Experimental Institutionalism and Radical Statecraft: Art in Autonomous Social Centres and Self-Managed Cultural Occupations in Rome
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really enjoyed reading this and think it puts forward a tight and compelling argument for the value of overlooked and under-represented cultural practices. In lieu of having a copy to do track changes on here are a few typos I picked up and questions/comments on specific words used:
Line 126 – ‘misrepresented’ – in what way? or underrepresented?
179 typo ‘a space underground cells’
374 typo ‘an’
405 ‘unrecognisable’ – because it is so embedded? If so maybe a different word needed.
627 – missing word? ‘that have embedded practices’?
Then more generally I think it could be useful to provide a reference for DIY culture when that is mentioned – perhaps to George Mackay (DiY Culture)(, or John Jordan (Notes from Nowhere), or Free Association (Moments of Excess). The latter talks about
and also a reference (and quote) to explain the commons and notions of communing (Caffentzis and Federici would work I think)
also the term ‘embedded’ used a few times and I wonder if this needs relating/referencing back to practices of blurring the art and everyday and/or of prefigurative, direct-action, ‘being the change we want to see’ in social movements.
In terms of further research or development of the theme – I think this sets the scene well for a deeper dive into the methods and practices of instituting that occur in these specific experiments (such as the negotiation of the formal and informal, collective use of space, the detail of the constitution/rules/legal framework etc). Also, whilst I appreciate the focus on Rome and Castoriadis necessary for an article of this length, I look forward to seeing what happens when this research is brought into discussion with other case studies (from other geographies/time periods) and also whith other concepts of the formation of ‘radical imagination’ (e.g the production of radical or non-/post-capitalist subjectivity). In this way I think it plays a significant role in new ways of apprehending and articulating the world-building capacity of embedded art practice.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. In the following I will responded point by point:
Line 126 – ‘misrepresented’ – in what way? or underrepresented?
Line 146 - I changed it into underrrepresented.
179 typo ‘a space underground cells’
217_The collective would offer them the underground cells as spaces in which
374 typo ‘an’
405 ‘unrecognisable’ – because it is so embedded? If so maybe a different word needed.
Line 747_ I edited the phrases: Today, the Italian states’ understanding of cultural management is deeply embedded with neoliberal market logic. In Rome, the consequence of a neoliberal turn in cultural
627 – missing word? ‘that have embedded practices’?
Then more generally I think it could be useful to provide a reference for DIY culture when that is mentioned – perhaps to George Mackay (DiY Culture)(, or John Jordan (Notes from Nowhere), or Free Association (Moments of Excess). The latter talks about
I did look into these texts, and I found them interesting. I addded references in Lines 112 -130
and also a reference (and quote) to explain the commons and notions of communing (Caffentzis and Federici would work I think)
I rewrote the section on Teatro Valle Occupato adding a larger ecplanation of the nations of the commons.
Lines 449 -485
also the term ‘embedded’ used a few times and I wonder if this needs relating/referencing back to practices of blurring the art and everyday and/or of prefigurative, direct-action, ‘being the change we want to see’ in social movements.
I chose to not use the notion of embeddedness and rather focus on the idea of autonomous practices.
See abstract and lines 990 -1008
In terms of further research or development of the theme – I think this sets the scene well for a deeper dive into the methods and practices of instituting that occur in these specific experiments (such as the negotiation of the formal and informal, collective use of space, the detail of the constitution/rules/legal framework etc). Also, whilst I appreciate the focus on Rome and Castoriadis necessary for an article of this length, I look forward to seeing what happens when this research is brought into discussion with other case studies (from other geographies/time periods) and also whith other concepts of the formation of ‘radical imagination’ (e.g the production of radical or non-/post-capitalist subjectivity). In this way I think it plays a significant role in new ways of apprehending and articulating the world-building capacity of embedded art practice.
Thank you for this, I am developing further research with my research on different geographies, including Palestine, Hungary, South Africa and Indonesia.
Reviewer 2 Report
By interpreting cultural activities of two occupied social centers in Rome as instances of experimental institutionalism, the author argues that such practices are informed by a radical imagination challenging neoliberal social relations.
I feel that the main strength of the article resides in the author’s attempt to embed the debate on curatorial and artistic practices as an emergent critique of neoliberalism, in the Roman context. In this respect, the choice of these two specific cases – CSOA Forte Prenestino and Teatro Valle Occupato – is to be applauded; the more so if one consider their respective trajectories.
While Forte Prenestino has its roots in the politicized counterculture of the 1970s social movements, the immediate origins of Teatro Valle Occupato lied in the social upheaval triggered by the 2008 financial crises. While the former’s cultural practices sought to create (ex-nihilo) a space of sociability, those of the latter were a reaction to the privatization of cultural spaces. Hence, comparing the two cases can potentially highlight one specific trait of grass roots politics; its contingent nature.
Unfortunately it is precisely in this regard that the article is somewhat lacking.
The focus on the similarities of their practices somehow overshadows the different paths they have followed.
To a certain extent this is inevitable. Forte Prenestino has been active since 1986, while Teatro Valle Occupato was only active for about three years (2012-2015). It’s a question of time scale.
From my ethnographic perspective I believe that this could be fruitfully addressed by giving pride of place to the “interviewee”. It seems to me that s/he has been a valuable source of background information for the author. S/he has apparently been active in both occupations, an embodied connection. Why not take advantage of this? Giving pride of place to this informant would allow the reader to better appreciate the continuities and peculiarities of the two case studies.
This said, I found the article difficult to follow and I strongly suggest close editing it.
There are some repetitions, the most notable of which occurs in section 2.2: lines 274-275 are repeated almost verbatim on lines 292-294.
Indeed, the whole first part of this section (lines 247 through 331) should be thoroughly reorganized. It is very hard to follow.
The account of the connections between Nuovo Cinema Palazzo and Teatro Valle Occupato is somewhat confusing and repetitive, this is unfortunate since their collaboration could be taken as an example of grass-root organization. Incidentally, the reader is only able to understand the national scope of such grass-root networks at the end of the following section (3, lines 492-510) when the experience of MACAO in Milan is addressed which strikes me as inconsequential since the section is a discussion of the failings of Italian art institutions and the neoliberal urban policies in Rome.
Most importantly, the debate on the commons which has been the defining trait of Teatro Valle Occupato is not consistently narrated. It is briefly mentioned on line 267, in connection with the collective draft of the constitution. Yet, the reason why so many people participated in its draft, hence informing experience of Teatro Valle, is only explained on lines 301 through 307. The 2011 referendum on public access to water, crucial in framing the Italian debate on the commons, does briefly appear on line 277, but it’s somewhat out of context. It’s influence on Teatro Valle Occupato only becomes clear on line 307.
Permanenze, which is an example of Teatro Valle’s participatory artistic practice, is first mentioned on lines 267 through 270, but is only described with some detail starting from line 346.
Throughout the text there are what I believe to be typos that border on factual errors.
On line 34, for example, Forte Prenestino is described as “17th century Old Fort”, Forte Prenestino was built at the end of the 19th century.
At the beginning of section 2.1 (line 76) when summarizing the historical genealogy of the social centers of the 1990s, the author writes that they are rooted in social and political practices dating “from the beginning of the XIX century” while the case del popolo first appeared at the end of that century. The error is repeated on line 91 when the author refers to Mudu’s article on the development of the Italian social centers, yet that is not what Mudu writes.
The Genoa riots occurred in 2001, not in 2008 as it is written in the article (line 217) and they occurred during the G8 summit, the Genoa Social Forum was held there to contest the summit.
Citations are sometimes incomplete (no page number, line 113, line 554 and line 579, for example); or they refer to articles that are not listed in the list of references (lines 88 and 89, line 106, for example).
The list of references needs also to be checked: for example authors’s names are misspelled (Alesaandra Caporale instead of Alessandra Caporale) not consistently identified (Chiara De Cesari is first identified as “Cesari” then as “De Cesari”) some references in the list are incomplete (for example the collection which includes Cellamare’s “The Self—Made City”, the editor is not mentioned). The doi’s of the articles or books should not be included.
Author Response
Thank you for this review.
I found it very helpful, and I did major changes to the original article.
point 1.
By interpreting cultural activities of two occupied social centers in Rome as instances of experimental institutionalism, the author argues that such practices are informed by a radical imagination challenging neoliberal social relations. I feel that the main strength of the article resides in the author’s attempt to embed the debate on curatorial and artistic practices as an emergent critique of neoliberalism, in the Roman context. In this respect, the choice of these two specific cases – CSOA Forte Prenestino and Teatro Valle Occupato – is to be applauded; the more so if one consider their respective trajectories.
A)While Forte Prenestino has its roots in the politicized counterculture of the 1970s social movements, the immediate origins of Teatro Valle Occupato lied in the social upheaval triggered by the 2008 financial crises. While the former’s cultural practices sought to create (ex-nihilo) a space of sociability, those of the latter were a reaction to the privatization of cultural spaces.
B) Hence, comparing the two cases can potentially highlight one specific trait of grass roots politics; its contingent nature. Unfortunately it is precisely in this regard that the article is somewhat lacking. The focus on the similarities of their practices somehow overshadows the different paths they have followed. To a certain extent this is inevitable. Forte Prenestino has been active since 1986, while Teatro Valle Occupato was only active for about three years (2012-2015). It’s a question of time scale.
C) From my ethnographic perspective I believe that this could be fruitfully addressed by giving pride of place to the “interviewee”. It seems to me that s/he has been a valuable source of background information for the author. S/he has apparently been active in both occupations, an embodied connection. Why not take advantage of this? Giving pride of place to this informant would allow the reader to better appreciate the continuities and peculiarities of the two case studies.
I took into account the contingent nature of these two spaces, and I framed Forte Prenestino through the lens of DIY culture (Lines 112 - 130). It better frames the main point of the research, which is on artistic practice within these occupations, and repsonds well to point 1 A) and C).
Point 1 D) I decide not to reveal the identity of my informants, as they are not the same persons, but several.
Point 2.
A)This said, I found the article difficult to follow and I strongly suggest close editing it. There are some repetitions, the most notable of which occurs in section 2.2: lines 274-275 are repeated almost verbatim on lines 292-294. Indeed, the whole first part of this section (lines 247 through 331) should be thoroughly reorganized. It is very hard to follow. The account of the connections between Nuovo Cinema Palazzo and Teatro Valle Occupato is somewhat confusing and repetitive, this is unfortunate since their collaboration could be taken as an example of grass-root organization.
B) Incidentally, the reader is only able to understand the national scope of such grass-root networks at the end of the following section (3, lines 492-510) when the experience of MACAO in Milan is addressed which strikes me as inconsequential since the section is a discussion of the failings of Italian art institutions and the neoliberal urban policies in Rome.
Point 2 A) I rewrote section 2-2, Lines 319 - 743
Point 2 B) I eliminate the reference to MACAO lines 861-862 and incorporated MACAO into the introduction to Teatro Valle Occupato in lines 33-390.
Point 3
A) Most importantly, the debate on the commons which has been the defining trait of Teatro Valle Occupato is not consistently narrated. It is briefly mentioned on line 267, in connection with the collective draft of the constitution. Yet, the reason why so many people participated in its draft, hence informing experience of Teatro Valle, is only explained on lines 301 through 307. The 2011 referendum on public access to water, crucial in framing the Italian debate on the commons, does briefly appear on line 277, but it’s somewhat out of context. It’s influence on Teatro Valle Occupato only becomes clear on line 307.
I added a section on the commons in Lines 445 - 448
Permanenze, which is an example of Teatro Valle’s participatory artistic practice, is first mentioned on lines 267 through 270, but is only described with some detail starting from line 346.
See point 2
Point 3
Throughout the text there are what I believe to be typos that border on factual errors.
On line 34, for example, Forte Prenestino is described as “17th century Old Fort”, Forte Prenestino was built at the end of the 19th century.
Corrected. Lines 16, 167
The Genoa riots occurred in 2001, not in 2008 as it is written in the article (line 217) and they occurred during the G8 summit, the Genoa Social Forum was held there to contest the summit.
Corrected see lines 277-278
Citations are sometimes incomplete (no page number, line 113, line 554 and line 579, for example); or they refer to articles that are not listed in the list of references (lines 88 and 89, line 106, for example).
The list of references needs also to be checked: for example authors’s names are misspelled (Alesaandra Caporale instead of Alessandra Caporale) not consistently identified (Chiara De Cesari is first identified as “Cesari” then as “De Cesari”) some references in the list are incomplete (for example the collection which includes Cellamare’s “The Self—Made City”, the editor is not mentioned). The doi’s of the articles or books should not be included.
The citations have been entirely edited.
Thank you again for your thorough review.
Reviewer 3 Report
I found this article truly interesting and thought-provoking. The spine of the article and the argumentation, as well as the general panorama of phenomena, are ok. But I have unsatisfied hunger for information concerning concrete actions in described centres. Of course, it is impossible to present widely all forms of actions, but it doesn't change the fact that it is difficult to imagine their daily life, not to mention the range of activities. Some basic remarks on esthetics, subject matters, processes of creation, and ideological background of created/presented art would be an improvement. Maybe adding some carefully chosen photos would be a solution. Visual material gives the reader a lot of additional information and is a valuable base for further and deeper analysis.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind review.
I have taken into consideration the possibility of add images. In the meantime, I am sending the document with tracked changes.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Why not delete (Mudu 2018; 2004 a; Aureli & Mudu, 2017; Mudu & Marini, 2018, line 97)? they are not listed in the bibliography and they are never used in your article.
Pruijt 2013, 17:34 - line 115, there is a citation but is missing from the bibliography.
Sorry!
Author Response
- Why not delete (Mudu 2018; 2004 a; Aureli & Mudu, 2017; Mudu & Marini, 2018, line 97)? they are not listed in the bibliography and they are never used in your article.
deleted. line 102.
- Pruijt 2013, 17:34 - line 115, there is a citation but is missing from the bibliography.
added.
Sorry!
Thank you!
