 |
 |
Just a few quick responses to the theme....... We don't all have the ability to read exhibition spaces as well as we might want, so we cannot all filter out the bits that are not part of the art from the bits that are.... for some this is the fun, it is what provides them with the zing of the insider. For others it's simply disorienting and exclusive. I would argue that if we are doing anything when creating exhibition then we are working towards separating out the extraneous information from the art in order that those of us without such acute filtration faculties can find our way towards what is going on. A well installed exhibition will be part of a process from artist, through curator to audience which is aimed at ensuring that the intention of the work is not lost within poorly executed or inadequate presentation. However this is very dependent on the original intention having the capability of being made apparent through the technology of exhibition. I feel that for many exhibitions this is not achievable and the best that can happen is to create facsimiles of intentions...but that's another matter. A technician is usually the last person to be consulted in the curation of an exhibition, and it is too often the case that only at this stage is the feasibility of the exhibition questioned or tested. With technically complex works or with works that speak of technology there is often a very effective partnership (and a blurring of roles) between artist and technician. MITES was founded partly to try and move the technical investment a bit further up the food chain, in an attempt to try and support works which work for a broader range of audiences. I suppose the point in all of this is that it is increasingly necessary to recognise that the creation of technologically sophisticated artworks is much more akin to filmmaking than to older solo craft forms and that the 'artist' is in fact only one part of the process of making an artwork.