The Tate document reveals the ingrained and, quite frankly, ridiculous nature of the museum and the art world. These characteristics have been apparent for a long time and driven many an artist (and others) to do what they have done to try and overturn the apple cart. Sometimes people succeed, but the cart always seems to do a 360 degree roll and come back up on its wheels again. Perhaps the real trick is to remove the wheels - or blow up the cart? I'm not sure of what the solution is. I've probably spent my life more as part of the problem than as contributing to a solution. Probably all of us have...
On 11 Jul 2012, at 02:16, Goebel, Johannes wrote:
> Neglecting for a moment the information that Martin's email communicates
> and which is valuable for the current discussion - - -
> The quote from the Tate's policy gave rise to certain thoughts - would the
> two following statements be comparable to the Tate policy:
> Fate commissions Bio Art for its collection in vitro or in vivo and also
> seeks to acquire works that use bio technology for creation,presentation
> and distribution (in vivo), or that critique or comment on the same bio
> State commissions sculptures that use Kalatschnikows (or AK47) or similar
> technology and also seeks to acquire works of art that use mechanical or
> electronic technology of such weaponry for creation,presentation and
> distribution or that critique or comment on said technology.
> (I assume, no comments needed - since the statements may seem absurd, an
> insult or evoking thoughts - depending on one's position.)
> The real question is:
> How can an institution be so blunt to put a statement like "that critique
> or comment on the same
> digital technologies" in their policy - I read the whole document about
> the other areas of collections and there was no other such
> content-directed statement anywhere.
> Most certainly curatorial decisions are indeed always directed by the
> interest (aesthetic, political etc) of the curator and/or the institution
> - no question at all.
> But is the goal of acceptance to the traditional arts world and their
> influence and economic power reached when such a statement is introduced -
> a statement which I would see as absurd as the ones I created above.
> Johannes (no - not THAT Johannes - the other one)
> On 7/10/12 6:05 PM, "Martin John Callanan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The Tate have a section titled "Net Art" in the acquisitions policy (at
>> least since November 2011)
>> 3.8 Net Art
>> Tate commissions Net Art for its website and also seeks to acquire works
>> that use networked or non-networked digital technologies for creation,
>> presentation and distribution, or that critique or comment on the same
[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices