What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Exchange
In this book, leading social thinker Pierre Bourdieu and the artist Hans Haacke discuss contemporary art and the relations between art, politics and society. Their dialogue ranges widely from censorship and obscenity to the social conditions of artistic creativity, and focusses on the central themes in the work of both authors.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
4 people are currently reading
61 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 20, 2012
Here's what I wrote about this text for a research paper, which well sums up my experience of reading it:
I appreciate the honestly in which Haacke’s work is described, “These works make people talk, and unlike those of certain conceptual artists, for example, they do not make people talk only about the artist. They also make people talk about what the artist is talking about” (Bourdieu/Haacke 20). What Haacke wants us to talk about is the socio-economic-political machinations of capitalist enterprise and the movement of cultural capital between them and complacent art institutions, a compelling and necessary project for the artist and one I empathize with. My question is one of source - where do Haacke’s ethics originate? Haacke’s ethics appear to come from the cultural production of the intellectual class, as he frames the way in which conservative forces conspire against intellectual writers (Bourdieu/Haacke 21) in order to marginalize them and make them the “Enemy of the people” (Bourdieu/Haacke 54). The title of the text, Free Exchange, defines Haacke’s project to be one in which no particular institution or class is privileged in the production of ideas and politics. However one can discern via reading the conversations between Haacke and Pierre Bourdieu that Haacke does indeed privilege a particular class of intellectual thinkers and culture makers. I also very much doubt Haacke and other artists who engage in institutional critique would like to see the art museum toppled, the university dismantled, and other assumed standard-bearers of higher culture dissolved. For these artists and intellectuals, these institutions they critique are also the ones that sustain them. Again, I do not posit that the practice of institutional critique is somehow wrongheaded or misplaced, and I certainly gravitate toward Haacke’s political positions. Cultural oppression and indirect censorship by dominant political structures is certainly dangerous and civil society requires its exposure. Is it the responsibility of the artist to do this? Haacke certainly believes so, but I fail to understand how one who is not active in these discourses would gain sympathy for their cause. There is much popular sentiment for the idea that corporate capitalism indeed provides a model for ethical, humanitarian society, and Haacke has many examples of this (Haacke 49). He delights in conservative critics denigrating his work, or when he’s undermined one’s position that is in opposition to his own (Haacke 49, 64). To tell someone that their understanding of art and aesthetics is wrongly tied to other social constructs, to destabilize their foundations of right and wrong, is not going to bear the fruit that we ultimately desire. People, when their ethics are challenged in this way, entrench further and become less willing to engage in a “free exchange” of ideas, which may actually help instead to feed the screechy spectacle of political talk show entertainment. Ultimately, consciousness requires a framework from which to approach and engage our world, and certain sets of ideas are going to be privileged as a result. Yet, we still seem to be perpetuating the same political tropes that generate our identities, thus strengthening the differences that have bogged us down throughout human history.
I appreciate the honestly in which Haacke’s work is described, “These works make people talk, and unlike those of certain conceptual artists, for example, they do not make people talk only about the artist. They also make people talk about what the artist is talking about” (Bourdieu/Haacke 20). What Haacke wants us to talk about is the socio-economic-political machinations of capitalist enterprise and the movement of cultural capital between them and complacent art institutions, a compelling and necessary project for the artist and one I empathize with. My question is one of source - where do Haacke’s ethics originate? Haacke’s ethics appear to come from the cultural production of the intellectual class, as he frames the way in which conservative forces conspire against intellectual writers (Bourdieu/Haacke 21) in order to marginalize them and make them the “Enemy of the people” (Bourdieu/Haacke 54). The title of the text, Free Exchange, defines Haacke’s project to be one in which no particular institution or class is privileged in the production of ideas and politics. However one can discern via reading the conversations between Haacke and Pierre Bourdieu that Haacke does indeed privilege a particular class of intellectual thinkers and culture makers. I also very much doubt Haacke and other artists who engage in institutional critique would like to see the art museum toppled, the university dismantled, and other assumed standard-bearers of higher culture dissolved. For these artists and intellectuals, these institutions they critique are also the ones that sustain them. Again, I do not posit that the practice of institutional critique is somehow wrongheaded or misplaced, and I certainly gravitate toward Haacke’s political positions. Cultural oppression and indirect censorship by dominant political structures is certainly dangerous and civil society requires its exposure. Is it the responsibility of the artist to do this? Haacke certainly believes so, but I fail to understand how one who is not active in these discourses would gain sympathy for their cause. There is much popular sentiment for the idea that corporate capitalism indeed provides a model for ethical, humanitarian society, and Haacke has many examples of this (Haacke 49). He delights in conservative critics denigrating his work, or when he’s undermined one’s position that is in opposition to his own (Haacke 49, 64). To tell someone that their understanding of art and aesthetics is wrongly tied to other social constructs, to destabilize their foundations of right and wrong, is not going to bear the fruit that we ultimately desire. People, when their ethics are challenged in this way, entrench further and become less willing to engage in a “free exchange” of ideas, which may actually help instead to feed the screechy spectacle of political talk show entertainment. Ultimately, consciousness requires a framework from which to approach and engage our world, and certain sets of ideas are going to be privileged as a result. Yet, we still seem to be perpetuating the same political tropes that generate our identities, thus strengthening the differences that have bogged us down throughout human history.
August 23, 2025
An excellent overview of Haacke’s works from the late 1980s and early 1990s, anchored by a conversation between the artist and Pierre Bourdieu. The book also includes Haacke’s great essay « Gondola, Gondola », about his groundbreaking (literally) intervention in the German Pavilion at the 1993 Venice Biennale — a must read.
This is an extremely valuable resource for art historians interested in Haacke and Bourdieu but would benefit from a revised and updated edition, particularly to address the occasionally awkward translation of Bourdieu’s French and to clarify some of his topical allusions to journalistic and critical debates in early 1990s France.
This is an extremely valuable resource for art historians interested in Haacke and Bourdieu but would benefit from a revised and updated edition, particularly to address the occasionally awkward translation of Bourdieu’s French and to clarify some of his topical allusions to journalistic and critical debates in early 1990s France.
March 17, 2022
Tiene varias cosas interesantes sobre todo respecto a temas de autonomía artística pero en general es bastante “dated”, esperaba algo más anticipatorio.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews