art world's interwoven network, and create system changes. All systemic functions; as mentioned above, deals with different types of radical changes in the organization of the institutional art world. That brings us to the third argument: a systemic change of the institutional art world is not possible without a change in its inherent organization. System change, therefore, equals change in the overall organization of the institutional art world. This overall change in organization describes how resources and power is arranged differently among the actors in the game. In this game; systemic functions, struggles, refractions and core evolutionary functions, work together to make the system change. While evolutionary functions may not work at a system level; in all manners, system functions does, and refractions and struggles ties together evolutionary step by step transformations of art as an institution. Together art and system; such as the global society, shapes the directionality, or the path(s), in which the institutional art world is heading, its systemic output. When actors, power, rescources and technological innovations are connected on a long term scope, a durable time course or historic pace (such as a 50 year frame), radical system changes may happen and lead the acceleration and stabilization; towards a deep transition (Schot and Kanger, 2018, p. 1045). "Deep Transitions = long-term, connected, radical system shifts in the same direction" (Schot and Kanger, 2018, p. 1045). The socio-technical systems in change, is the backdrop of radical systemic changes in the institutional art world; the backstage of deep transition in our global society, and is one way of explaining radical system changes happening at the front scene, of our global society.

Industrial society has not only led to high levels of wealth and welfare in the Western world, but also to increasing global ecological degradation and social inequality. The socio-technical systems that underlay contemporary societies have substantially contributed to these outcomes (Schot and Kanger, 2018, p. 1045).

In this wider systemic perspective, the institutional art world has to adjust to the situation, adapt and change in line with the course of time, or the global society's overall directionality, and in accordance to major socio-technical systems. But, within this bird's-eye perspective, the institutional art world shapes its own direction. This directionality is adressed by the author and appropriated, as priviously mentioned, from Schot and Kanger's (2018) original term, to adress system changes in the institutional art world. This appropriation is inspired by Duchamp's appropriation of the term readymade. However, the author argues that radical system changes in the institutional art world, happens through a reconfiguration of core actors, power and rescources connected through innovation. This reconfiguration is the systemic output of the institutional art world and explains the institutional art worlds systemic output, directionality or simply where the institutional art world is heading. In this comprehensive system change perspective: art has impact on the overall system of the institutional art world, and the overall system has impact on art: move and counter-movement, counter-movement and move, and so on, and so forth. Altogether, these functions; evolutionary, struggles, system functions and refractionary, overlap, and co-work. The artworks these functions may result in, influence and transcends by means of its spirituality into other parts of our global society -- it has systemic influence.

Taken together, systemic change, happens through (1) self-organization through evolutionary functions (e.g. path creation), (2) systemic functions (reallocation, realignment, reconfiguration, redistribution and directionality) and by (3) refractionary transformation, or (4) struggles between different movements, sexual orientations, ideologies, identities, classes and styles, which, altogether, makes the institutional art world and its actors intricately co-work, clash; and renew itself: fire and ashes, ashes and fire, and so on, and so forth: a phoenix arise from its ashes! The systemic changes in sum (evolution, struggles, refractions and systemic functions), influences the overall direction(s) of the institutional art world -- its systemic outcome and its directionality through deep transitions (Schot and Kanger, 2018). However, at an individual level the artists and the Avant-garde have to reinvent themselves, through collaboration and mutations of the mind; to continuously shape new artistic actions and behavior, expressions and utterances. This is a continuous and highly complex process, in which the artists and the Avant-garde must play the key role. Of the artists and Avant-gardes who should dominate these transformative, evolutionary and systemic processes and struggles; the Avant-gardes are those artists who constitute and highly influence the ideas, concepts and questions, we ponder on in our society -- and thereby create art; within the social and institutional context that history allows for:

Art develops and its history is one with the transformation of the social conditions of its functioning, in relation, therefore, to the practical reconfiguration of institutional frameworks (Smolianskaïa, 2013. p. 1)

The term reconfiguration, as well as reallocation and realignment, redistribution, reconfiguration and directionality, is associated with theory on institutional system change, and says that institutional frameworks; in the pace of history, will change, whether they are favourable to art as an institution (or not). Art, is, thus, shaped by and dependant on history. Within historical structures art forms its own history, influenced by historical incidents. Within the institutional frameworks that our history allows for, these contexts are again influenced by social conditions in sum, which the artist and the Avant-gardes; must relate to, whether they contest, confirm or offer resistance to these frameworks. By the view of the human geographer; the artist defines the idea. The idea defines the artist's or the Avantgardiste's 'choice' of concept, which in its nature interplay with contextual and institutional frameworks. Art is, thus, contextual, optional and rightful. It is optional, because it's up to the artist to choose what art -- is. It is rightful, because the Avant-gardes and the artists have been given their right to express themselves through artworks. Since the Avant-gardes and the artists through artworks contest given rules in the institutional art world -- this may, thereby, appear as conflictual -- the artworks may create conflicts in the institutional art world, when the Avant-gardes and the artists; by their given resistance and freedom, contest given rules. Furthermore, the institutional context also adds to the understanding of art -- art does not exist without the context -- it is institutional by nature. From the artistic creation of the idea -- to its contextual appearance, art is therefore also highly geographical. But, how do we define art? In a radio interview at BBC in 1956, Duchamp himself, thus, ponders on the relation between the rendezvous of 'the readymade as a work of art', and his denial of the possibility of defining 'art' (Duchamp, 1956; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 151 and 155):

That is the very difficult point, because art first has to be defined. Alright, can we try to define art? We have tried and in every Century, there is a new definition of art. Meaning that there is no essential, no one essential, that is good for all centuries. So if we accept the idea of trying not to define art, which is a very legitimate conception, the readymade can be seen as sort of irony, because it says here it is, a thing that I call art, I didn't make it myself. As we know art etymologically speaking means 'make', 'handmade', and there instead of making, I take it readymade. So it was a form of denying the possibility of defining art (Duchamp, 1956; Ades, Cox and Hopkins, 1999d, p. 151).

I think Duchamp knew it, and as Harari explains (2017); the Fountain (1917), proved to us that 'art' can be anything and 'anything' can be art -- we only have to define it as 'art,' contextually. But; here lies also the fundamental problem of 'art as an institution': how do we define an institution; 'art', that basically can be anything? Trying to define art is therefore a highly complex task, which the author do not take easily. An understanding of 'art' may include all its complexities, but a definition should also be simple, spot on and clear. Nonetheless, an attempt of trying to understand ART may start out with the Avant-garde's idea and 'choice', and their ideas and choice interact with different contexts and institutional frameworks, which again interplay with the (fictional) story of art (created by different social roles and characters in the institutional art world); and how art is understood in our society through historical incidents. What is art? can therefore be understood through the artistic creation of the idea and their choices, its contextual and institutional characteristics, the fictional story of art; in which the artistic creation of the idea, should dominate or define the understanding of art; throughout the terms of history. Though, the artists or the Avant-garde may also choose to exist outside the institutional framework, but this is also part of the institutional setup. They work as a control function to criticize the system; such as 'art as an institution' or more widely; the institutional art world. The characteristics of the institutional framework, gain inspiration from the outsiders as a counteraction, and in form of -- resistance. Without this refreshing and new thinking resistance, the art world; as a system, would flip into crisis caused by stagnation, inertia, and ultimately; lock-ins. Embodied in the nature of the institutional art world, those who have been perceived as outsiders; such as e.g. Edvard Munch (1863-1964) or the Norwegian Avant-gardiste and artist; Bjarne Melgaard (1967-), plays a key role in the understanding of 'art as an institution' (Eriksen, 2018a). Art as an institution is characterized by being fuelled by its outsiders, they hence, becomes a vital communicative force of the institutional art world: resistance drives the art world in (multiple) directions: art is multiple in its directionality! The artist does not supremely define what art is themselves, it is also defined as an interplay or tug of war between three core actors; the Avant-garde and the artists, the capitalist and the art institutions, whom again characterize the nature of 'art as an institution'. This tug of war was sparked off by Duchamp's stunt; the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917). Although the copy of the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917) is placed in Tate Gallery of Modern Art, it is, thus, not a real art work, since it is a copy.

Fountain is one of Duchamp’s most famous works and is widely seen as an icon of twentieth-century art. The original, which is lost, consisted of a standard urinal, usually presented on its back for exhibition purposes rather than upright, and was signed and dated ‘R. Mutt 1917’. Tate’s work is a 1964 replica and is made from glazed earthenware painted to resemble the original porcelain. The signature is reproduced in black paint. Fountain has been seen as a quintessential example, along with Duchamp’s Bottle Rack 1914, of what he called a ‘readymade’, an ordinary manufactured object designated by the artist as a work of art (and, in Duchamp’s case, interpreted in some way) (, 2019).

Additionally; all art works are representations of human phenomena from the universe to the body. Human phenomena are social, flexible, creative and organizational, and genuine 'art' is a product of these human abilities (Harari, 2017). Since Fountain (1964) is a copy or a replica from the original lost Fountain from 1917; it is a representation of a representation (, 2018): it is a good old fictional story of the Avant-gardiste Duchamp's original artwork. What makes the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917) a work of art, is that Duchamp choose it by chance and thereby transformed it; from being just an industrial produced object; into a work of art -- he thereby added new thoughts to the urinal, which again turned it into -- art. A groundbreaking Avant-garde piece of art, is thus, also a manifestation according to Bürger (1984), as mentioned priviously. The Avant-gardes, such as Duchamp, therefore, represents our forefront when it comes to developing highly experimental, progressive and radical ideas; as manifestations, in our global society. They can forecast the future, thrive in the moment or revive the past -- it can therefore guide art into multiple directions, also as mentioned priviously. They; the artists and the Avant-gardes, represents the humankind. They represents US. We should listen to them! This might bring us closer to a definition of ART.

First; the open and adaptive definition: art is anything created by anyone (Harari, 2017), this anything can only be created through art by the artist (Tandberg in Eriksen, 2018b, Harari, 2017), and art by this definition, the author claims; emerges as an interplay between form and content, in an institutional frameworks that enabels the artists to choose what art -- is. Second; the closed or inertia definition: art is created by artists, that maintain the status quo in the institutional art world, and emerges as an interplay between form and content, within an institutional framework that constrains the artists (a white cube). Third; the refractionary, struggle and innovative definition: art comes into being through unexpected or new combinations of ideas and thoughts that overlap, collide, are being displaced or when there is a struggle between certain ideas or thoughts that occurs, which the artists turn into art by choice (Bertalanffy, 1968). Fourth; the control function, Avant-gardiste and system change definition: art is original displacements of ideas created and chosen to be art by the Avant-garde, that are particularly inventive, or at least innovative and; in which the Avant-garde contest the given rules of the institutional art world. While the first; adaption and open definition, includes all kinds of Avant-gardes, artists and artworks; (anyone and anything), that adds something new to the mindsets of our art institutional world, the closed definition regards art works that are created by conservative artists in an constraining (need satisfaction only) institutional art world. Avant-gardiste artworks, are, however, sparked of or created from originality; new births, that leads to system changes. Avant-gardiste art, thus, applies to art that is particularly inventive or innovative. This is the control function definition of art: the Avant-gardes appear to exist separate to the institutional art world or as a control function, but the fact is that they; as mentioned, are part of the institutional setup -- they are its real drivers and reality check, as mentioned priviously. The key works in our visual culture or Avant-garde art, contributes; as mentioned, to the choice of direction of the institutional art world in sum, or -- its directionality (Schot and Kanger, 2018). And; also as mentioned priviously: it lies in the nature of art to be multiple in its directionality, which makes system changes in the institutional highly complex and comprehensive. Avant-garde art is, thus, usually more inventive and innovative, than artworks created by artists, whom does not belong to the Avant-garde. And; it may also have a wider impact on the inventiveness of the institutional art world as a whole. The refractionary definition on art, emphasizes art that is particularly inventive and innovative, but not necessarily work as a control function in the institutional art world, or makes the system change. While the open and adaptive definition supports an endogenous view on the institutional art world, the closed and need satisfactionary only definition on art, defends an exogenous perspective on the institutional art world -- status quo and inertia, it constrains system changes of the institutional art world as a whole. Both definitions are equally as important to understand 'art as an institution'; as something that may enable or constrain, the individual artists or Avant-gardes. Nontheless, an open and wide definition of art enhances inclusiveness, experimentation and democratization of the institutional art world, and a stricter and more narrow definition of art, may in some cases cause elitism, non-inclusiveness and discrimination, anti-democratic behaviour and inequality, in the institutional art world. By this definition the institutional art world serves as a non-experimental and closed spatial container -- where the rules of the white cube dominates the institutional art world. Avant-gardiste art separates the mer artists from the Avant-garde; and mastery from ordinary art. It is, thus, not always fruitful to have this divide. How we handle this division, that is not always visable in the produced art works, might strenghten the road towards democratization of the institutional art world, or hinder it. Moreover, it is important to note that art does not easily stick to definitions. The most promising artists and Avant-gardes rather contests proposed definitions on art, than stick to preassumed definitions on art. It is, thus, all in the hands of our perspective or understanding of 'art as an institution', how the artists and Avant-garde in collaborations with the art institutions, and how the capitalists, handle the legacy and heritage of our visual culture. In sum, they may point out the future path of the institution; art -- its systemic output or overall directionality and overall organization, and its change potentials. Their choices; in sum, are fundamental to how we perceive the nature of 'art' and its future pat(s). But, art may also be exsistential: whether it's Duchamp (1887-1968), Rothko (1903-1970) or Banksy (1974-): great artists and Avant-gardes, may make us pose questions that matters to our existence, and they even might make us rethink our existence. In a silent moment with Rothko's paintings I encountered myself and had my own personal experience in The Cathedral of Modern Art. I posed my own personal questions on the state of modern art and contemporary art; I quietly tried to rethink my existence; restore my mental state; and regain my sense; (with a little help from Rothko).

