It’s been about two and a half years since I last blogged, and I have removed most of the previous posts, but felt like starting again, so:
I have, over the last few years, become more and more concerned by how my fellow curators behave. The results of their activities are there for all to see; yet it is established as the status quo in the art world. I would describe it as a wilful detachment from reality.
Artists are things to be found and inserted into a programme. They should preferably new, not second-hand, and their work should fit with the curator’s interests. These interests will reflect the current group interest. There is no need to explain the work – it will speak for itself, no matter how esoteric.
Interpretation is for others to worry about once the exhibition is set. No thought of audience is countenanced – all it need do is satisfy the curator. If others like the work, so much the better, although that could be seen as a failure (My recent advocacy for both Christian Marclay and Elizabeth Price’s work was recently explained to me – it’s because they are videos. As a baby is attracted to a mobile, my critical faculties were short-circuited by the light and sound).
There are plenty of engaging, thoughtful, cutting-edge artists around. Some of them do funny things to my insides (brain and heart) when I see their work. There are plenty of cutting-edge artists that show work with no real ‘visual art’ element, no soul and really no point, other than to exercise some arcane knowledge or practice. These, apparently, are the future. At least they are at the moment.
How did we get to the point where (largely publically-funded) institutions are prioritising exclusivity over inclusivity? In another recent conversation, my interest in audience engagement was questioned: Was it merely a reaction to funding requirements? A hoop-jumping exercise of no real import?
When did the needs of the few begin to outweigh the needs of the many? I can think of no other job where the primary driver is to satisfy the jobholder. Even in the cultural sector: If I run a theatre, and stage unsuccessful performances, I will soon close. If I am a buyer for a publishing house (even if I specialise in esoteric, left-field works) if I don’t hit the target, I’m out. If I was a broadcaster and didn’t satisfy multiple demographics, ditto.
Why do (sometimes very large and prestigious) organisations do projects that take well regarded artists (who do not usually work collaboratively), stick them in a room with some kids, get the kids to make the artists work for them, call it ‘socially-engaged practice’ and then express surprise when the children find it boring and ‘won’t do their homework’?
A while ago, another curator asked me what curating was to me. I replied ‘showing great work in the best possible way’. They told me that was project management. This particular curator has minimal project management skills, so I took it as a compliment.
Aren’t the arts about expression, feeling, sharing, and transformation? Why has it become the preserve of an elite who just perpetuates the back patting and do nothing for wider society or even for random individuals who might chance upon Contemporary Art?
Oh, I’ve just thought of another group of people who take from the public without giving and just carry on regardless. Although the figures involved are of a different order, the principle’s the same.
