I
don’t want to see any topics on curating more openly discussed. I don’t see the
point in talking about curating as curating. Because curating should be
discussing art not itself, curating. Not curating curating.
This is a quote by
Adrian Notz taken from the first issue of a digital publication called On-Curating.org. (2008) I
mention this in the opening of my discussion to highlight one of the many
significant aspects of the discourse in the field of curating today. Whatever
opinion you have upon the relevance of discussing topics within curating and
then that relationship to art, such outcomes inevitably affect the production
and consumption of exhibitions, biennials, art fairs, and the work of artists. Recent
discourse in the art world has focused on the evident shift in the growing significance
of the role that curators play. There has been a momentous increase in the
number of university programmes offered in curatorial studies while some have
highlighted the lack of research and writing on curation as a concern that
needs to be rectified. Artists have also positioned themselves in curatorial
roles, leading to the blurring of distinctions between the two fields. Interaction
between artists and curators has evolved to the point where the two (at one
time separate disciplines) are merging resulting in collaboration and new
methodologies. There was once upon a time only one definition of the curator as
the historical keeper and recorder of things, the person who set the context
and provided the space in which art could be viewed and engaged with. But today
the simple initiate of display and engage has been affected by alternative concepts
about the nature of exhibition making itself.
‘Curating
is normally associated with the task of giving form to exhibitions containing
artworks. But today we see an expansion of the curatorial field, as the term
now also seems to apply to processual and discursive projects, containing no
objects at all.’ (Richter, p.1,
2008)
Other
factors to bear in mind are globalising market forces, the politics of institutional
critique, and viewing art in alternative ways (through the internet and art
fairs to name a few). These emerging influences have demanded an alternative
response to the task of arranging and inventing artworks for public engagement.
The success of a show seems as much to lie in the hands of a curator as much as
in the work of an artist. As Andreas Huyssen has signified, there is even
acceleration within the curator’s job on a grammatical level, ‘to curate is now
a verb and it is precisely not limited to the traditional functions of the
“keeper of collections”, to curate these days means to mobilise collections, to
set them in motion within the walls of the museum as well as in the heads of
spectators.’ (Huyssen, 1995, p.21) These are a few issues to bear in mind while
I access the contrary methods that some curators have adopted as a necessary
response to evolving developments within exhibition-making. I will limit my
discussion to the diverse curatorial styles of Jens Hoffman and Matthew Higgs,
highlighting their conflicted strategies to exhibition making. Hoffman, styled
with a preformative approach to exhibition making is ‘much more interested in
the idea of staging exhibitions as an overall creative and artistic environment
that the audience can immerse themselves in on a number of levels.’ (Hoffman,
2008, pp32-33) Higgs on the other hand is interested in ‘quite conventional
approaches to exhibition making of interesting [consisting of] art displayed in
a fairly traditional, straight-forward manner. Ultimately [his] interest is in
the art, not in the structure or framework of the exhibition.’ (Higgs 2006) While
both curators first and foremost are occupied with presenting art in an
appealing fashion, challenges present themselves with respect to the way in
which these approaches affect both artist and audience. It raises questions as
to which is more important; the way in which a work of art is presented and
contextualised or what the artwork itself is trying to convey?
 |
| Matthew Higgs |
 |
| Jens Hoffmann |
Hans
Ulrich Obrist and Jens Hoffman are examples of the type of curators who look
beyond the exhibition model, often involving elements of institutional critique
within their practice. This process is one that reflects on the nature of
curating. They recognize their approach as influenced by the work of the late
Harald Szeemann, who is accredited as inventing the grand exhibition where the
work is tied to a central theme and arranged in unusual relationships with one
another. Hoffman often
works in collaboration with artists in developing new systems of display, new
artworks, and exhibitions which evolve over time. His preoccupation with the
format of the exhibition reflects a new awareness emerging in contemporary art
in the process of how artworks and exhibitions are produced. Maria Lind (2002)
states that art practices are often ‘more concerned with the
activity of production and manufacturing than with the autonomous artefact.’
The process involved in the research and development of an artwork becomes much
more appealing. Hoffman’s inventiveness is reflected by challenging the way art
is displayed, accounting for the innovation which art- making has adopted over
the past twenty years. Despite these developments, the same (modernist white
cube) systems of display are used. This curatorial decision actively contributes to the generation and
production of creative ideas and projects through collaborations with artists.
The outcome of such actions can be seen in the successful collaborative effort
that produced the publication The Next
Documenta Should Be Curated By an Artist. Within this publication Hoffman
openly acknowledges the shift in the focus of some curators towards producing
themselves and asked various artists to offer their suggestions and opinions on
the curatorial process if a Documenta was to be organized by an artist instead
of a curator.
Those that have taken issue
with Hoffman’s style believe that he takes a very authorial and creative
position in the creation of exhibitions and in this process the work by the artists
he includes takes a back seat in the appropriation of his vision. Hoffman
denies such accusations stating that
[None
of us] has ever done anything to a work of art that was not appropriate or
forced artists into a context they did not want to participate in. Criticism
usually comes from the outside—never from the artists we collaborate with... (Hoffmann, 2008 pp.32-33)
While the artists involved might not object to Hoffman’s style
there is the matter of exactly who Hoffman is creating and aiming his shows
for. If he is seeking the engagement of audiences on all levels, the example of
his joint project with Maurizio Cattelan of the 6th Caribbean
Biennial in 1999 might prove somewhat contrary to this assertion. While the ‘biennial’
was seemingly a critique on how biennials are more about the personalities
involved and less about the works of art, it was a very expensive point to make.
Further, it completely ostracised audiences outside of art networks who were
not in on the joke. And as Jenny Liu (2000) points out it was quite a cynical
gesture. The locale were excluded,
there were no Caribbean artists approached, no art, and no attempt was made to
engage with the local community, ‘it was a portable piece of art that could
have as easily been performed in Liverpool, Sydney or Kwangju, its critiques
and failings intact.’
On
the other side of the practice are those curators who feel that it is the
artists who should be given the complete freedom to make their vision known and
to perform critiques. Figures such as Matthew Higgs and Kasper Konig prefer a
simpler approach to staging exhibitions. They fall into the realm of those who
believe that if you do your work well as a curator you will disappear behind
the work. Fred Wilson’s 1992 Mining the Museum show at the Maryland Historical Society is a
great example of curator as editor.
As a result of a simple reshuffling and placement of objects alongside others
that produced a paradoxal narrative, visitors were lead to regard the omission of certain unsavoury histories from
the local community. Higgs disinterest in the way Hoffman organises
exhibitions is because such projects are simply ‘too self-referential, too
self-reflexive, too tautological, too academic, and perhaps are ultimately
somewhat alienating: a kind of endgame, with increasingly diminishing
returns.’(Higgs 2006) Not only is there a danger of the curator’s vision
overshadowing the work but Higgs suggest that their innovative approaches are
nothing more than the adopting of strategies invented by artists themselves. (Higgs
2006) This is supported by the artist and e-flux
editor Anton Vidokle (2010) when he says that the inevitability of going beyond
exhibition making ‘should not become a justification for the work of curators
to supersede the work of artists.’ The role of the curator could not exist
without the production of artists. Perhaps institutional critique should be
left in the hands of artists like Hans Haacke or Joseph Kosuth who engage
audiences directly when challenging the paradigms of artistic displays and do
not need curators as a go-between.
While
this point is valuable, Higgs’ editorial/traditional approach to curation has
been criticised in the past. His show Protest
and Survive at The Whitechapel Gallery took a collection of works from the
nineteen-sixties onwards to explore ‘the
possibility of identifying a radical community of artists, in searching for the
political voice that is forever glossed over.’ The exhibition was seen by one critic as ‘dated’
and ‘backward looking.’ (Sladen 2001) The curatorial choice to include some
artists were deemed questionable and an attempt to contemporise the political
messages of the numerous works was reduced to an over arching nostalgia for an
activism long past. So perhaps a traditional straight forward way of display is
not always productive in trying to convey meaning and context behind the work. Protest and Survive was criticized
because it was too fragmented and incoherent, displaying too many differing
types of protest ranging from feminist critiques of pharmaceutical companies to
Marxism. Frequently, it is not enough to present the work in simple conditions.
