Shifting of the Curatorial Paradigm
or about the death of some art professions

The main idea of this proceeding tends to address the current position of the curatorial practice that expresses the situation in which the museum-based concept of curator/ship is shifted into the wider field of non, even, institutionally organised art events (as an extreme example). In recent times, there are more and more courses, summer schools, university curricula and even scholarships for studying this particular discipline. How comes this widen and increased interest?

The term curator itself in some countries and languages is still not officially implemented in the dictionaries of the art professions. There is still confusion about the meaning of the term going on together with the term custodian. But, both of them are still keeping the very same meaning: a keeper of a museum or other collection or a guardian of a minor. Or, at least, they are referring to a description of one profession related to the institution of the museum and its collection.

From here on, the subject of this proceeding is how and why the institution of the museum curator diverse in the past thirty years in the world of art. In fact, what happened is that the recent appearances of the curator/ship abandon the strict field of the profession of the art historian, who was/is responsible for the presentation of the collection of/in one museum. The term from within of the institution of the museum went out and is entering the very same institution from outside. Some other curators are creating now the presentation of the art production in the museums. And not even so: they produce a different interpretation than the historical one. So, in time, the role of the curator had changed. In the very beginning the role of the curator was to deal with the representation of the already created art. Than, in the second half of the 20th century this role had to confront the idea and the structure of the museum as a part of the institutional system in which the art work had to exist and verify itself. Nowadays, the curatorial practice is a matter of negotiation and production: between the artist [as creator and producer], the institutions [from museums to the funding bodies], up to the production of the ideas for/of an exhibition. Therefore, not rarely the curator is denominated as producer [overtaken meaning from the film industry], entrepreneur [market], moderator [management], promoter [entertainment industry], mediator [digital industry], negotiator [politics], etc. Or, the curator is, more or less, all of them in one.


The related issue to this situation is the contemporary art criticism. First of all, the art criticism is in serious crisis. The professional, and by that, ethical standards are so widely enlarged that the meaning of the critique is less and less important. Standing at the point that the critique has to be affirmative only, led to the situation that there is no negative critique at all. By that, a vital dimension and qualification of the art criticism is cut. From here on it lost its meaning for the wider public sphere [to which it is addressed]. The interpretation is weaken due to the lack of deeper researches and analysis, lack of keeping to the structure of the system of knowledge and the professional ethics. And in such condition, the art criticism was damped down, even dulled. The importance of the art criticism was decentred and by that diminished. The centralised power of the museum curator which produces historical values is turned into decentralised producer of instant values of the democratic processes of the equalising neoliberalism. Under the new forms and types of curator, curatorship and curatorial practice a new type of art criticism arise: affirmative.

The second relevant factor is the change of the nature of the art work itself. Or, which is better to say, it's appearance, form and content. It is more than obvious that the art work does not exist anylonger through the 'classical' or the modern notion of definition of it. The art work became demystified, open and processual, interactive and changeable as a consequence of the ideas of and for democratisation: less individual, but more collective result of the process of its appearance. The 'fine-art' became art by involving other media, other art disciplines, other kinds of art. It became more narrative and less depicted. The power of image was accompanied by the power of text - the power of imaginative turned into the power of functionalism [in many different ways]. Such a condition of the art is now more a creation in behalf of something else [often even outside of the field of art at all] more than of the representation of the individual statement incorporated into the pure artistic [formalistic] procedures that have to generate artistic values. Weaker the relation with the modern idea of the art, the stronger influence in the society: less social, more societal.

In general, the new kinds of artistic activities are in need of new kinds of their presentation and interpretation. The domination of the context [or the contextualisation of the art work] replaced the interdisciplinary structure of the art work into itradisciplinary existence of the art work. The more fields [or disciplines] involved, the better the work becomes. Same as the curator became all from everything [producer, entrepreneur, moderator, promoter, mediator, negotiator, etc.].

Through this prism onwards, the curatorial practice [even more - curatorial projects] is changing the whole system of the art world. The curated art exhibitions became a reading of the topic, theme, title of the exhibition posed by the curator himself. They have to provide the contextualisation of the art production more than its historisation. Immediate result for immediate use. As everything today.


Hence, what are the new forms of curator/ship, what is the reason for that change or innovation and what is the meaning of them? First of all, they all derive from the concept of museum curator and diverse in three possible lines [fig. 1].



They are defined as follows:

MUSEUM CURATOR - the original notion of the profession, educationally derived from the field of art history: designated as position of production of power [regarding the artist’s expectations]; the main role of it is production of meaning of the museum's collection.

