I too laughed out loud at the list, and then wondered about point 9
9. The exhibition curators insist that you spend hours standing by
your own wall text so that you can explain to attendees "how it works"
At Interactivos? @ Eyebeam it was suggested by one of the artists
that curators should know the code of the project well enough that
they can help the artist figure out how to insert into the code a
script which runs a program which details the instructions to the
public before the piece starts up -- a bit like when you start
playing a videogame you watch a little movie first that shows you how
I thought that might be a bit extreme, as not all interactive works
are meant to reveal themselves at first go, or function in a linear
manner, where you can just press start and wait.
However, I agree it's great to have the artist's own words to
illuminate the work, and to that end, for my upcoming exhibition of
new media art objects at Eyebeam (Untethered, opens September 25,
info and press release on http://www.eyebeam.org) I have commissioned
an audio-guide. We are aiming to have audio tracks, no more than 2
minutes long each, for each of the works, where the artist talks
about the work, how it works, but moreover, what it means, how it
relates to the theme of the show, how it fits within their practice.
Recording the interviews was the best day of the curatorial process
so far (how often do curators get to talk to every artist in their
show all on one day? My guess is not as often as they should - it was
such a nice change from the constant emailing of contracts and
balancing of budgets). Editing the interview recordings down to the
MoMA-acoustiguide recommended length of one and a half minutes is
going to be today's impossible task before breakfast. The files will
be made available to download as MP3 files from the Eyebeam website,
and from a computer at the front desk of the gallery for visitors to
listen to on their own players. I'll keep you posted as to how it
works, and I would welcome your experience of doing this too, as a
different kind of interpretative strategy for exhibitions of new
From a muggy New York morning,
On 8 Sep 2008, at 23:14, Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Dear colleagues:
> Brilliant text. Well spoken.
> A few errors:
> 1: -1 is disproven by the Holy Fire exhibition, and therefore
> affects #12
> 2: I was the Crumpler guy in 2000. See:
> this affects #'s 5, 4, possibly 7.
> -3: Woman with snarky 14-year old says, "My son's good with
> computers! Maybe he could make a few of these!"
> -4: Extra points for despair if he can.
> Final analysis:
> When in doubt, refer to #15, and explain its "conceptual self-
> referentiality". That usually works.
> Last week, I was sitting in the Gustav hurricane blast zone,
> working my electronics from solar panels. Gridless media actually
> working in my hands. Epiphanic.