The context is always different when viewing an artwork in isolation so a
curator’s main responsibility to the artwork and the audience is to provide the
context within which to interpret the significance of the work. As previously mentioned
the practice of making art has radically changed over the past twenty years, practices have expanded beyond the boundaries of the
production of objects incorporating new media which requires innovative
methods of articulation. The curator needs to focus upon how best to engage and
make deeper an audiences experience of art, and it is through the process of
display that this happens thus,
[The exhibition
should be] understood not merely in
terms of its ‘surface’ or design but as part of a complex of media in which all
elements contribute consciously or unconsciously to the production of meaning (Richter 2008)
In assessing the characteristics of the
auteur (Hoffman) versus editor, (Higgs) it is difficult to determine which
approach is the most positive and supportive to the art and its audience. Hoffman’s
approach can be interpreted as leaning towards a sort of curator-centrism, a
manipulation of the meaning of works of art which could suggest that there is
little faith displayed in the ability of the work to critique/teach and the
artist’s vision. If enacted unaccordingly, in the end the
auteur approach will limit the interpretations of the work and will alienate
audiences, cutting away at a commonly held belief that art is for everybody. There
is always room for experimentation and it is indeed necessary to engage with
and understand contemporary art which is being produced today. But there needs
to be a balance maintained where the overarching narrative or aims of the
curator do not eclipse the work involved. In defence of the auteur, it is not
enough to just arrange works of art loosely connected to an overarching concept
and hope for the public to garner their understanding from this alone. While
some spectators are more than capable of doing this, the curator should act as
wingman to the artist in helping communicate meaning. Ultimately the goal of
curation should be for the reinvention of our ways of seeing, to create
exhibitions that enable people to be surprised and concerned with what they are
viewing. The aim is to start dialogues and what Ralph Rugoff deems the most
important component of the game, exhibitions that
enable people to be
[Caught]
off guard by what they’re seeing... [To] re-imagining the conceptual context in
which art is encountered by viewers. [To invoke] strategies that create a
psychological space for the critical first phase of our encounter with art
works, which occurs on an emotional and experiential level. (Rugoff, 1999)
Bibliography
·
Higgs,
M.,(2006) ‘In Conversation with Paul
O’Neill’, in NDP no.3 Available at <www.northdrivepress.com/interviews/
[accessed on 11 January 2012]
·
Hoffman,
J. and Aranda, J (2008) ‘Art as Curating, Curating as Art’ in ART LIES issue 59 Fall http://www.artlies.org/index.php?issue=59&s=0 [accessed 12
January 2012
·
Hoffman, J. (ed) (2004) The Next Documenta Should Be Curated By an Artist. Frankfurt:: Revolver, Archiv für aktuelle Kunst ;New York :E-flux
·
Huyssen, A.
(1995) Twilight Memories: Marking Time in
a Culture of Amnesia. London: Routledge
·
Lind, M. and
Schlieben, K (2002) Curating Per-Form. Reflections
on the Concept of thePerformative http://www.kunstvereinmuenchen.de/?dir=03_ueberlegungen_considerations&strShowFile=en_performative_curating.kvm [accessed 11 October 2011]
·
Liu. J., (2000) ‘Trouble in Paradise’ in
Frieze Magazine Issue 51 March/April http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/trouble_in_paradise/ [accessed 12
January 2012]
·
Richter,
D. (2008) Thirty - One Positions on
Curating in On-Curating.org issue 1 http://www.on-curating.org/ [accessed 13 November 2011]
·
Rugoff,
R. (1999) ‘Rules of the Game’ in Frieze
Magazine, Issue 44 January/Febuary http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/rules_of_the_game/ [accessed on
12 January, 2012]
·
Sladen,
M. (2001) ‘Protest and Survive’ in Frieze
Magazine, Issue 57 March http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/protest_and_survive/ [accessed 13 January 2012]
·
Vidokle,
A.,(2010) ‘Art Without Artists’ in e-flux journal 16 May http://www.e-flux.com/journal/art-without-artists/ [accessed 13 January 2012]
