 |
 |
I believe appropriate behaviours are about timing and context "audiences" have differing levels of knowledge and understanding of the processes how art gets to the networks, walls, screens and plinths of our spaces - it is our to process to create meaningful engaging experiences and at the same time show (and demonstrate) responsibility in the process of relevance, selection, value for money, relationships and excellence ethical consumption/production as demonstrated to greater and lesser degrees in the oil industry could learn a trick or two - and we have also witnessed consumers have shown extended lack of interest in processes or ethics therefore a relational approach is essential in building new models of audience/artist/curator as I alluded in my first post - I believe this is cyclical and very dependent on scales of operation - scale of individual/group/ institution in relation to ethical behaviour in relation to the development phase of the praciticioner ...in time we are preparing a new exposition / exhibition Climate for Change opening March 12, curated by Heather Corcoran - as the title implies it has raised lots of (healthy) questions and conundrums of our own methods, perceptions and the deeper signifiers in taking on a set of subjects like this - interesting to compare this in the context of the FACT an institution in 2008 to an home grown experiment in Hull in the late 80's - awareness, scale, knowledge and experience all come into play - how do we retain the reflexivity in later lives........ m On 23 Dec 2008, at 12:16, Andreas Broeckmann wrote: > friends, > > just a brief note to say that - probably like many others - i am > following with much interest the discussion and contributions > sparked by the question yesterday. > > i particularly liked roger's comments - and of course agree with the > suggestion that, even if there were some sort of rules or codes, > there would have to be exceptions. whether you want to declare the > situation open and the distinction between curator and artist > obsolete, is for me a question of pragmatics: is there sufficient > need for having terms that describe a particular practice, or not? > and if yes, does that practice follow general structures which have > recurring ethical implications which, in turn, a community like this > chooses to have shared opinions about, or not? (i can easily live > with both, and only choose to have my own position about it.) > > roger's question why there are curators in art but not in science is > interesting. in my own perception, it is very much a question of > reflexivity (a reflexivity that is built into many peer review > systems), i.e. in how far somebody who has to make value judgements > is able to do this in a fair, transparent and critical way, and come > up with an interesting, dense and meaningful selection - of texts, > of art projects, or other works or items; in some cases, not in > all!, i doubt whether the artists who work as curators evaluate > their own work with the same critical interest that they apply to > other people's work. (assuming that artists have a close and > intimate relationship with their work; would you invite the partner > of one of the candidates for the Mr. Universe competition to be one > of the jurors?) > > my own recent experience is this: i was working in a curatorial team > and one of the people on this team is a practising artist; he > forcefully suggested to include his own work in the project, leaving > little room for a critical evaluation by the rest of the team, > comparable to the collective selection process that we had been > working with on other proposals. i had hoped that there would be a > consensus among my peers on this crumb list that especially high > moral standards apply for a situation in which an artist wants to > include his/her own work in an exhibition project. i learn now that > such a consensus does not exist, due to the abundance of different > situations and settings we have to take into consideration. > > what does it mean for the audience? > > greetings, > -a