2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

Brenson notes the "transformation of the curator of contemporary art from behind-the-scenes aesthetic arbiter to central player in the broader stage of global cultural politics." The curator seems to be a figure who has gained significant influence in the art world and even the world at large, and seems to have more and more a hand in determining contemporary artistic taste. It seems to me that the curator's taste in art has great potential to become the viewer's taste in art, and I wonder if perhaps the curator has reached such an ascendancy because viewers in general have grown more and more lost, alienated by, and confused about art, what it is, what purpose it serves, and how they should view it. Contemporary art is a million different pieces lying on the ground, and it has been left to the curator to pick up those pieces and make sense of them for a stranded, confused viewer. To relate Brenson's essay to another essay, it seems that the "death of the author" has brought about not just the "birth of the reader" or the viewer, but the birth of the curator. As Brenson says, "what needs to be stated is that the increasing institutional awareness of the importance of the audience has made curators more visible as mediators between art and its publics."

In a way, I resent this newfound "inescapable authority" of the curator because, while curating may well be a kind of "art," and while "curators have become more like artists," curators do not make art, they seem to be more of a social and political animal, and yet they may determine artistic taste and artistic conversation to a greater degree than may artists, who are the foundation of the art world. But I think there is a stereotype for artists to be "socially unrefined" and strange and inexperienced, and perhaps curators possess the social skill, refinement, and experience that artists stereotypically lack. As Brenson says, "The texture and tone of the curator's voice, the voices it welcomes or excludes, and the shape of the conversation it sets in motion are essential to the texture and perception of contemporary art." If the artist is a hand, perhaps the curator is a voice, and if the artist makes art, perhaps the curator makes culture.

Something I was wondering while reading this essay was: what does a "bad curator" do? In today's scattered, anything-goes art world, in which anything can be explained, validated, and defended with words, what would being a "bad curator" involve? Brenson gives the example of Jean-Hubert Martin, who, "in his effort to reveal to the West the continuing vitality of artistic traditions in non-Western cultures, installed almost all the non-Western works in an exhibition context that had little or nothing to do with the intentions of the artists who created the works and the traditions they served." However, a curator may make reckless, inadvisable, disconnected choices with their art collections and be able to defend their choices and their ideas if they are a strong enough debater and know enough about art. A curator may be the most generous, hospitable, lovely, self-aware, transparent person in the world, but it is their taste that matters most (so I'd argue), and, as the saying goes, there is no accounting for taste. In my opinion, a curator's taste is all-important, and the more power a curator has, the more power a curator has to determine artistic taste.

The best critique I have received so far at the University of MN was given by Dan Byers, a curatorial fellow at the Walker. He is amazingly articulate, giving beautiful language to ideas I have been struggling to communicate visually. Byers is clearly gifted in the distillation of idea and voice, as well as in immediately identifying and defining what he sees. In his essay, Brenson argues that the line between artist and curator is blurring. I would agree that, in general, curators “bring into their projects, and to the issues that drive them, many, if not all, of the emotional and intellectual components of the artistic process.� Byers exemplified this through the manner in which he was able to directly and immediately relate to our artistic thought processes. However, I do not believe that the border between artist and curator is becoming essentially harder to define.

Perhaps within the world of High Art, the curator is capable of using the work of the artist to promote a certain agenda, but this does not mean that the roles of each are confused. Brenson states: “Several times in the last couple of years, after listening to people speak about the profoundly representational and national needs art is expected to meet, I have found myself yearning to create and exhibition about an eccentric visionary tradition in U.S. art that includes loners like Forrest Bass and Albert York, whose small paintings are obsessive, hypnotic, and intensely personal worlds.� This sentence is directly related to the class discussion that ensued in response to Rachel’s presentation. The artists whose work she enjoys are considered to be examples of “Low Art,� and create intimate, extremely personal worlds. They lack pretension, heroism, and self-consciousness. Is the curator, then, a function of the High Art World, and therefore unable to grant legitimacy to other forms of personal art, works that are much more concerned with its own intrinsic value as art rather than what it is “meant to do� socially and politically? Brenson argues that “within the art community, there is a widespread contempt for any tendency to romanticize the individuality, personality, hand, and heroism of the artist.� I believe the words “art community� should be replaced by “art institution.�

For exactly this reason, it is clear that the roles of artist and curator are quite distinct. While the artist makes work because it is what he or she believes in, curators feel an “obligation to put art in the service of extraordinary social and political needs.� Brenson brings up the issue of the “respect for the intimate experience of art versus a belief in curatorial interventions that can make the artistic message, and sometimes even that intimacy itself, broadly accessible.� This is relatable to the many conversations we have had in class regarding the general need of the viewer to be spoon-fed meaning, to have a pleasant, relaxing experience in a gallery. The idea that “art exhibited in any museum is seen by many people who feel they have little of no access to it and that they need to be encouraged to feel that the aesthetic experience belongs to them as much as anyone else� is a curator’s idea, not an artist’s.

