On 21 Oct 2010, at 12:52, Ele Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
as a side note on this point -- around 10 years ago the City of Vienna converted its contestable 'Net-Art' fund (€500,000 anually) from a jury selection process to an entirely 'social-network' driven self-selection process, called NetzNetz (http://netznetz.net).
the reaction from the 'Net-Art' community that this was supposed to benefit through social networks and specialist knowledge, was some excitement and acceptance from a few, and a blanket rejection from the rest. the typical response was that, through this process, obtaining a grant became about how much time one spent socialising with the rest of the NetzNetz 'community' (which was forced together because of the fund system), rather than the merit of your work (with which a jury is at least supposed to be concerned).
my point is that one has to be careful talking about 'the strength of social networks'. cf this short piece of speculative fiction: http://shareable.net/blog/the-guy-who-worked-for-money
damian stewart . @damiannz . [log in to unmask]
frey . contemporary art . http://www.frey.co.nz