JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  October 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: back to October's theme...

From:

Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:44:25 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

Hi List

thanks to Ele for posting so many good questions about what exactly  
is going on with the question of video art work online, and making  
curatorial selection using the online world. I completely agree with  
her sentiment that jury selection processes feel outmoded online in  
this way when there is the possibility to exploit social networks,  
draw in specialist knowledge AND be transparent about how it all  
works. Can anyone give examples of when curatorial jury processes  
work well online? I'd like to think we have good models within our  
community -- RunMe.org? Rhizome commissions? Is curatorial jury  
transparency just about sharing the voting process with the masses?

Apologies for these jetlagged thoughts - I am in Toronto today and  
earlier this afternoon I sat in and listened to a panel about  
Curatorial Consciousness at the ImagineNATIVE festival -- a film  
festival which is increasingly incorporating new media art, both  
'programmed' and 'curated' in separate strands. While the panel was  
stacked with some absolutely excellent curators I was still  
disheartened to discover that we are still talking about the same  
things as 20 years ago - how video art changed to fit the gallery -  
but now, because of the plurality and affordability of technology we  
are celebrating and lauding that very variability. An esteemed museum  
curator (who fought for the acquisition of media art into national  
art collections, and so is very well versed in formats) who is now  
running a commercial gallery, commented that because her gallery  
space is small she and her artists come up with creative solutions,  
showing works on 'exquisite' little screens or even 'old style'  
monitors, even when the exact same work is projected large scale in  
concurrent museum shows. Of course this is the choice of the artist,  
but surely curatorial suggestion is at play here too - video wouldn't  
have been projected if there weren't big rooms to fill with art, and  
if museums weren't better placed to afford bigger projectors. now  
that anyone can afford many types of presentation technology, and  
we're all used to seeing thumbnails of works online, it doesn't  
matter if the work changes again - scaled for the space in which it  
is presented, with no concern for which is the 'real' version? This  
of course relates to the great letter from Kenneth Goldsmith which  
Charles posted about the role of Ubuweb.

I suppose I'm left with the question of how online filesharing and  
the necessary compromises/compression isn't helping our argument  
about maintaining best possible quality for the artists when curating  
media work.

But all that aside, the live stream from the Guggenheim starts in 15  
minutes! Set your browsers to full screen!
sarah






On 21 Oct 2010, at 11:52, Ele Carpenter wrote:

> YouTube spatially flattens our viewing of moving images, which is  
> why it's
> great for selecting thumbnails, but useless for making final  
> curatorial
> decisions unless your presentation format is YouTube itself. And if  
> that is
> the case - then the spatial networked potential of YouTube could  
> offer a
> number of selection and exhibition models. What seems clear - is  
> that the
> work has been selected for a YouTube audience without challenging  
> the medium
> or expectations of YouTube itself (except perhaps the film calling  
> us to
> unplug). This uncritical approach and lack of knowingness about the  
> medium
> seems incongruous with the level of critical expertise of the  
> selection
> panel. But most importantly, the open-submission and jury selection  
> is an
> outmoded curatorial model loathed by most curators as a token fop to
> pseudo-democratic transparency. It's a model which ignores the  
> strength of
> social networks and specialist knowledge, it ignores the  
> impossibility of
> viewing thousands of artworks, and denies the opportunity to really be
> transparent about the selection process at all.
>
> Has anyone seem the presentation of the films at the Guggenheim(s)  
> - I'm
> very curious to know how they were installed and accessed. I guess  
> many of
> the works were shown in their full 'feature' length at a higher  
> resolution?
>
> Bestest,
> Ele
>
>
>
> On 20 October 2010 14:19, Charles Turner <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Sarah Cook wrote:
>>
>>> ... can I request that the conversation come back to the practice of
>> curating?
>>
>> In case y'all didn't catch this:
>>
>> <http://ubu.com/resources/frameworks.html>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ele Carpenter
> Curator
>
> Lecturer, MFA Curating, Dept of Art, Goldsmiths College,
> University of London. New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>
> m: +44 (0)7989 502 191
> www.elecarpenter.org.uk
> www.eleweekend.blogspot.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager