0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Are Artists Losing Ground With the Rise of Curators?

by Art Fag City on May 24, 2010 · 71 comments

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON

Maurizio Cattelan, Massimiliano Gioni and Ali Subotnick, The Wrong Museum, Image via: C-Monster

Has the status of the artist fallen with the rise of curators? Anton Vidokle suggests as much in Art Without Artists, his latest essay in e-flux journal #16.

The necessity of going “beyond the making of exhibitions” should not become a justification for the work of curators to supersede the work of artists, nor a reinforcement of authorial claims that render artists and artworks merely actors and props for illustrating curatorial concepts. Movement in such a direction runs a serious risk of diminishing the space of art by undermining the agency of its producers: artists.

This unease has been mounting for some time. In 2006, From the Floor’s Todd Gibson wrote a post which criticized the contextualization of the Wrong Gallery’s curation of the Whitney’ collection as an artistic endeavor within the museum’s Biennial. Gibson goes on to complain about a particularly juvenile project by Biennial curators Chrissie Iles of the Whitney and Philippe Vergne of the Walker, in which they invented an imaginary friend to validate their labor while they’ve been working on the show.

My reaction when reading this piece again ran something along the lines of, “well, as long as curators continue to prove their ineptitude at making art that the artist’s position of art maker is secure.”  It’s a fair response, though it fails to acknowledge the expanding role of the curator as a larger cultural trend; witness the rash of articles on the subject the Times, Tomorrow Museum, and myself amongst them. Everyone’s a curator, because if there’s one thing the internerds want more of, it’s people to direct us to the stuff we already like.

But I digress from Vidokle’s article, which later posits that the expanding role of the curator poses a few risks for the artist. After all not every artist wants a collaborator and there is a sense that there’s sometimes more of this than is needed.

If there is to be critical art, the role of the artist as a sovereign agent must be maintained. By sovereignty, I mean simply certain conditions of production in which artists are able to determine the direction of their work, its subject matter and form, and the methodologies they use—rather than having them dictated by institutions, critics, curators, academics, collectors, dealers, the public, and so forth.

YES. And later,

It has recently been pointed out to me that as artistic production becomes increasingly deskilled—and, by extension, less identifiable by publics as art when placed outside the exhibition environment—exhibitions themselves become the singular context through which art can be made visible as art. This alone makes it easy to understand why so many now think that inclusion in an exhibition produces art, rather than artists themselves. But this is a completely wrong approach in my opinion: what most urgently needs to be done is to further expand the space of art by developing new circulation networks through which art can encounter its publics—through education, publication, dissemination, and so forth—rather than perpetuate existing institutions of art and their agents at the expense of the agency of artists by immortalizing the exhibition as art's only possible, ultimate destination.

This sounds like a manifesto to me. Vidokle founded e-flux, e-flux journal, UnitedNationsPlaza, Museum as Hub and more. He’s not just talking about what he thinks should be done, he’s doing it.

Full disclosure: I am involved in a soon to be announced Vidokle project.

Atlanta Art Scene to Survive Recent Flurry of Gallery Closings Revisiting “10 Myths of Internet Art” The Met Does Punk, Bleached and Ironed

Powered by Facebook Comments

← Older Comments
  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: If the intentionality is so important, what do we even need the art for? All of this conversation about “pure voice” and curators mucking up the gears of art assumes that artworks transparently mean something, until some malevolent curatorial power muddies up the waters by “instrumentalizing” the artwork in service of some nasty agenda. But what the artist says the work means doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. All the ways it can be understood (and more importantly, misunderstood!) by the audience (however we define that) is up to that audience.

    In case Emily doesn’t answer, I’ll offer my own reason for pause. “Sovereignty” suggests that the artwork would be legible outside the system (not just commercial, but intellectual and historical) that it exists within. It can challenge that system (it damn well better) but the myth of the lone heroic genius “just making art” has been quite happily punctured, I’d venture. Conceptual Art put this realization at the forefront, but it’s no less true for anyone working today, whether they accept it or not.

  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: If the intentionality is so important, what do we even need the art for? All of this conversation about “pure voice” and curators mucking up the gears of art assumes that artworks transparently mean something, until some malevolent curatorial power muddies up the waters by “instrumentalizing” the artwork in service of some nasty agenda. But what the artist says the work means doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. All the ways it can be understood (and more importantly, misunderstood!) by the audience (however we define that) is up to that audience.

    In case Emily doesn’t answer, I’ll offer my own reason for pause. “Sovereignty” suggests that the artwork would be legible outside the system (not just commercial, but intellectual and historical) that it exists within. It can challenge that system (it damn well better) but the myth of the lone heroic genius “just making art” has been quite happily punctured, I’d venture. Conceptual Art put this realization at the forefront, but it’s no less true for anyone working today, whether they accept it or not.

  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: If the intentionality is so important, what do we even need the art for? All of this conversation about “pure voice” and curators mucking up the gears of art assumes that artworks transparently mean something, until some malevolent curatorial power muddies up the waters by “instrumentalizing” the artwork in service of some nasty agenda. But what the artist says the work means doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. All the ways it can be understood (and more importantly, misunderstood!) by the audience (however we define that) is up to that audience.

    In case Emily doesn’t answer, I’ll offer my own reason for pause. “Sovereignty” suggests that the artwork would be legible outside the system (not just commercial, but intellectual and historical) that it exists within. It can challenge that system (it damn well better) but the myth of the lone heroic genius “just making art” has been quite happily punctured, I’d venture. Conceptual Art put this realization at the forefront, but it’s no less true for anyone working today, whether they accept it or not.

  • Pingback: The Digest. 05.26.10. « C-MONSTER.net

  • Emily

    I guess I was thinking primarily of conceptual art projects that exist as a set of instructions that could be realized by anyone. This is usually read as a rejection of authorship. Also, the historical (and Marxist) avant-garde was based on the idea of ending artistic sovereignty, which would be transferred from the artist to the entire populace through the sublation of art into everyday life. Sublation comes from the German word Aufheben, which means “to abolish,” “to preserve,” “to transcend.”

  • Emily

    I guess I was thinking primarily of conceptual art projects that exist as a set of instructions that could be realized by anyone. This is usually read as a rejection of authorship. Also, the historical (and Marxist) avant-garde was based on the idea of ending artistic sovereignty, which would be transferred from the artist to the entire populace through the sublation of art into everyday life. Sublation comes from the German word Aufheben, which means “to abolish,” “to preserve,” “to transcend.”

  • Emily

    I guess I was thinking primarily of conceptual art projects that exist as a set of instructions that could be realized by anyone. This is usually read as a rejection of authorship. Also, the historical (and Marxist) avant-garde was based on the idea of ending artistic sovereignty, which would be transferred from the artist to the entire populace through the sublation of art into everyday life. Sublation comes from the German word Aufheben, which means “to abolish,” “to preserve,” “to transcend.”

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @Nick What the artist says about the work means a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans: An artist can very clearly evaluate if their objectives are being met by the reaction of the viewer. A critic can evaluate if the artist’s objectives are being met, and if it matters to them. I just don’t see that as dispensable information.

    @Emily I think I need to read your book.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @Nick What the artist says about the work means a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans: An artist can very clearly evaluate if their objectives are being met by the reaction of the viewer. A critic can evaluate if the artist’s objectives are being met, and if it matters to them. I just don’t see that as dispensable information.

    @Emily I think I need to read your book.

  • http://www.joannemattera.blogspot.com Joanne Mattera

    @ Paddy: I totally agree with you: ” . . .the professionals I admire most see the artist as the first authority on the subject.”

    But your full disclosure needed to appear at the opening of your piece, not at the end.

  • http://www.joannemattera.blogspot.com Joanne Mattera

    @ Paddy: I totally agree with you: ” . . .the professionals I admire most see the artist as the first authority on the subject.”

    But your full disclosure needed to appear at the opening of your piece, not at the end.

  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: I feel that the artist has a real (ethical) responsibility to produce work in good faith, in a deep effort to be clear to themselves and to their audience as to what the work is getting at.

    But when I think about the way I, as a viewer, encounter the VAST majority of the artworks I see, it’s disconnected from any source of information OTHER THAN THE WORK ITSELF that could inform me about those intentions. If my take away doesn’t agree with the artist’s intentions then that doesn’t make my experience invalid. And then if I go and tell my friend about how great so-and-so is, and how the work is really relevant because of reasons X, Y, and Z, then that misunderstanding has just entered the world as a form of meaning. I would claim that this process (in the abstract! No one actually listens to me.) is the dominant way that ideas about work circulate in the world. And the artist’s intentions are deeply estranged from it. And that’s okay.

  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: I feel that the artist has a real (ethical) responsibility to produce work in good faith, in a deep effort to be clear to themselves and to their audience as to what the work is getting at.

    But when I think about the way I, as a viewer, encounter the VAST majority of the artworks I see, it’s disconnected from any source of information OTHER THAN THE WORK ITSELF that could inform me about those intentions. If my take away doesn’t agree with the artist’s intentions then that doesn’t make my experience invalid. And then if I go and tell my friend about how great so-and-so is, and how the work is really relevant because of reasons X, Y, and Z, then that misunderstanding has just entered the world as a form of meaning. I would claim that this process (in the abstract! No one actually listens to me.) is the dominant way that ideas about work circulate in the world. And the artist’s intentions are deeply estranged from it. And that’s okay.