The art world is one of ours most compound, carefully and entangled; intertwined systems or networks: whether you are facing modern art in; a "Cathedral"; working at MoMA (NYC); exhibiting your own art work in an independent contemporary art gallery; are having your heartfelt moment being exposed to street art or are covering walls, windows and doors with your tags; -- whether you are in the middle of your performance; learning to paint for the very first time; are lecturing in renaissance sculpture at a university; are about to become an influential contemporary art curator; are a writing art critic; or if you are just being generally sceptical: no worries. We are all part of the same system; wholeness and one art scene or society -- ONE culture. This system is powerful! The notion of power as unevenly distributed, however, implies that there are social roles that ought to have influence, whom are not taken into account. Since power and influence, are attributes that are unevenly distributed socially and culturally, politically and economically, as well as geographically, there are stories yet unwritten and characters not fully elaborated, to make a full account of the status and story of art. The notion of the society as a creature that develops through evolution, thus, argues that shifts in power and influence might occur (Rigby and Essletzbitchler, 2010). This is promising! There are, nevertheless, still uneven distributions of power in the institutionalized art world, that causes elitism, inequality and discrimination: it is not fully democratic! This implies that there are opinions, thoughts, feelings and ideas of those in lesser powerful social, political, cultural and economic roles, or in the art world's power periphery, that should be given a voice. Massey's views on places is, however, more optimistic and nuanced. She eloquently argues how places can be understood as progressive sites of 'power geometries' (Massey, 1993). This concept implies that the local and the global are interconnected in the institutional art world, which simultaneously allows for cultural difference and cultural uniqueness, to exist side by side and flourish: global inequalities can be reduced, and in some instances be overcome (Massey, 2009; MacEwan and Daya, 2012, p. 278). This also implies to inequalities in access to power and influence in the institutional art world. Carroll (1999), nonetheless, claims that the institutionalized art world's reputation as being anti-democratic, discriminating, inequal and elitist, is unfair (p. 230). Nevertheless, he points out that not anyone can or should act on the behalf of the art world. Carroll (1999) argue:

Democracy doesn't require that everyone be empowered to do just anything -- not just anyone can walk into a hospital and perform brain surgery. Similarly, not just anyone can act on the behalf of the artworld. On the other hand, the artworld, according to Institutional Theory of Art, is an equal-opportunity employer, since anyone, in principle, should be able to become an agent of the artworld by acquiring the relevant sort of knowledge, understanding, and the right sort of experience (Carroll, 1999, p. 230).

Those who becomes an agent of the institutional art world, should all be acquainted with Duchamp's artworks. Duchamp curiously opened Pandora's Box of power and influence in the institutional art world. He was an archetype of inventiveness and a prime example of artistic autonomy, an idealistic thinker; (as the author), and an Avant-gardiste who -- took his artistic ability of resistance seriously (Clair, 2019a)! Duchamp stubbornly paved the way for new tricks in the institutional art world. The institutional theory of art, refractions and struggles, evolutionary theory and system theory, thus, offers an opulent ocean of inspiration on how to understand the nature of art. The nature of art asks about its origin, the creator's originality, those who define its status, and its contextual appearance. The status of defining; what is and what is not art; in the art world, is closely tied to the institutional attributes of power and authority, as well as how inequality, discrimination, democratization and elitism, affects these attributes. How we define art can either be open or closed, as refractions or as a control function; art as an institution, may, therefore, either rest on an endogenous or exogenous understanding of institutions. The choice of either open or closed, refractionary or control function definition on art, adds to what kind of institutional art world we want: how should the future of the institutional art world look like globally? Do we want a functional, inclusive, adaptive or -- a dysfunctional, non inclusive and need satisfactionary institutional art world, only? And finally: does art arise through evolution, struggles, refractions or system functions? Or; perhaps as a combinatory? And, hence; the core question in this brief essay is; what are the complex relation of power and influence; in the institutional art world, from a system change perspective? This brief essay is an attempt of unpacking some of these urgent matters -- all questions posed, deal with the matter of the institutional art world as a system, in sum; its essence or nature. Furthermore, it also questions the power-relationships between the Avant-garde and the artists, the capitalists and art institutions. Power and influence, is the element that ties this brief essay together; hence; it can be evolutionary, understood as struggles, interpretated as refractionary or be understood at a system level -- it also intersects different geographical scales or power geometries (Massey, 1993; Hubbard, 2002). Moreover, no matter what kind of definition on art we apply, and what kind of questions we pose, the artists and the Avant-garde and their new frontiers, also have to fight against institutional systemic inertia: it is a cumbersome process to transform an entire system; such as the institutional art world, since it is most of all a system or a complex, and an entangled network. Nonetheless, the view of the institutional art world; as a social system going through phases of refractions, struggles, systemic functions and evolution to renew and reinvent itself, makes this system the most complex forms of human innovations: in this social system the flux of influence on the organism goes multiple ways. In one way; art is simply mirroring this system's diverse "sum" of innovations and its institutional contexts. All layers of innovations, institutional rules, struggles, system functions, refractions and evolutionary functions, results in diverse, complex and sometimes experimental artistic expressions. System changes of the institutional art world, discussed in this brief essay, combines elements from institutional theory on art, refractions, struggles in the institutional art world, and evolutionary theory, to emphasise processes of how system functions in the institutional art world as a system, is also rooted in theory on system change. In this system level analysis the author draws on theory from both nature and culture, to unite nature and culture.

Nontheless it is of particular importance to note, that there is a difference between "nature [from a Darwinist point of view] and culture [such as art]"; as Hylland Eriksen argues (2019, p. 3) (note: the author's own selection of examples of 'nature and culture' is added by brackets). Therefore, the evolutionary terms, in this brief essay, have only have been applied metatheoretically -- they are not capable of being put into use directly. In addition; since the evolutionary terms does not work metatheoretically on art; in all matters; refractions, struggles and system functions, have been added, when evolutionary functions fails to make a full system account of the institutional art world. The author, thus, defends the usage of radical interdisciplinarity, in the trial of making a system account of the institutional art world, since "Assumptions, objects, and methodologies do not always fall along disciplinary lines" (Savonick, 2019). But; in the trial of applying radical interdisciplinarity, the author must also acknowledge the fact that constructive comments may come from several disciplines (or from multiple directions), or at least from the disciplines in question. The debate; defended in this brief essay; in favour of radical interdisciplinarity, may be perceived as an uncomfortable; or even a bewildering struggle to defend; since research and the usage of appropriate methodology; most of all, is a constant learning process, that; yields challenges and implications, as well as new insights (Hylland Eriksen, 2019, p. 2, Savonick, 2019, p. 4). The more radically different the disciplines that are brought together to cooperate, the better the chances are for creating new insights or novelties according to Nelson (2017). Radical interdisciplinarity can, therefore, be defined as the act of bringing together radically different disciplines to create inventive, innovative and transformative novelties (Nelson, 2017). He argues that for radical interdisciplinarity to be transformative; for radicals to act and create novelties, four core elements has to be present; (1) diversity of people; (2) appropriate sized group to secure diversity; (3) limited time scope (because innovations will decline over time); (4) ties among people with respect for diversity and respect for other peoples knowledge and perspectives (Nelson, 2017). Insofar, the author agrees with; Nelson (2017) and particularly Savonick (2019, p. 3), who argues that "thinking in terms of disciplines has always felt inadequate" (note: the author's own cursive). In addition to radical interdisciplinarity, the author encourages researchers to engage in open science: "open science practices, […] refer to the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research findings and materials" (, 2019; Grand et al. 2017; Nosek et al., 2015). Open science is a genuine toolkit, that provides principles in which research can become more transparent, inclusive, collaborative and democratic. This brief essay is, however, just the start of the author's engagement with open science. By means of its core principles; open science; such as e.g. publishing everything online; in the writing process of a research project; can create voices, that would not be heard otherwise: this is the case with the author's a heartfelt message and contribution to a systemic approach to research on the institutional art world. From its fumbling beginning, through all trials and errors: every facetted mistake has been published online; from significant to minor mistake -- every latest argument and correction, have been made available to public evaluation. To correct errors; the author has attended; debates of the public media and research at linear television, online research lectures, social media and news; as a spectator, and then responded to the author's own unrightful arguments, as a researcher. This has brought new insights, and it has been hugely helpful in detecting misleading arguments or simply -- errors! If there is any resistance to open science, it is most of all, researcher's unwillingness to risk presenting errors, that will stick to their reputation throughout their research career. But the author has chosen to take these risks, because even though the stakes are high, the rewards are even higher. Furthermore, the research process has also been intuitive, creative, organic and transparent from its beginning to its fullfillment: trial and error, argument and counterargument, trial and error, and so on, and so forth. Since everything has been published online, everyone; in principle, have been invited in to comment; inevitably or if desired. Nevertheless, the research project fails to fulfil the collaborative requirement or principle of open science and radical interdisciplinarity. This essay has been written solely by the author. Nor has its hypothesis and core research question been formally reported prior to the research project. This is perhaps more applicable in quantitative method, since it is e.g. easier to pose research questions, and to plan in advance. The task of this research project is, however; to be a qualitative theory discussion, and at its best also to connect radically different disciplines, in a manner that it may; create a new system perspective, system impact or system account; on the institutional art world. Nonetheless, the author has made her own selections of lectures, essays, websites, exhibitions, seminars and debates to read or attend; in particular events or essays with relevance for her research process. Receiving comments has, therefore, improved the relevance of this brief essay. Comments have been inevitable and desirable; uncomfortable and rewarding, and truely gained momentum on the research process! Nevertheless; these comments have; as mentioned, been radically complex and overwhelming, to take in; digest, and finally; to turn these digested comments into nutritious, meaningful and relevant knowledge; embodied in the arguments of this research project. In sum, as the research project has progressed; the risky challenge, the time absorbing curiosity and the open-ended excitement, that this brief essay has yielded, has seriously caught the author's attention and resources. The superior task and excitement of the author of this brief essay is, therefore, to engage in a system change debate of the institutional art world, and not just indulge in an art historical analysis, only.

Because, it is also of great significance to stress the fact that the author has failed to make an art historical comparison of different artists and their artworks in the era of Duchamp, but as you may have understood -- this is no art historical case comparison. On the contrary this brief essay is an attempt of presenting a single case; one artist, one art work, in its societal, institutional and historical context. It is a system analysis, and it is a single case discussion. The core task is to understand the art world through the surrounding institutional, historical and societal context of the given case, and how the single case has influenced our society, in particular through power relations in the institutional art world. More precisely, it takes a systemic move to grasp the institutional repercussions of a single case; through the means of understanding power relations, it thereby seeks to understand the institutional art world as -- a system (struggles, evolution, refractions and system functions). The single case, therefore, serves as an inspiration; a contrast, to an analysis of the institutional art world as a system. The author, furthermore, takes a agnostical stance (as Duchamp) and social science methodological approach, to understand the intricacy of a single case. Hence, it is also rooted in qualitative methodology, as mentioned in the section above. The author has utilized the single case's potentials for a brief in-depth study of the Fountain (1917) and Duchamp at one end of the scale, to say something more profound about 'art as an institution' and the institutional art world in the centre of the scale, and then turn to the societal and historical perspective internationally, at the other end of the scale. However, Duchamp did not create art detached from the artistic milieu around him; such as Dadaism and Surrealism, but the apperance of movements in the institutional art world has been downplayed by the author, since the actual nature of movements understood as a joint force, was critizised by Lynton (1995a, p. 10): on the contrary the artistical movements, in most cases, embodied groups of artists with quite distinguishable thoughts, expressions and distinctive and autonomeous artworks. Such diversity should any artistical movement encourage, and Dada embraced diversity -- it was one of its key characteristics (MoMa, 2019b). But, to narrow down the scope of this brief essay, the discussion on movements have received less attention. Nevertheless, Duchamp was also affected by societal and historical context surrounding him, most of all; in Paris and New York, but also modernism internationally and the current state of the global society, at his time: imperialism, nationalism and rascism, that caused wars, fuelled by science and technology. However, instead of investigating the local scale the author has taken a bird's-eye perspective on the global society at Duchamp's time, and a more intimate scale in discussing Marcel Duchamp's artwork. And, the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), was not created without the evolutionary steps of modernism, that unfolded prior to his artistic career, which he; at an early stage, came to be an influential participant of and contributer to. Insofar, this brief essay also tries to understand how an approach to modernism can be explored to approach contemporary art. Indeed, the strategy at work, in this brief essay; such as radical interdisciplinarity, open science and the single case, has been applied as a springboard to reinforce a systemic understanding of the institutional art world. It is a story of unfolding how the power of one man, could have impact on the distribution of power in the institutional art world as a system, and vice versa. It contrasts the singular artist with the whole system, and it tries to serve as an example to how one man (or woman); through a singular art work, can influence the whole system. The single case strategy, is, indeed, full of implications and challenges! Because, there are limits to how generalizable insights from a single modernist case can embody, and there are boundaries to how such generalizations can be used as a foundation to discuss a systemic perspective on the institutional art world. While quantitative research may lead to generalizations, qualitative research does not necessarily so. These qualitative generalizations are therefore somewhat separated or detached from its case of origin, in many instances, to make space for a system analysis to co-work with the single case. This detachment in the narrative, has been created intuitively by the author, to explore spaces of freedom for discussing theory, as well as, to make space for the reader to explore radical and interconnections of different arguments within and outside the frameworks of this brief essay -- to construct a spacious Cathedral of thoughts, freed from reason; in the spirit of Dada. A vital element of the systemic approach is, therefore, to deal with Cathedral Thinking, theoretically. Cathedral Thinking is, thus, not just spacious and grandiose thoughts, but most of all; a long term committment, on how to act to acheive a challenging task that desperately needs cooperation, in order to be fulfilled. Cathedral Thinking is a metaphor for visionary and collaborative thoughts and beliefs; that unifies human beings, in the mutal task of building something greater than themselves, such as a 'Cathedral'. They thereby accomplished a strenuous task together, which they could not have managed if they stood alone, or if they depended on their own power only. The Cathedral is buildt for generations to come, to benefit from -- it is a long term project (Thunberg, 2019). For a system to change we must be encouraged to stick together, think together and act together; despite our diversity, to create grand novelties. Grand novelties can be suggested by radical interdisciplinarity, which provides a toolkit of solutions on how to improve mutual Cathedral Thinking, based on diversity and radical exchange of knowledge. The mutal task; to build or rebuild a Cathedral, in this brief essay is, therefore; system change, or how to make systems change. This brief essay provides a recipe on how to make a system change, such as the institutional art world. The systemic Cathedral Thinking, is contrasted with the story of an Avant-gardiste and his artwork; a single case, which represents the power of humanity or what we can accomplish by ourselves, when we are baced up by others, such as a movement; whether it's environmentalists or Dadaists. However, Duchamp also did something; in the power of being himself, that usually requires a chain reaction of human acts, such as Cathedral Thinking suggests. We are all part of a global system, set on a capitalist autopilot towards destruction of our culture, and extinction of humanity. We must stand together and override the capitalist autopilot, to avoid a devastating crash landing, and a profound tragedy for all mankind. There is still time, but we need to act rapidly. Since one man (or woman) can embody the power of influencing the institutional art world as a system, so can anyone in any system encourage systems to change. Duchamp; in an independant and uncompromising manner; familiar to his lifestyle and artworks, most certainly possessed the human abilities, human vulnerabilities and the human sensitivity, common to mankind. But Duchamp stood out as being particularly inventive, original and experimental and radical, progressive and creative, in encouraging the system; such as the distribution of power in the institutional art world as a system, to change. He was not necessarily unaware of his uniqueness, but on the other hand not completely aware of his power, or the institutional consequenses of his art works, that most of all was created playfully by chance. Moreover, the attributes, that Duchamp embodied, favour or started to put pressure on the system to change, in this single case. Furthermore, in contradiction to the single case, and as a foundation for a system analysis, different functions; struggles, evolutionary, refractionary and systemic functions, have been employed to get a more comprehensive and visionary perspective on system change, in the institutional art world. It serves as a foundation to make Cathedral Thinking work to its fullest potentials, to provide systemic changes. That said, the quest of deciphering the complex relations of power and influence in the institutional art world; through a system versus single case approach, has for now approached its momentary closure. It is up to others again to open the debate, if an appropriate, relevant or desirable occasion should occur. The system/single case distinction is open for discussion, debate and critical comments, and may need some refinements. For now, it's time to take a final moment for some conclusional arguments on system change; in the institutional art world.

The global institutional art world is part of a superior global societal system or complex in change, of which system changes are ruled by struggles, evolutionary functions, refractions and system functions, historically and globally (Kahil, 1990, p. 11). These system change functions may form principles for new structures or a systemic reconfiguration of the institutional art world -- in itself. Within the given historical frameworks and the global societal system, the institutional art world struggles, transforms, adapts and changes constantly. And, it intersects the global scale and the local scale, to form power geometries; that results in artworks, which may transcend or have impact on other (global) societal fields, such as the Fountain proved to do (Duchamp, 1917). The different geographical scales are, thus, tied together by power relations and networks of influence; between the core actors in the game, such as the Avant-garde and the artists, the art institutions and the capitalists, in this case. The artistic expressions, that are systemic and transcendent in its power and influence, such as e.g. the Fountain (Duchamp, 1917), are results of struggles between different religions and movements, identities, classes, different sexual orientations, ideologies and styles, as well as refractionary transformation, evolutionary adaption, and system functions, in which local system changes may have impact on global system changes, and vice versa. These geographical scales are closely interlinked and co-work to form power relations, or as mentioned power geometries; in shape of comprehensive networks globally and locally, that connects the Avant-garde and the artists, the art institutions and the capitalists, in the institutional art world. Marcel Duchamp's artwork had impact beyond the local range, it had a global effect. His artwork influenced the institutional critique on art internationally. Duchamp's artwork may also have had impact on the overall system changes, particularly on struggles, refractions and the evolutionary steps of modernism. He had impact on struggles because he pledged his adherence to movements that expressed an ideosyncratic ideology, he was, thus; as a frontfigure in these movements, part of an ideological struggle and a struggle between movements. He paved the way for a new style; such as conceptual art. He was, thus, part of an international style struggle, in the institutional art world. Duchamp was part of a specific social class, since he lived his 'life on credit', he was, thus, part of a struggle between classes. He was also part of a struggle between sexual orientations, because he questioned his sexual orientation, through different types of self-representation; as an artist. He thereby also questioned his Identity and took part in a struggle of identities And; he changed his religious stance from being a catholic towards an agnostical stance to religion, he was, thus, part of a struggle between religions. Marcel Duchamp's artwork was part of evolutionary steps of modernism, because of its inventiveness, he was thus, adaptable and in many ways: ahead of his time. His artworks influenced refractions, or was part of it, since his art expressed and put forward ideas and concepts, convictions, expressions and utterances and beliefs, that broke, collided, overlapped or was displaced, with other artists and Avant-gardes ideas and concepts, expressions and utterances, beliefs and convictions. Marcel Duchamp's artworks were not only part of struggles and evolutionary adaption. His artworks, such as the Fountain, also served as a control function in the institutional artworld (Duchamp, 1917). He questioned the very foundation of the institutionalized art world and its solid mainstays. He asked the most urgent and prominent question of the institutional art world: what is art? (Duchamp, 1917). However, his impact on system functions, such as reallocation and realignment, redistribution, reconfiguration and directionality, is a comprehensive task to prove empierically. Rather than an empirical approach, this brief essay, takes a theoretical move to decipher the system of the institutional art world's change potentials, through a radical and interdisciplinary theory discussion. Moreover, to change a global system; such as the institutional art world, may seem like an unbearable task to manage. Nonetheless, when the challenges of a task or a system seems to impossible to handle and to overwelming to grasp, the author suggests at first to try to understand the system, or make a system analysis, and then to map out or identify its trigger points, tipping points and leverage points; that when intervened, supports positive change potentials. The next step is to come together; such as by Cathedral Thinking; to act despite our differences, and to collaborate on long term system changes of common interest and belief, based on the data material accessed -- or simply facts. Common interest and belief should arise awareness on qualities, such as an improved democratization, more inclusiveness, less inequality, and a more fairer distribution of power and resources; in the institutional art world -- in balance with what nature has given us. The system changes; these qualities demands, may happen through a tug of war between the core actors; the Avant-garde and the artists, the art institutions and the capitalists, as the author suggests, or in the cultural infrastructure. When it comes down to system changes; remember what one human being, such as e.g. Duchamp or Thunberg, could accomplish alone, and then how powerful, fierce and strong they became when connected to the Surrealist and Dadaist movements; or other young climate strikers, globally! They were both backed up by influential movements: Cathedral Thinking in action. Cathedral Thinking and the global system perspective on the institutional art world is; in the view of the author, more interesting and intriguing than the diverse sum of the capitalist commodifying processes, which inflicts with the persence of 'art as an institution', as discussed in the section on capitalism and the section on circular economy. But, as Adorno argued: 'art' may also serve as a rightful resistance to these capitalist processes; a fetish against commodity fetishism (Adorno; Jarvis, 1998, p. 117). The capitalist growth system of commodities, which the institutional art world reluctantly has had to play along with, is also part of the institutional art world, as we know it. Capitalist processes are, nevertheless, exploitive, inequal, cause vast challenges and implications for the institutional art world and -- to our sacred nature. But be aware; the capitalist system is on autopilot for no return: it is time to shut off the autopilot, or crash! Indeed, the capitalist system can and must be improved; or even be replaced by a more sustainable economic system, such as circular economy, ecological economy and degrowth. As dehumanizing, destructive for the environment and even inhumane; the capitalist system might seem, the artists do not survive on grants and scholarships and residencies, only. However, let's sum up the core arguments of this brief essay: inequality, anti-democratic behaviour and discrimination, elitism, imperialism, as well as commodifying processes, and dehumanization grouped, is thus, an integral and highly complex paradox of 'art as an institution'; in which; 'art', at times, becomes an instrument of hidden or obvious powers in our society. This is a paradox the Avant-garde and the artists, the capitalists and all art institutions, has to confront. The art institutions are, thus, fundamental in shaping the conditions of the institutional art world, protecting artists rights, and the heritage and legacy of our visual culture, or simply the institutional art world's long term continuance. The Avant-garde and the artists are, however, in a even more powerful and unique position; to form the premise for inventions, innovations and an uncompromising autonomous change within our institutionalized art world, and in our global society -- radical and rapid system changes. Nevertheless, to make system changes in the institutional art world, the Avant-garde and the artists, the art institutions and the capitalists, have to co-work, co-evolve and co-create, to form new alignments of power and to redistribute resources within or radically linked to the institutional art world. These potential collaborative networks must particularly empower system changes in the institutional art world, and bring new insights or novelties, that makes 'art as an institution' reinvent or renew itself. If so; a reconfiguration of the institutional world art as a system, or its capacity to reach its fullest rafractionary, adaptive, struggle and system functions potentials -- is possible. Moreover, system changes in the institutional art world globally, may be understood as a metaphor to system changes in support of a more ecological balanced system, as well as a balanced climate system, such as the author of this brief essay suggests: nature and culture must be united to enable radical and rapid system changes -- that supports humanity and nature. The author will return to this urgent issue in the epilogue bellow. Furthermore, the core actors in the institutional art world must, therefore, engage in Cathedral Thinking to transform, struggle, adapt and change the institutional art world into a more democratic, open, equal and inclusive, fair and less elitistic space, through a connected and deep transition of the system of the institutional art world. That brings us back to the beginning; the origin; the path created; the Cathedral of Modern Art; the phoenix; the epic system change; the pioneer of Dadaism; who paved the way for conceptual art; the American-French; Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968); the institutional critique of the Fountain (1917). To sum up the essential facts on institutional critique and system changes in the institutional art world: we've simply learned and experienced that; anything for anyone, is possible when it comes to institutional critique and system changes, in the institutional art world. On the bright side; the future looks stark and exciting for the exsistence and functionality of art in our global society -- it is our best invented reality check! It makes the world function better; it tests our critical sense; it moves all our senses and; it enrichens our worldview intellectually. In experiencing art we become more vibrant! In the Cathedral of Modern Art, we become alive and part of something greater, larger and more significant than ourselves: a moment of catharsis and transcendence, provided by our Avant-gardes and artists. In London's and New York's continuously evolving hotbed of dawning and emerging milieu of artists and Avant-gardes; and by the rules of this complex and unpredictable system; an old trick might work just as well as a new! Would you like to explore some new tricks? Take a stroll down into the Tanks of the Cathedral; in Tate Gallery of Modern Art, enter The Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) in New York, or become an ephemeral flâneur at the streets of Shoreditch in London; or at the streets of Red Hook in New York; for a week or two. And finally: let's again return to the reminiscence Fountain from 1964 (, 2019). If not authentic or genuine; it tells a pedagogical stripped down story of Duchamp's lost original; the flamboyant Fountain from 1917 (, 2019). A reminiscence that still radiates power! It reminds us of the cut to the core concept; the free flow of opulent ideas and the controversies; the power relations and the artistic forces, that Duchamp; subconsciously by chance, provoced and ignited with his original masterpiece; the Fountain, 1917. It is, thus, not just a mask of the original: it is a conceptual expression that reminds us of a past story and teaches us a valuable lesson of what's lost and what's gained; in the Cathedral of Modern Art. It reminds us of the inherent artistic power of an Avant-gardiste, that through a singular artwork, blasted the institutional limits of -- what ART can be.

No pressure contemporary artists and Avant-gardes, stick to your guns and fight! Indeed, adversities must be confronted, dealt with and overcome, they must all become water under the bridge. In your struggle with your adversities, don't forget what brings lightness and what brings darkness into art; what's right and what's wrong in our global world, and finally; what's love and what's an act of evil or malice. In the heart of the cathedral, the truth is that creation; in most cases, is an optional, rightful, conflictual and powerful metamorphosis. It is an expression freedom and resistance; choose your battles wisely! In this metamorphosis; which 'art' goes through, each person has been given their idiosyncratic role. But you are not just an art critic, Avant-gardiste, teacher, journalist or art mediator, professor, artist or art curator, student, art dealer, art lover; or simply a passive spectator. You are not just your given or chosen role. Most of all; you're a fellow human being, and with it comes responsibility; to root our actions in human sensitivity, human vulnerabilities and human abilities, and at last; to show equal respect, acceptanse, openness, caution and care to all human beings: we simply need to act as if we are one inclusive and mindblowing humankind; one diverse culture; one human force; dependant on one vulnerable nature -- to survive. Currently everything is -- at stake! Nature will adapt and survive, but will humanity? Can we sacrifice our interconnectivity; our global village, just for a moment; to regain our balance with nature, or are we lost, lamented and departed? We are in the heart of the Cathedral and it burns: act accordingly! To avoid destruction, devastations and extinction of mankind and our culture, we must make radical system changes to capitalism's perpetual growth modus. We must all tap into our pool of abilities, vulnerabilities and sensitivities as human beings: it's time to override the capitalist autopilot! It's time for an all-encompassing and overall organizational reorientation; a groundbreaking ecological system in balance, and a behavior in accordance to the emergency we have put ourselves in. Time is scarce, but faith is stronger. Faith might be strong, but the facts are straight forward: we need to change everything about the human civilization to adapt to the climate crisis and avoid an ecological breakdown (Thunberg, 2019). This urgent crisis must be promted explicitly; to maintain the exsitence of our vibrant culture, and to avoid being eradicated from the globe, as a species. Because, for the last four-five decades; the facts have become successively more alarming, disturbing and overwelmingly clear: humanity is on the edge of the cliff! It's time to put our heads together; in the heart of the Cathedral and act: it's time for a superior global system change that supports humanity and nature, that exceeds our limitations as human beings. In line with Thunberg's challenge (2019): hands up if you are ready for an impossible challenge, keep them raised if you want to commit to an environmental system change! Art has proved to us that anything is possible! So, nod your head if you are ready to change your habitual practice for the benefit of the tragedy of the commons, because that is -- the key to our survival. It is that simple, that intriguingly complex and that clear -- in one: that's what we got to do! Don't get all gloomy about it; search for tranquillity and -- hands-on! All habits are changable, and so are you. Take a final moment to yourself right now and think about how your customs can become more environmentally friendly. What can you change about yourself? Because, all tiny drops of water will eventually turn into a big river. And; all tiny drops of water matters -- you matter! Are you ready? It's time for nature and humankind to stand united, again. It's time for the Avant-garde and the artists to sprinkle with their power feathers, once more, and make a final split with the 'white cube': think outside the given white cube, the proposed spatial container, or the set and fixed box, again, again and again, and finally; once more. Search for solutions, not obstructions! Have some faith in human creativity and human intuition! Only creative solutions, flexible mindsets and organizational skills, will save the planet. The moment of transcendence and catharsis for humanity is here: the window of opportunity is now! It's time for a transition in favour of humanity as part of nature. Even though we do not seem to have the skills, knowledge or will yet necessary to make a change, that is not right, however we do not have the one unifying political will -- yet -- necessary to keep the ecosystem and the climate system at our planet in balance: we are, nevertheless, the responsibles -- we are in charge (the Anthropocene) -- we must altogether change. When it comes down to it, it is humanity that must find a way to solve this potential catastrophe. But be aware; if we do not steer clear of this urgent crisis, we do not know how, when and if humanity will be capable of handling a future faced with a looming climate breakdown, and a more and more distinctive and intrusive ecological breakdown. However, connected and entangled socially and at pace with nature, we will stay stronger (Christakis and Fowler, 2009). Nonetheless; even if the lines have been broken before, remember; we are nature and we are culture! The past, present and future has enlightened and empowered us to encourage and believe in system changes, that enables humankind to be understood as parts of nature: we cannot live without nature! But the ecosystem on the Earth can survive, and the climate system on Earth can endure without us (Attenborough, 2019). We can only live in balance with the Earth, and enjoy the gracious, sacred and grandiose space so kindly given to our and other species' disposal: this Cathedral is a gift -- not to mess with! To return to the confessional origin; an existential crisis in the Cathedral; I am a fellow human being, I make mistakes, I must learn: to regain my sense -- I must change, so must the system! And, a shift is on its way. In the culture sector and the domain of nature jointly; from habitual practices to the entire globe; when it comes down to changes towards a more just and humane planet; in balance ecologically and climatically: system changes on all levels are good and honourable reasons, worth to continue fighting for! We cannot keep on treating nature in the destructive manner we have done before. We are not only slef-destructive as a species; we are self-effacing; we are appoaching a potential -- 6th mass extinction; we are about to sweep away the ground beneath us, if we do not start caring for our livelihoods -- the planet (Attenborough, 2019). In this state of crisis and potential catastrophe, the Earth has her own narrative; she has her own say -- Mother Earth has spoken:

When it all falls down, the enigmatic wisdom of the Earth has come to our rescue. Gravity has taken yet another fundamental turn. The frontier of the past, present and future has turned circular. I stand in front of you; the Cathedral, and I am swallowed by your spacious and grand entrance, in which the Gateway to the soul of the Cathedral transpires. In the heart of the Cathedral I am as green and overwhelmed, naked and confused; as I've ever been. Once more my heart was beating, blood ran through my veins and I was breathing! In the turmoil of the crisis, the Cathedral opens our eyes to the sky and -- the sky falls down. For the sake of art I became alive and I encountered my Gods, again. In the nexus of the Cathedral our minds are dancing in hesitation and darkness, once more. Are you waiting for a better future too? It's time to listen to the Earth! Let's reinvent everything and blaste a new path!

Copyright ©. All rights reserved IART Ingrid Katrine Amundsen, 2007-2019. (Do not reprint without permission).



Ades, D. (1974). Dada and Surrealism. Concepts of Modern Art, Richardson, A., and Stangos, N. (eds.). New York, Evanston, San Fransisco and London: Harpes & Row, Publishers, pp. 109-136.

Ades, D., Cox, N., and Hopkins, D. (1999a). Anti-Art, Rrose Sèlavy and Surrealism. Marcel Duchamp. New York: Thames and Hudson, pp. 122-146.

Ades, D., Cox, N., and Hopkins, D. (1999b) Catholisism and the Symbolist Inheritance. Marcel Duchamp. New York: Thames and Hudson, pp. 24-42.

Ades, D., Cox, N., and Hopkins, D. (1999c). Origins. Marcel Duchamp. New York: Thames and Hudson, pp. 8-23.

Ades, D. Cox, N., and Hopkins, D. (1999d). The Readymades and 'Life on Credit'. Marcel Duchamp. New York: Thames and Hudson, pp. 146-172.

Ali Aden, M., Cornwell, J., Elias, R., Muholi, Z., Reed, V., and Saleh, T. (2018). Freedom. For Whom? Oslo World Festival (2018). Oslo: Nobels Peace Center.

Attenborough, Sir, D. (2019). Sir David Attenboroughs Speech on Saving Our Planet. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 06.17.2019].

Bánáthy, B.H. (2010a). The Evolution of the Evolution Idea. Guided Evolution of Society. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London and Moscow: Kluwer / Plenum Publishers, pp. 9-49.

Bang Larsen, L. (2019). Un-worlding Art. Bande à part — UKS Conference on Independent Art Institutions. Oslo: UKS. [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed: 06.05.2019].

Benjamin, W. (1975). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Modern Art and Modernism -- A Critical Anthology, Frascina, F., and Harrison, C. (eds.), (1987). New York: Harper & Row, Publichers, pp. 217-221.

Bertalanffy, L., (1968): "General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications". New York: George Braziller, pp. 1-296.

Britannica (2019). Catharsis. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.12.2019].

Brousseau, E., Garrouste, P., and Raynaud, E. (2011). Institutional Changes: Alternative theories and Consequences for Institutional Design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 79, pp. 3-16.

Bürger, P. (1984). On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society. Theory of the Avant-garde. Minneapolis: University of Manchester Press and University of Minnesota Press, pp. 35-54.

Caballero, R.J. (2017). Creative Destruction. MIT Economics. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 12.09.2017].

Clair, J. (2019a). An Idealistic Thinker. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 07.09.2019].

Clair, J. (2019b). Duchamp at The Turn of the Centuries. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 07.06.2019].

Carroll, N. (1999). The Institutional Theory of Art. Philosophy of Art. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 224-240.

Christakis, N.A., and Fowler, J.H. (2009). In the Thick of It. Connected -- The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York, Boston and London: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 3-32.

Crutzen, P.J. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 13-18.

Dicken, P. (2011). Winning and Losing in the Global Economy: Where You Live Really Matters. Global Shift -- Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy. Los Angeles London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC: Sage, pp. 475-524.

Dictionary (2019). Transcendence. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.21.2019].

Duchamp, M. (1964). Fountain. (Replica). [jpg]. London: Tate Gallery of Modern Art.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012). From Linear to Circular. Towards the Circular Economy: an Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. pp. 24-34.

Eriksen, T.G. (2018a). Bjarne Melgaard. Kunsten å Leve. Oslo: Norsk Rikskringkasting. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 02.04.2018].

Eriksen, T.G. (2018b). Vibeke Tandberg. Kunsten å Leve. Oslo: Norsk Rikskringkasting. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 02.04.2018].

Fagerberg, J. (2003). Schumpeter and the Revival of Evolutionary Economics: An Appraisal of the Literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13, pp. 125-159.

Flatø, E., Steinum, R., Holmen, M., Carlsen, R. and Hultman, M. (2018a). I Skvis -- Om Mellomsjiktet i Kunstbyen Oslo. Oslo: Oslo Kunstforening, OK BOK, pp. ??

Faltø, E., Steinum R., Hansen, M. and Røysland, E. (2018b). Panel Discussion on "I Skvis -- Om Mellomsjiktet i Kunstbyen Oslo", Hope O'Donnell (moderator). Oslo: UKS (Unge Kunstneres Samfunn). [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 01.23.2019].

Geels, F.W. (2004). From Sectoral Systems Of Innovation To Socio-Technical Systems: Insights About Dynamics And Change From Sociology and Institutional Theory. Research Policy 33(6-7), pp. 897-920.

Geels, F.W., (2002). Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A multi-level Perspective and a Case-study. Research Policy 31(8-9), pp. 1257-1274.

Geels, F.W. (2005). The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Transition Pathway From Horse-Drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 17(4), pp. 445-476.

Gombrich, E.H. (1995a). Eksperimenter -- Første Halvdel av 1900-tallet. Verdenskunsten. Oslo: Aschehough, pp. 557-599.

Gombrich, E.H. (1995b). Permanent Revolusjon -- 1800-tallet. Verdenskunsten. Oslo: Aschehoug, pp. 499-535.

Gombrich, E.H. (1995c). På Leting etter Nye verdier -- Slutten av 1800-tallet. Verdenskunsten. Oslo: Aschehoug, pp. 535-557.

Goodyear, A.C., and McManus, J.W. (2009). Abstract from "Inventing Marcel Duchamp: The Dynamics of Portraiture". The National Portrait Gallery's museum and the MIT Press, pp. 1-320. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.08.2019].

Greenberg, C. (1960c). Modernist painting. Art and Literature (1965), in Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology, Fraschina, F., and Harrison, C. (eds.), (1987) pp. 6-13.

Guevara, P. (2018). Talk on the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Oslo: Unge Kunstneres Samfunn (UKS).

Hadjinicolaou, N. (1978). Art History and Class Struggle. Modern Art and Modernism -- A Critical Anthology, (eds.) Fracina, F., and Harrison, C. (1987). New York: Harper & Row, Publichers, pp. 243-248.

Harari, Y.N. (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow with Yuval Noah Harari. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 01.30.2019].

Harris, G. (2013). From Beirut to Bogotá: Art Cities to Watch? New York Times. [online]. Available at: http/ [Accessed: 03.30.2018].

Heidegger, M. (1935/1936). Kunstverkets opprinnelse. Kunstverkets opprinnelse (2000). Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S, pp. 7-12.

Heidegger, M. (1935). Extracts from "The Origin of Art and "Epilogue"". Poetry, Language, Thought. A. Hofstadter (trans.), in Visual Culture -- Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies (eds.) Morra, J., and Smith, M., (1971). London and New York: Routledge, pp. 182-187.

Hodgson, G.M. (2006). What are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XL, No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Hubbard, P., Kitchin., R., Bartley, B., and Fuller, D. (2002). Theorizing Human Geographies. Thinking Geographically. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 3-97.

Hylland Eriksen, T. (2019). The Promise of Radical Interdisciplinarity. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 03.25.2019].

Jarvis, S. (1998). Art, Truth and Ideology. Adorno -- A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 90-124.

Jarvis, S. (1998). The Culture Industry. Adorno -- A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp. 72-90.

Khalil, E.L. (1990). Natural Complex vs. Natural System. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp. 11-31.

Krause, A. (2011). Introduction. Art as Politics: The Future of Art and Community. Porsgrunn: New Compass Press, pp. 11-19.

Krauss, R. (1985). Avantgardens Originalitet. Avantgardens Originalitet. Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S, pp. 67-111.

Kunsthistorie (2018). Modernisme. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 12.02.2018].

Kunstplass (2019). Victor Lind "Hva betyr det at Martin Heidegger er Vestens Største Tenker i Det 20. Århundret". [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 02.015.2019].

Lind, V. (2019). Hva betyr det at Heidegger er Vestens største tenker i det 20. århundret? Video Installation exhibited 02.14 - 03.27.2019, Oslo: Kunstplass, Contemporary Art [Oslo].

Lynton, N. (1995a). Introduction. The Story of Modern Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 9-13.

Lynton, N. (1995b). Art in the American Grain. The Story of Modern Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 226-257.

Lynton, N. (1995c). The Artist in the Modern Society. The Story of Modern Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 335-365.

MacEwan, C., and Daya, S. (2012). Geography, Culture and Global Change. An Introduction to Human Geography. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, pp. 272-291.

Marcuse, P. (2007). The Production of Regime Culture and Instrumentialized Art in a Globalization State. Journal -- Globalizations, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 15-28.

Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points -- Places to Intervene in a System. [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.06.2019].

MoMa Learning (2019a). Chance creations: Collage, Photomontage and Assemblage. Dada. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.12.2019].

MoMa Learning (2019b). Dada. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.10.2019].

MoMa Learning (2019c). Marcel Duchamp and the Readymade. Dada. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.08.2019].

MoMa Learning (2019d). Surrealism. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.08.2019].

MoMa Learning (2019e). What is Modern Art? [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.10.2019].

Nelson, A. (2013). Radical Interdisciplinarity and Other Ingredients for Innovation: Andrew Nelson at TEDxOregon. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 04.02.2019].

Pedersen, G.J. (2019). Hva betyr det at Martin Heidegger er Vestens største tenker i det 20. århundret? / Kunstens gåte etter Überlegungen. Oslo: Kunstplass, Contemporary Art [Oslo], pp. 1-18.

Personality Assessory (2019). The Big Five Inventory. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 03.29.2019].

Pissarro, J. (2009). Greenberg, Kant and Modernism? Notes in History of Art, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, pp.42-48. [online]. Available at: http://joachimpissarro/cat/writing/greenberg-kant-modernism/ [Accessed: 12.26.2018].

Rigby, D., & Essletzbitchler, J. (2010). Generalized Darwinism and Evolutionary Economic Geography, in (eds.) Martin, R., & Boschma, R. (2010). The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, pp. 43-61.

Safranski, R. (2016). Martin Heidegger: Die Schwarzen Hefte, Gesamtausgabe | Literaturclub mit Rüdiger Safranski. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 02.15.2019].

Savonick, D. (2019). On Radical Interdisciplinarity. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 03.25.2019].

Schot, J. and Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy Vol. 47, Issue 6, pp. 1045-1059.

Schot, J. (2016). Research and Policy Agenda for a World in Transition. Oslo: Bedrifts Økonomisk Institutt (BI).

Schulte-Sasse, J. (1984). Theory of Modernism versus Theory of the Avant-garde. Theory of the Avant-garde (1984). Minneapolis: Manchester University Press and University of Minnesota Press, pp. vii-xlvii.

Smolianskaïa, N. (2014). The Time of the Avant-Gardes: the History of Art in the Age of its Globalization. Critique d’art [Online], 41. Printemps/Eté 2013. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 11.15.2018].

Sooke, A. (2016). Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA? [online]. Available at: [Accessed 03.16.2018].

Springer (2019). Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices. [online]. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2. Available at: [Accessed: 03.25.2019].

Tandberg, V. (2019). Kunst og Litteratur. Oslo: Dramatikkens Hus.

Tansey, G., and Kleiner, F.S. (1996a). The Early Twentieth Century: The Establishment of Modernist Art. Gardner's Art Through the Ages (tenth Edition). Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers, pp. 1090-1154.

Tansey, G. and Kleiner, F.S. (1996b). The Later Twenthieth Century. Gardner's Art Through the Ages (tenth Edition. Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers, pp. 1090-1154.

Tansey, G., and Kleiner, F.S. (1996c). The Ninetheenth Century: Pluralism of Style. Gardner's Art Through the Ages (tenth Edition). Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers, pp. 922-1018.

Tate (2018). Fountain, Marcel Duchamp 1917, replica 1964. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 12.15.2018].

Thunberg, G. (2019). Greta Thunberg full speech at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 04.23.2019].

Tylecote, A. (1992). The Longwave Debate. The Longwave in the World Economy – The Current Crisis in an Historical Perspective. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 7-35.

United Nations (2014). World's Population Increasingly More Urban with More than a Half Living in Urban Areas. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 11.07.2017].

Suggested reading on environment and society, globalization and circular economy

Crutzen, P.J. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 13-18.

Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-261.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012). Towards the Circular Economy: an Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition, pp. 1-96. [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed: 06.04.2019].

Leichenko, R.M., O`Brien, K.L. (2008). Environmental Change and Globalization -- Double Exposures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-167.

Suggested reading on refractions, (modern and conceptual) art and Duchamp

Ades, D., Cox, N., and Hopkins, D. (1999). Marcel Duchamp. New York: Thames and Hudson, pp. 1-224.

Fujimura, M. (2009). Refractions: A Journey of Faith, Art, and Culture. Carol Stream: NavPress, pp. 1-176.

Godfrey, T. (1998). Conceptual Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 1-448.

Gombrich, E.H. (1995c). The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 1-1064.

Goodyear, A.C., and McManus, J.W. (2009). Inventing Marcel Duchamp: The Dynamics of Portraiture. The National Portrait Gallery's museum and the MIT Press, pp. 1-320.

Lynton, N. (1995). The Story of Modern Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, pp. 1-400.

MoMa Learning (2019). MoMa | MoMa Learning. [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 05.14.2019].

Tansey, G., and Kleiner, F.S. (1996). Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers, pp. 1-1216.

Suggestions reading on geography and the color curtain

Massey, D. (1993). Power-geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place, in (eds.) Bird, J., Curtis, B., and Robertson, G. Mapping the Futures. London: Routledge. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. London: Routledge, pp. 1-308.

Wright, R. (1956). The Colour Curtain. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, pp. 1-188.