According to Brenson, if it is the curator’s job to translate the artist’s work into a digestible experience, it is also his or her job to present art from another culture in a context that can be “understood.� Is this not another name for creating a place, or a predetermined definition, for a certain culture’s art within the Eurocentric construct Mosquera discussed? In this manner, the curator joins art historians and critics in the “impoverished, progressive framework� that Shohat and Sham discussed in their essay. While this is certainly one possibility, someone like Dan Byers is a great example of someone who seems quite comfortable with his role as curator and not translator. Therefore, while I disagree with much of Brenson’s view of the curator's role, I do believe that curators can be full of artistic sensibility and invaluable resources to the artist.

Rowan, I would be careful with your generalization that curators do not make art. Surely, there are plenty of curators who are also artists-Mark Beasley being just one example of someone who writes, curates, co-curates and makes his own work.

I always thought of curators in a similar vein to a talented cook. Using the best ingredients, in the right amounts and in combination with each other can yield an extraordinary, often unexpected, flavor. Of course the taste will appeal to some and repulse others, but in most cases there is a general consensus on the quality of the dish. The chef’s own palette, location and own cultural history/knowledge will dictate the type of ingredients used and the intended fusion of flavors.

I suppose what this association doesn’t account for is “the conflict between a commitment to art and a commitment to using art to serve other agendas.� With the unavoidable connection between art and politics, it is no wonder the curator’s task can be so difficult and so relevant. I’m not sure I would be at liberty to choose which commitment would be best, but I found it quite interesting when Brenson writes, “[Economic, social, and political] interests, more than the needs of artists, or of contemporary art, are at the forefront of exhibition programming in powerhouse museums in the United States.� As a young artist, I’d like to remain optimistic and put faith in a curator’s ability to successfully fulfill the seemingly impossible task of finding the right balance between politics, culture and legitimation.

Brenson’s discussion of the U.S. and its place in the art world initially comes off as pessimistic, but he is probably accurate and realistic in his assertions. “In the U.S., only a relatively small number of people believe that art can have an impact on the world.� With limited government support and the role of the media, art as a powerful political, economic and aesthetic force does feel like a long lost hope. But this doesn’t seem to put a damper on the number of people who choose to make art an integral part of their lives, seeing as there are certainly more B.F.A. and M.F.A. students graduating than ever before in addition to the growing number of conferences, artist collectives and associations. I am glad to see Brenson acknowledge that, “…other countries must know there is an extraordinary breadth of knowledge and experience among art professionals in the United States, and art and artists here will continue to be essential players on the world’s artistic and cultural stages,� even though he finishes his statement by writing, “the art system in the U.S. can no longer dominate as it did.�

Like Robin I too am inclined to compare curatorial practices to other endeavors. I find similarity to the DJ. In theory, they both play the role of the researcher. They sift through the immense amount of art and music to give the public a taste of what they deem to be the best. With the two disciplines there is a spectrum of creative input. In regards to DJs there are radio DJs and Club DJs radio being the more conservative and club being the more progressive in that they combine different songs to make new songs. The same can be said for curators, on one end you have museum curators for conservative institutions and on the other you have curators for progressive institutions. More progressive still you have curators like Mare Jane Jacob and Mark Beasley who bypass normal art channels and make their own. Obviously there are flaws in both worlds but ultimately I think it is useful to have people out there researching and disseminating what is new. There may be ulterior motives in some cases but I think it is good place to start. With my busy schedule I don't have the time to research every new band or artist. I like to get a little help from people like Mark Wheat and Yasmil Raymond.

It's nice to know that there are people out there like Michael Brenson who believe in artists and who are fighting for the arts. Unfortunately there are much larger forces at work, like the right wing religious conservative faction in our country that have been attacking the arts for the last nine years. This influence on curators and museums can be likened to the influence of Clear Channel and it's corporate agenda on radio DJs. With both they are only showing a very limited conservative sliver of what is happening in art and music.