  • http://nicholasknight.net Nick

    @AFC: I feel that the artist has a real (ethical) responsibility to produce work in good faith, in a deep effort to be clear to themselves and to their audience as to what the work is getting at.

    But when I think about the way I, as a viewer, encounter the VAST majority of the artworks I see, it’s disconnected from any source of information OTHER THAN THE WORK ITSELF that could inform me about those intentions. If my take away doesn’t agree with the artist’s intentions then that doesn’t make my experience invalid. And then if I go and tell my friend about how great so-and-so is, and how the work is really relevant because of reasons X, Y, and Z, then that misunderstanding has just entered the world as a form of meaning. I would claim that this process (in the abstract! No one actually listens to me.) is the dominant way that ideas about work circulate in the world. And the artist’s intentions are deeply estranged from it. And that’s okay.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @joanne All disclosures on this blog appear at the end of posts not at the beginning. This post reflects the standard formatting of the blog, and isn’t going to change unless the subject of the post is also a sponsor. e-flux is not.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @joanne All disclosures on this blog appear at the end of posts not at the beginning. This post reflects the standard formatting of the blog, and isn’t going to change unless the subject of the post is also a sponsor. e-flux is not.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @joanne All disclosures on this blog appear at the end of posts not at the beginning. This post reflects the standard formatting of the blog, and isn’t going to change unless the subject of the post is also a sponsor. e-flux is not.

  • http://www.wh2.splinder.com luca rossi

    he container and who runs it become important, they “go beyond the limits” and “edit”, exactly because directors and linkers are needed to go and search for a lost sense, a lost meaning. These two curators are modern Indiana Jones looking for Sense. Bonami and Robin are our heroes. They have to revitalize a proposal that is linguistically locked up and limited
    Here is the reason of the sense of Whitehouse, then, and the opportunity to really play with the pieces, to create an automaton whose role is absolutely indefinite, shifting between being an artist, a curator, a visitor, an absent-minded observer, a collector, an owner of an art gallery, a critic, a blogger, etc. This is a more human and fluid role that, besides diverging, can bring forward a better dialogue with the exasperated and diversified reality where we live.

    http://wh2.splinder.com/post/21874547/2010-bonami-robin-and-him

  • http://www.wh2.splinder.com luca rossi

    he container and who runs it become important, they “go beyond the limits” and “edit”, exactly because directors and linkers are needed to go and search for a lost sense, a lost meaning. These two curators are modern Indiana Jones looking for Sense. Bonami and Robin are our heroes. They have to revitalize a proposal that is linguistically locked up and limited
    Here is the reason of the sense of Whitehouse, then, and the opportunity to really play with the pieces, to create an automaton whose role is absolutely indefinite, shifting between being an artist, a curator, a visitor, an absent-minded observer, a collector, an owner of an art gallery, a critic, a blogger, etc. This is a more human and fluid role that, besides diverging, can bring forward a better dialogue with the exasperated and diversified reality where we live.

    http://wh2.splinder.com/post/21874547/2010-bonami-robin-and-him

  • http://www.wh2.splinder.com luca rossi

    he container and who runs it become important, they “go beyond the limits” and “edit”, exactly because directors and linkers are needed to go and search for a lost sense, a lost meaning. These two curators are modern Indiana Jones looking for Sense. Bonami and Robin are our heroes. They have to revitalize a proposal that is linguistically locked up and limited
    Here is the reason of the sense of Whitehouse, then, and the opportunity to really play with the pieces, to create an automaton whose role is absolutely indefinite, shifting between being an artist, a curator, a visitor, an absent-minded observer, a collector, an owner of an art gallery, a critic, a blogger, etc. This is a more human and fluid role that, besides diverging, can bring forward a better dialogue with the exasperated and diversified reality where we live.

    http://wh2.splinder.com/post/21874547/2010-bonami-robin-and-him

  • http://twitter.com/photoflounder Flounder Lee

    I know I’m months late to this conversation, but I’d just like to add that, as an artist, curator, and professor, I can see many sides to this debate. One of the things I constantly tell my students that seems to somewhat disagree with Paddy’s assessment of artist’s intention is that when you put artwork into the world, it no longer belongs to you. Your intent is only the first of many interpretations that can all be equally valid. Maybe the other interpretations are “wrong” from the point of view of what you intended, but they are not wrong in that art is suppose to bring a dialog, not be strictly didactic and most often not preachy.

    Curators can do a good job of interpreting work and helping artists and the public see connections that are going on inside an artists work as well as between disparate artists’ practices. They can also get in the way and make connections that are so loose as to be pointless.

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: