Charlotte, Verina and all,
I'm trying to catch up with posts so that I can join in properly, but in the
meantime and whilst its still (relatively) fresh in my mind, here's my take
on the symposium Beyond the Academy Research as Exhibition on Friday at Tate
Britain.
The symposium Beyond the Academy Research as Exhibition at Tate Britain on
Friday was packed to the rafters with ideas about the relationship between
research, practice and exhibition, and plenty of examples of contemporary
art/research work from people like Angus Carlyle (artist and researcher in
Sound Arts Practice at UAL and Irene Revell (Electra); Curator John Byrne
(The Academy, Liverpool John Moores Uni) and Alaister Hudson (Grizedale
Arts); Artist and researcher Susan Pui San Lok; Artist and researcher David
Cotterell (Sheffield Hallam); New Mediaıs Peter Ride (University of
Westminster). There were very clever and interesting presentations with more
of a philosophical bent from Ken Neil (Glasgow School of Art) and Brian
Dillon (UK Editor of Cabinet Magazine and lots of other things). There were
a couple of fascinating presentations from curators of very large-scale
exhibitions: Leslie Topp (Art & Architecture historian) spoke about the
Madness and Modernity exhibition she curated with 2 colleagues, and David
Solkin (Courtauld Institute) spoke about the Turner and the Masters
exhibition he curated. Geographer, Felix Driver (Royal Holloway) spoke about
archive documents in relation to unknown others that sometimes produced and
often were the subject of documents. He also spoke enthusiastically about
the role of exhibition designers, and this theme resurfaced in different
ways throughout the day. For example, Oriana Baddeley (chair of one of the
panels) asked whether it is possible to make a distinction between research
and exhibition design.
Charlotteıs question about the relationship and difference between research
that is outputted as exhibition and that which is outputted in say, book
form, was something that was discussed throughout the day. There seemed
(unsurprisingly) quite an emphasis on the specificity of the exhibition!
Introducing the day, Victoria Walsh (Head of Public Programmes at Tate
Britain) asked what constitutes an exhibition and when are the research
findings better disseminated as an exhibition rather than as a book. Rather
intriguingly (but I didnıt manage to find out more) she said there had been
some concession/dissent from within the museum sector as to some of the
sessions. Hmmm...
Very relevant to this monthıs discussion on CRUMB John Byrne and Alaister
Hudson spoke about what an art institute could/should be like now, and are
using The Mechanicsı Institute in Coniston (started by Ruskin) as a model of
how to engage communities in education.
Perhaps the quote of the conference came from John Byrne as he described
research as a cultural irritantı.
Also very interesting was Susan Pui San Lokıs ideas around art forms that
hold provisional, interim accumulations of the ephemeral something that
seemed to have some resonance with the concept of distributed art that Iıve
been trying to articulate recently.
Brian Dillon made a very powerful claim that the relationship between
Academic and Artist (even within the same person) is based on envy: the
researcher envies the artist her freedom and subjective engagement, and the
artist envies the researcher her rigour. Seems spot on to me!
Oriana asked 'who owns the exhibition' but unfortunately we didn't really
get stuck into this majorly significant questions. Also, by the end of the
day, we were questioning whether 'research as exhibition' is perhaps more
usefully turned 'exhibition as research'.
And Bruno.....on fine form talking about the Iconoclash (2002)Beyond the
Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art exhibition that he co-curated with
Peter Weibel at ZKM. The aim of the exhibition was to create a systematic
confrontation between different types of representations in science, art and
religion. What is it to suspend the iconoclastic gesture and what is it to
destroy images? He also spoke about MAKING THINGS PUBLIC-Atmospheres of
Democracy (2005). He spoke lovingly about failure (always a good sign I
think).
He also spoke a lot about art, and art and politics, and spoke briefly of
his plans to open a School of Political Art in Paris this July. Iım trying
to find out more, so will let you know as soon as I get some more info.
Very best
Kate
On 16/05/2010 12:50, "Charlotte Frost" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Kate,
>
> I know you are crazy busy, but I'd love to hear your take on the session at
> Tate on Friday (as I failed to sneak my way in due to its popularity). As I've
> said, my own interests at the moment focus on the curation (as it were) of
> art-related knowledge in books (for example) so I'm keen to think more on how
> the exhibition as research works and (for my own perspective right now), what
> it does that books can't in terms of the storage, transfer and development of
> knowledge?!
>
> Charlotte
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kate Southworth
> Sent: 05 May 2010 22:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: politics, ethics, aesthetics and distributed forms
>
> Dear List,
> Thanks to Verina for inviting me to contribute this monthıs theme -
> Educational Turns, and Distributed Social Systems.
>
> Perhaps I can start by mentioning some upcoming events that Iım working on,
> and which in different ways seem to be feeding into my thinking on this
> monthıs theme?
>
> Dematerial: Critical Debates in Digital Arts is series of events that Iım
> organising across the South West region. Funded by Arts Council England the
> events seek to stimulate and generate critical debates in digital arts, and
> also aim to contribute to the next stage in the development of the digital
> arts within the region. (
> http://www.dematerial.org/critical-debates-digital-arts). The first event is
> on Monday 10th May at University College Falmouth with Charlotte Frost, Lise
> Autogena, Ele Carpenter, Tom Corby, Patrick Simons and Helen Sloan. The
> second event is on May 25th at Arnolfini in Bristol with Marie-Anne McQuay,
> Geoff Cox, Clare Reddington, Kate Rich and Helen Sloan. And the third event
> is on June 9th at the University of Bournemouth with Helen Sloan, Ruth
> Catlow, Gianni Corino Kit Monkman and Tom Wexler (KMA) and Neal White.
>
> Tomorrow Iım up at the Dartington Campus of University College Falmouth
> giving a fairly informal talk on creating and sustaining collaborative
> learning communities onlineı.
>
> At the end of next week (Friday 14 May 2010, 10.0017.30) Iım speaking about
> distributed exhibitionsı on the The future of the research exhibitionı
> panel at the Beyond the Academy Research as Exhibition symposium at Tate
> Britain (http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/eventseducation/symposia/21155.htm)
>
> For me, one of the things that artworking, curating, and educating within a
> new mediaı context have in common is the role of the distributed network.
> In particular, I am interested in trying to articulate (within an art
> context) the politics, aesthetics and ethics of the distributed form I
> think that knowledge about distributed forms that is produced through
> artworking and curating is transferable to other non-art contexts such as,
> for example, education. I do think (following Alex Galloway/Eugene Thacker)
> that distributed networks are not in themselves radical: that they
> constitute a very specific organisational form that controls and organises
> through protocol. Again, following Galloway in his assertion that there is
> no escape from protocol I am interested in the transcoding of
> computer/network protocol to art: to the qualities and potential of
> (non-technical) protocol within art (and other contexts) amongst other
> things, protocols of making, sharing, documenting and archiving.
>
> I'm really looking forward to hearing what other guests and contributors are
> thinking about this month's theme.
> very best,
> Kate
|
