Anthony,
This part of your post is unwarranted and perhaps not thought all the way
through:
>
> what suggests a lack
> of reflection on 'curating' is when curators are so quick to assert
> their role and the ones who decide between good and bad art. doubtless
> it is a pleasure to play the connoisseur/se, but surely this is not
> the most exciting or provocative aspect of work in public or in new
> media.
>
The reasons why this piece of art is of low-quality were outlined in both my
(curator), Andrew Bucksbarg (artist) and Christiane Paul's (curator) posts.
Andreas Broeckmann and others (both artists and curators) confirmed or
rebutted those opinions. Also, it was pointed out in my post that artists
also often act as curators, and no one here would ever squelch the opinion
of an artist on what they define as good or bad art.
To the contrary, this list needs all opinions in order to flesh out reasons
and criteria.
This has no been about "a pleasure to play the connoisseur/se", it is a
vital aspect of working with art - no matter if one is a curator, artist or
any other audience member. It is also part of one's education and job as a
curator (and as an artist, if s/he so chooses).
To imply that these statements and opinions are being made simply in order
to assert some kind of power is to imply that curators should just keep
their mouths shut, not work out criteria for ascertaining 'good' or 'bad'
works of art.
That's rather ridiculous - and, as I mentioned above, unwarranted.
Curators spend their professional lives as advocates for art and artists,
yet a few want to characterize them as oppressors. Dude, that's not what's
going on.
No way am I going to let that one go through un-rebutted,
Rosanne
--
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
|