FREE-LANCE CURATOR - is the practice of [still, but not only] an art historian outside of the museum and its collection, but into the field of the general art production; it appears as new possibility for “employment” in the widen market of labour; the main role of it is production of meaning of the contemporary art production.

ARTIST AS CURATOR - the practice of the artist(s) as overtake of the curator/ship as a tool of her/is conceptual and practical expression, but not artistic expression yet; mostly appears as reaction of the ‘critique in a first person singular’ of the art critics/curators from the early 80s; the main role of it is production of alternative meaning.

GUEST CURATOR - is, so-called, experimental type of curator/ship, done by non-profesiional from the field, such as guests of the museums, writers, architects, art lovers and, even, some casual people; it is an activity besides the legitimacy and responsibilities; the main role of it is production of receptional meaning both of museum’s collection and/or contemporary production.

All of these three positions are deeply questioning the radical base of the idea of the curator/ship. Or, in other words, how happened that the curator/ship turned itself from a position of defined and structured activity in an institution into another possibility to access the widen market of labour, liaison and entertainment? This situation shows the consequences of decentralisation of the institutional power and its dispersion to the less powerful and numerous activities as production of the exhibitions and various art projects. From here on, there is a reflection that the system of promotion, presentation and definition of the work of art [or the collection and groups of them], somehow turned back in the time:

[fig. 2]

Or, FROM THE ANCIENT CRAFTSMAN [ars vulgaris and ars poiesis] - TOWARDS THE MODERN ARTIST [ars modernis] - [BACK] INTO THE PRE-MODERN ENTREPRENEUR [ars 'entrepreneuris']. Two art works can be a appropriate to illustrate this. Two work of the Croatian conceptual artist from the 1970s Mladen Stilinović, “An Artist who cannot speak English is not an Artist" from 1992 (canvas, colour; 140x300 cm) [fig. 3] correspond to the new needs of the artists regarding the new requests and conditions of the system of art. The English language as lingua franca is the tool more of communication of the artist, than a component of the art work itself. A decade later the young Macedonian artist Oliver Musović, referring to the Stilinović's work, created the work “The Artist”, 2003 [fig. 4] (re-designed as artist's pages project in the art magazine Art republika [Skopje] 1 (3) (2005): 48-9) [fig. 5]. There he lists most important things that the artist should know and be able to do, according to his own and other artists' experiences, to enter and build an international career. The highlighted statements [by N.V.] [fig. 6] are very essential for the transformation of the notion of artist: from a modernist creator s/he turned into someone who has to be able and capable to manage different activities, most of them based on the negotiations with the institutions and curators - s/he became an entrepreneur.

Turning back to the definition of the contemporary curator [which is different from the curator of contemporary art], from the other side, in which different descriptions and denominations [producer, entrepreneur, moderator, promoter, mediator, negotiator, etc.] it seems that both of the professions are sharing the same condition: in which the both 'pure' professions [art historian and artist], by this widening (or enriching), but first of all - mingled and melted, are diminished.

By that, as a consequence of the neoliberal notion of decentralisation [of the power], what is happening now is increasing level of shifting of the curatorial paradigm into the democratised [!?], yet numerous, and by that reason - less meaningful type of activities.


Presented at:


CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST. OUTPOSTS 2007
THIRD CEI VENICE FORUM FOR CONTEMPORARY ART CURATORS

Venice, June 7-8, 2007

Documenta 12 Lounch Lectures

On Agoras (v.1)

[N.B. Meaning for the Agora (Part I) text: In ancient Greece: a public open space used for assemblies and markets. Stoa (at the Athens’ agora): the large portico in which the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno gave the founding lectures of the Stoic school of philosophy; Meaning for the Agora (Part II) text: From Hebrew: āgōrāh - small coin]

Part I

Concepts of ‘public sphere’ as a matter of responsibility

The public sphere is not only ‘being democratized’ to say and to critisize whatever was placed and whomever placed her/is statement into the field of public [by different means], but rather to higher the degree of responsibility carried by the both sides of the public dialogue: the placed statement and the critique of it.

Three synchronic concepts:

1. THE AGORA CONCEPT: public sphere as a critic > verbal < - tens of listeners - bodily present for a critique of the statement - direct confrontation: discussions - in front of the public - author’s personal responsibility - temporary responsible for the statement 2. THE BOOK CONCEPT: public sphere as a readership > printed < - hundreds/thousands of readers - materially present for a critique of the statement - post-confrontation: reviews and polemics - behind the name on the cover of the book/review - publisher’s meta-responsibility - temporally responsible for the statement 3. THE BLOG CONCEPT: public sphere as entertained subject > pixeled < - tens of thousands of surfers - virtually present for a critique of the statement - mediated confrontation: adds, podcasts, posts, comments, impressions - ‘hidden’ behind the monitor/reply - blogger’s quasi-responsibility - ephemerally responsible for the statement So, as much the public sphere is democratized [and especially - decentred], that less responsibility is present. Or: isn’t our ‘transited’ and less personally responsible modernity turned back to some ‘quasi’ antiquity?

Part II:

If an art magazine is, as first, exchange of information,
to what purpose it is printed?

Among the several specifies of publishing [printed] contemporary art magazine in the region of Central and South Eastern Europe [CSEE] (besides the known problems of financing, distribution, technical issues, etc.), the basic doubt of the publisher [and the initial idea about the publishing in general] are the starting questions: to what reason the publishing of the magazine is addressed? and to whom this exchange of information is most beneficial?
These two questions, at the first glance, are seemed not even worth mentioning, since the answer is known: to the art world, i.e. to and for the art public, professionals (artists, curators), art institutions and art market. Yes, but is it only so?

The doubtedness of this ‘known’ answer raises out of several circumstances.
First of all, the ‘known’ public is self-understandable for the developed art-magazine markets where the market of publications is so much developed that there is almost one magazine per each particular interest, i.e. specific art product. This differentiation is not common for the region of CSEE. The main problem of the ‘addressed’ reason and art public derives from the condition of publishing mostly one art magazine. In the case where one can publish one or two art magazines (limited not only from the financing aspects, lack of funds, sponsorships or advertisements, but rather from the number of art critics and art writers and qualitative art production/art-works) the one is stacked into the problem of the content.
To define the content (what to publish) is bigger problem then the methods (how to publish), even bigger than the dissemination (how to distribute it - which is, from a specific side, the essential problem). And above all of this, comes the issue of the context (why to publish)! From here on it ends with the conclusion that the content is processually depended on the context. In other words: why we are publishing magazines? The answer is also known: to exchange the information, to evaluate, to systematise, to historicize, to educate and to disseminate the ideas and statements. Hence: for what purpose is all of this?

The very history of publishing printed art magazines has two basic and starting points: the first one is the exchange of knowledge (which is based upon the ideas of the late 18th century Rationalism and the Enlightenment) and the second one is the exchange of goods (which is idea based on the market oriented economy/society). Both of the starting points were generated from the reason (that generates another cause): the exchange of capital. By that, the pre- or early modern idea of the art as exchange of symbolic values turned into an idea of the art as exchange of market values.
And from here on, if we do accept this interpretation and speaking of publishing printed art magazine in the societies that are lacking developed system of exchange of the market values, that means that the only starting point which lefts is the first one, the one of the late 18th century Rationalism and the Enlightenment: exchange of knowledge. Or, at least, our belief that the exchange of knowledge is still worth spending what the creative and intellectual capacities have to and can do – what they are only structured around and, therefore, believe in.
To make it clearer, in the societies of this region one can say that there is certain art system. I do not want to go deeper in this analysis, but still and in fact, some art system still exists, inherited from the previous times [at least speaking for SFR Yugoslavia, i.e. Skopje Museum of Contemporary Art is the second established contemporary art museum at the whole Balkan in the mid 1960s with an important international collection of art works from the 1960s and 1970s). The infrastructural system is also good enough developed (museums, galleries, cultural centres, high education level of studying for artists and art historians, Ministry of Culture with the Low for Culture and National Programme for Culture, NGOs in the field of culture) and one can say that there is art system. But, what is incomparable with the western societies is that this system was built upon the ideas of the Enlightenment, as an exchange of knowledge and aesthetic values - only. This system never thought (it was out of it's thought) on building and structuring market driving forces, elements and processes. Art or intellectual ‘production’ was never treated by a meaning of exchangeable good on/for the market, even that it was still labelled as ‘labour’ (according to the leftist theories).

Finally, what was once in our understanding advantage turns now a day into a problem: such an art system based upon the aesthetic, theoretical and historical values never generated market oriented art system. And, in my understanding, this is the crucial source for the problems of the today’s printed art magazines: they were never designed and produced as the other side of the one and the very same coin - the exchange of the capital. One does understand and even more experience that now: that the exchange of knowledge was designed for the needs and purposes of the exchange of goods, meant as a tool of the exchange of capital.


