Over the years i've moved from an initially unfunded ari (artists run
initiative) Hull Time Based Arts 87-99 through to increasingly formal
and institutional roles at ACMI Australian Centre for Moving Image,
where issues of probity and insider dealing were often in the news
headlines (mostly surrounding the National Gallery of Victoria) and
now FACT, Foundation for Art and Creative Technology.
This process has been organic and as a young enthusiast some 20 odd
years ago it felt natural to show my work in a collective context form
time to time, now it would feel totally weird to be curating my own
stuff or even for it to be too closely associated with FACT. Its
increasingly difficut to call myself an artist. I have less energy
and am more focussed. Howevery work is still occassionally shown,
though iv'e not made anything for a few years now. In the future
maybe I will again. For now I am very happy developing an
organisation and encouraging good arts practice and public debate.
The professions of arts advocacy, curating and being an artist, are
all demanding and all creative in their different ways. Sometimes
they come together, other times they need to remain separate.
That said I don't like rules and ultimately people will see you for
what you are and we have to trust each others judgement and do what we
feel comfortable with.
And of course, there should always be exceptions to rules and
tolerance for those that break them.
best for next year
88 Wood St
Liverpool L1 4DQ
+ 44 (0) 151 707 4444
skype name: mikestubbs45
On 22 Dec 2008, at 12:45, Simon Biggs wrote:
> I agree with Andreas 99% (I may have curated my own work once, so that
> accounts for the non-100% support).
> Curation is akin to peer review in the sciences. It is the means by
> on the one hand, the curator tells a story or establishes an
> whilst, on the other, the value of artworks (and by extension the
> who produce them) is validated in relation to those stories and
> In the sciences it would be frowned upon big time if somebody was to
> review their own work. That said, anyone familiar with peer review
> in the
> sciences knows that things are not as simple and squeeky clean as
> would like. It is a can of worms.
> Nevertheless, there is a degree of codification of the process of peer
> review which does present a degree of rigour. What would be the
> if this was applied in the artworld? How would it effect the value
> of art,
> the role of the artist, the curator, the peer reviewer? By
> definition the
> curator would have to be a peer of the artists selected and therefore
> another artist (or artists) – therefore implying the end of the
> curator role.
> Mmm? That last outcome sounds very attractive ;) (perhaps not to the
> CRUMB readership though).
> On 22/12/08 12:27, "Andreas Broeckmann" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> friends, a question:
>> it sometimes happens that artists work as curators; it also
>> occasionally happens that these curator artists choose their own
>> artistic work for their exhibitions or programmes.
>> in my view, this looks bad and should not happen, i personally wished
>> that there was a 'code of conduct for curatorial work' that said: 'if
>> you curate a project, you don't select your own work for it (not even
>> if you are a member of a curatorial team'.
>> i know that some practising artists (who also curate) see this
>> differently, for them there is no ethical problem in selecting their
>> own work if it fits into a specific project or conceptual framework.
>> what do people think about this?
> Simon Biggs
> Research Professor
> edinburgh college of art
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
> number SC009201