“... the differences between their respective conceptions of institutional critique.”
Kippenberger's “institutional critique”?! How silly, and typical Text zur Kunst and Graw, and by extension artforum. This need to make Kippenberger in the mold of Graw's real agenda: Fraser. And Fraser as some kind of brand standing for “institutional critique”, as if we have forgotten art history. Graw still copies Fraser's own unabashed ego-driven model of writing, always for/on herself while ostensibly discussing scenarios or works of others (see Fraser's self-serving Asher review in artforum as perfect specimen) Why so many lines in a Kippenberger review to establish an apology for Fraser's failed “critical” work here? Because the curators did not bend over backwards to give it some impossibly perfect context? Perhaps the answer is more obvious, it didn't function like the “critical” engine stated? Or is that too difficult. It was for collectors to purchase in the period of Kippenberger market development? It's this kind of sanctimonious “critical” pose that Kippenberger used to prick when he was at his best. Kippenberger work was never “institutional critique” and trying now to frame him for the American market as if he was, is just unethical history for Graw to actually promote a work of Fraser.