And back to the questioned title, the exchange of information (does not matter does it have Gutenbergian or McLuhanian origin) is a tool for an enlargement of the knowledge as a tool driven for the purposes of the exchange of the capital. And this is the context in which the printed art magazine from CSEE has to exist (does not matter who of us agrees or not). And this context drives the content of it. And this is the starting point to find the answer to the question: to what and to whom the art magazine from CSEE is addressed?


Documenta 12 Lounch Lectures, July 17, 2007

Boris Petrovski -- Борис Петровски

About “a man by force”

If you allow me, I would like to begin this text in the same way as Giorgio Agamben has begun his book Homo sacer. Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita, starting by comparing the difference between the ancient Greek concepts of zoe and bios. They contain the double meaning of human life: the former expresses “the simple fact of living, common to all living creatures”, while the latter points to “the form or the way of living typical to an individual or a group”. Farther on in the same book Agamben makes a statement which becomes crucial for creation of the “deciding event of modernism which marks the radical transformation of the political-philosophical category of the traditional thought”: ”the entrance of zoe into the sphere of polis”, that is to say, politicization of bare life. Starting from this position, later on he opens the discussion about bio-politics - a key form in organization of the human life in the modern, whose consequences are evident even today.

If you allow me, I would like to continue this text analyzing the positions and attitudes of Boris Petrovski in his latest project “ Dehumanization”. The crucial statement “A Man by force” contains the double meaning of the human force: the “destructive” and the “creative” one. The form of the first is evident in the data given by the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index about the daily and monthly costs of U.S. in Iraq in 2007, given in American dollars and written on a black surface, while the form of the second one is a display of sports equipments of disciplines such as weight lifting, long jump and the high jump expressed in numbers about world records and the names of the sportsmen-executers of these records written in colour. The impersonal numbers of the budget are juxtaposed with the names of three existing persons.



This philosophical and this artistic position are met in one common point: defining the force as a denominator of human life endurance in double sense: as a quantification and qualification of one and the same living form. The first, because of introduction into the sphere of political, gets into the ideological domain as bio-politics, while the second, because of introduction into the sphere of natural, gets into the cultural domain - as a bio-culture.
Namely, the first life form is defined by the position of the sovereign (in this case U.S. as a superior structure) that is to define “the form and way of living” of the other subject based on its own conviction about the rightfulness of the democratically organized form as compulsory. This position comes out of the legal norm because, as a sovereign, he brings his own decisions about the state of emergency or he defines it as such. The sovereign, as Agamben writes, creates and guarantees the situation as a whole in its totality. In this case, the bare life of the subject upon whom the intervention is executed is defined by the “power” [force????] out of himself.
On the other hand, the second life form has been defined by the position of the individual (in this case, the sportsman) defining “the simple fact of life” of the subject himself. The individual sets himself into position of “the sovereign” of his own body, hence of his own life. Because of that his decisions do not concern anybody out of his own domain, which by promoting the values of the natural (not through usurping the right for decision making of the sovereign but through the institution of competition). This justifies and confirms the position of the natural founded in the effort to present the physical power not only as a quantitative (as it appears in the first case) but, first and foremost, as a qualitative dimension of the natural itself. In accordance with the fact of inclusion of this individual affirmation within the community, it becomes part of a cultural act (as an attitude towards the natural). In this case, the bare life of the subject who intervenes upon himself is defined by "the power” in himself.



Separating these two positions in “black” and in ”colour” Petrovski discreetly indicates his position and attitude regarding this question: by ”blackening“ the bio-politics, he takes the “coloured” side, the one of bio- culture. He thinks that “the entrance of zoe into the sphere of polis” as its politicization - as its (group, impersonal, as if it were in behalf of the community) assimilation into the ideological positions and about the ideological needs, should be juxtaposed with “the entrance of zoe into the sphere of polis” as its cultivation - as its (individual, personal, with a concrete trial in the name of the community) афирмирање преку негувањето, одгледувањето на и грижата за природното на и во животот во рамките на заедницата. Hence, Petrovski re-examines the bio-political current affairs of the contemporary life, suggesting and standing for another possibility, the one of bio-culture.

The use of force brings results: Destructive and creative.
The man has lost himself in abusing his own power and destroying air, water, earth and life. Decent, sensible, conscious, controlled use of power can save us from dehumanization and justify the name of a man.



* * * * * * * * *

За „човекот со сила“

Нека биде дозволено овој текст да започне на истиот начин на којшто и Ѓорѓо Агамбен [Giorgio Agamben] ја започнува својата книга Homo sacer. Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita поаѓајќи од споредбата на разликата помеѓу античко-грчките поими зое и биос. Во нив е содржана двојната смисла на човековиот живот: првиот го изразува „едноставниот факт на животот заеднички за сите живи суштества“, додека вториот упатува на „формата или начинот на живеење својствен на некој поединец или група“. Нешто понатаму во истата книга Агамбен поставува една претпоставка којашто се покажува клучна за создавањето на „одлучувачката случка на модерната која ја обележува радикалната преобразба на политичко-философската категорија на класичната мисла“: „влегувањето на зое во сферата на полисот“, односно, политизацијата на голиот живот. Поаѓајќи од овие позиции, тој понатаму ја отвора расправата за био-политиката - клучната форма на организација на човековиот живот во модерната, а чии последици траат и во денешницата.

Нека биде дозволено овој текст да продолжи со анализа на позициите и ставовите на Борис Петровски изнесени во неговиот најнов проект „Отчовечување“. Во средишниот исказ „Човек со сила“ е содржана двојната смисла на човековата сила: онаа „деструктивната“ (уништувачката) и „креативната“ (творечката). Формата на појавност на првата е податокот од Индексот за Ирак на Институтот Брукингс за дневните и месечните воени трошоци на Соединетите американски држави во Ирак во 2007, изразени во американски долари, и испишани на црна подлога, додека формата на втората е поставувањето на спротските реквизити (на дисциплините: дигање тегови, скок во далечина и скок во височина) изразени со броеви податоци за, досега, постигнатите светски рекорди и имињата на спортистите-носители на овие рекорди и испишани во боја. На безличните бројки на буџетот спротивставени се имињата на три постоечки личности.

Оваа философска и оваа уметничка позиција се сретнуваат во една заедничка точка: одредувањето на силата како содржател на опстојувањето на човековиот живот во двојна смисла: како квантификација и квалификација на една и иста животна форма. Првата, заради воведувањето во сферата на политичкото, зафаќа во идеолошкото подрачје како био-политика, втората, заради воведувањето во сферата на природното, зафаќа во културолошкото подрачје - како био-култура.
Имено, првата животна форма се одредува со позицијата на суверениот (во случајов: Соединетите Aмерикански Држави како надсубјектна структура) да ја одредува „формата или начинот на живеењето“ на другиот субјект врз основа на сопственото убедување за исправноста на демократската организациона форма како задолжителна. Таа позиција излегува од правната норма бидејќи, како суверен, самиот одлучува за вонредната состојба или, пак, ја одредува како таква. Суверениот, како што пишува Агамбен, ја создава и гарантира состојбата како целина во нејзината севкупност. Во тој случај, (голиот) живот на субјектот врз кој се интервенира станува одреден од „сила“ вон од него самиот.
Од друга страна, пак, втората животна форма се одредува со позицијата на индивидуата (во случајов: спортистот) да го одредува „едноставниот факт на животот“ на самиот субјект. Самата индивидуа се поставува во позиција на „суверен“ врз сопственото тело, оттука и врз сопствениот живот. Заради тоа нејзините одлуки не засегаат никој друг вон од подрачјето на сопственото, коешто, пак, афирмирајќи ги вредностите на природното (преку институцијата натпревар, а не преку узурпацијата на правото на одлука на суверениот). Тоа ја оправдува и потврдува позицијата на природното втемелено во напорот физичката сила да се појави не само како квантитативна (како што е во првиот случај), туку, пред сѐ, како квалитативна димензија на самото природно. Согласно фактот на вклучувањето на ова индивидуално афирмирање во рамките на заедницата, тоа и самото станува дел од еден културолошки чин (како однос кон природното). Во тој случај, (голиот) живот на субјектот кој самиот интервенира врз себе станува одреден од „силата“ во него самиот.

Со двоењето (во исписот) на овие две позиции на „црни“ и „боени“ Петровски дискретно ја навестува својата позиција и став во однос на ова прашање: со „оцрнувањето“ на био-политиката, тој ја зазема „боената“ страна, онаа на био-културата. Тој смета дека на „влегувањето на зое во сферата на полисот“ како негова политизација - како негово (групно, без-лично, под изговор дека е во името на заедницата) претопување во идеолошките позиции и за идеолошките потреби, треба да се спротивстави „влегувањето на зое во сферата на полисот“ како негова култивација - како негово (индивидуално, лично, со конкретна заложба во името на заедницата) афирмирање преку негувањето, одгледувањето на и грижата за природното на и во животот во рамките на заедницата. Со тоа, Петровски ја преиспитува био-политичката тековност на современиот живот едновремено укажувајќи на и застапувајќи се за една друга негова можност, онаа на био-културата.