Hopefully tonight marks the end of an era of close-minded conservative power. Hopefully the electoral projections showing Obama with a substantial lead will hold into the morning. The other promising political development is the amendment for clean water, wildlife, cultural heritage and natural areas. With in the cultural heritage portion of the amendment is more funding for the arts.

Great response, Mel! There's a lot to comment on in your response, and I was thinking and wondering about some of the same things you were. I think the answer to your question (whether the curator is a part of the world of "high art" and is therefore paralyzed to grant legitimacy to "personal art") is that it depends on the curator and on your definition of "high art." Also, as Brenson suggested, an important part of being a curator is deciding what "risks" to take. Some curators may be willing to take the risk of collecting and putting what may be called "low art" on the walls, and others will refuse to do anything unorthodox or out of the mainstream. Honestly, I can't understand why certain works of art are considered "high art" and other works of art "low art" -- some of the work which I consider to be higher quality work is called "low art" by very professional-seeming people, and some of the work I consider to be lower quality work is called "high art" by the same people. Still, as my advisor David Feinberg has suggested, we must beware of fashions, of calling "fashionable" art "high art," because, like any fashion, such art may reflect an illusion of importance rather than something genuinely important, and will fade away in a short time. I really don't think it matters so much whether an artist's work is "low art" or "high art," as long as the artist himself or herself is interested in, and passionate about, what they're doing. (By the way, Mel, I was unclear in my own blog: I meant that curators who are exclusively curators don't make art.)

Robin, I think your comparison of the curator to a cook is wonderful and apt. Also, you say, "with limited government support and the role of the media, art as a powerful political, economic and aesthetic force does feel like a long lost hope. But this doesn’t seem to put a damper on the number of people who choose to make art an integral part of their lives, seeing as there are certainly more B.F.A. and M.F.A. students graduating than ever before in addition to the growing number of conferences, artist collectives and associations." Sometimes I feel depressed by the notion that art can't possibly create any real political or economic change in the world, but then I see some passionate, extraordinary piece of political art (recently, I was paging through Goya's brilliant series of etchings called "The Disasters of War"), and I am immediately revived, and see the catalystic power in art again.

This article is a fitting follow-up to last week's Mosquera and Shohat & Stam, as it seems to give an answer to the quandaries they raised. How do non-Europeans gain more of a voice in the art world? Brenson talks about the biennials filling this role, such as the Havana Bienal and the Dakar Biennial. The curators have been given the power to create balance in the art world, and as Brenson sees it, that is what is happening. He says, “Biennials born from deep cultural and political needs will make a difference.� And as if in direct answer to the previous readings, he goes on to state that these biennials “Will make clear that many cities and countries are capable of being seats of cultural power.� And a curator for the Havana Bienal says she hoped to provide a space for artists “who do not have space in the world.� However, I wonder if, as Mel pointed out, these biennials still fit well within the Western framework, and so really don’t represent such a radical change even if third-world artists are being shown. The idealist in me thinks that if these non-European artists are being given a significant voice, it does represent a positive trend. This framework is in place, it can’t easily be upended, but it can and should be nudged away from being only for and by Westerners.

This essay also brings me back to the Death of the Artist, as Rowan mentioned. This sentence first brought it to mind, “Within the arts community, there is widespread contempt for any tendency to romanticize the individuality, personality, hand, and heroism of the artist.� In the place of the mystique of the individual artist has arisen the mystique of the biennial, of the show. I don’t know much about these biennials, so I’ll have to take Brenson’s word for it, but it is an interesting shift of perspective. Brenson says, “Many of the curators would be extremely wary of any messianic view within an artist’s work, yet many biennials have a messianic dimension.� When he talks about the “widespread faith in the transformative, even healing power of biennials�, I find it heartening that people can still feel fired up about art, that art wields that power to help society, to inspire people.

I suppose if the biennials have power, then it follows that the curators of those biennials have power, making it the “curator’s moment�. But it seems to me that gallery owners have long had power, as they can make or break an artist, so the new development has more to do with these biennials than the change of the curator’s role. Perhaps the change is that they are operating on such a grander scale for these events versus small Chelsea galleries. I’m inspired to attend one of these biennials, it sounds so exciting. Class field trip to Havana?

For me, Brenson's essay raises a lot of questions about the curator's role in contemporary art exhibitions. His vision of the curator as cross-cultural liaison or translator is an appealing one. However, is the curator's increased visibility and power truly a response to an art viewing public who demands more context? Is it also related to the increased interest in work that has "exotic" origins and therefore needs more explanation ('outsider,' international, youth-culture)? Or is the interest in exotic origins itself a result of the curator-driven system, as ambitious curators seek out work that is most challenging, difficult to explain, and/or easy to exploit because of the artist's lack of self-awareness/media savvy/art history knowledge? On the other hand, perhaps curators have always had considerable power over artistic culture and their increased visibility is a result of the trend towards "openness and transparency" that Brenson mentions (a reaction to critical artists who use their work to expose these hierarchical relationships.)

I'm especially interested in these questions at the moment, because I find myself at the receiving end of curatorial authority, and it's not a situation I feel well prepared for. My crewmates and I are in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, putting up an installation. It's become clear that, to some extent, we've been brought in as exotic outsiders -- crazy American punk kids. The first hint came last weekend when everyone got drunk at a gallery opening and one of my crewmates broke a glass display case during a frenzied dancing session. Instead of being upset, our curator seemed oddly excited. She said something to the effect of, "It's okay, it's just how you are." Then, a few days ago, she informed us that we should go dumpster a bunch of food and prepare an "authentic freegan dinner" for the opening. Honestly, it's something we probably would have done anyway (albeit without the term freegan), but there's something about a contemporary art curator talking about "authentic freegan dinner" that made all of us squirm... Anyway, The Miss Rockaway Armada is a project that wasn't designed to be art-world compatible, and perhaps it gives a curator extra prestige to be able to corral such work into their gallery context...? I'm not trying to talk trash here -- there are many ways in which our experience has been awesome so far, and our curator has been remarkably sensitive to our needs and working habits. But I can't help thinking about the politics of the situation.

By the way, I tell you all of this in confidence -- I consider this blog sort of an intimate non-public conversation...

I definitely respect the role of curator in the same way that I respect the role of book editor or DJ. However, I find it troublesome that curators are assuming a more central role at a time when artist's are reluctant (or feel it is politically inappropriate) to take the spotlight. This situation is not analogous to literature or music at the moment. I think Rowan makes a good point when he mentions the sheer diversity of art forms and practices, and the high level of education/research needed to make sense of it all. To a casual observer, it can be baffling without the curatorial translator and their concise didactic pasted to the wall in tasteful sans serif vinyl letters.

As soon as art is being sought to have meaning, “the era of the curator has begun. “ When we see an art work and extract messages from the work, some of us might grow a desire to share this message to the others. I think, this is the preliminary form of “curator�. Mel described in her comment that “The idea that 'art exhibited in any museum is seen by many people who feel they have little or no access to it and that they need to be encouraged to feel that the aesthetic experience belongs to them as much as anyone else' is a curator’s idea, not an artist’s. “ and I very much agree with her. Artists can be curators and vice-versa, but I believe that there is a clear difference between the two roles.

When I try to distinguish the difference between curator and artist, I came to a conclusion that the objective was different between the two roles. Curators are willing to express something, and artists are willing to create something. When thinking about this, Robin's comparison was really inspiring. I would use the same metaphor of “cook� but in different perspective. Cooks for me are still artists, because they are the ones who create things to feed oneself/other(s). Curator would be people who think the food is necessary to be known by others and those who promotes about the food to others.

When artists have the will to express a specific message that they encourage observers to digest, they become curators as well. For some artists, this may not be their focus or intention. But many of such works that were created without the intention of being exhibited are worth, or deserve to, be seen by others. This is when curators become valuable and helpful to the observers.

Jonathan,
how funny (metaphorically that is) that your experiences are correlating with our discussions, thanks for talking about the confusion of feelings being moved around by the power structures involved. The self, the self as artist, curator and audience. I also like that you see a compatibility dynamic. One that I agree with, not every style of art needs to be put in a "Gallery" but there is something to that need for exposure and new experiences.

This title seems appropriate, The Curator’s Moment. “Moments� are realizations, snap shots of history and vehicles for refection on the happenings in our lives and in society. Art is communication and expression that when under particular curatorial constraints, can be more accessible and powerful as tools of change in personal perceptions and global cultural attitudes.

Brenson is talking about large international shows and how the curator is a person(s) of many hats. I don’t think the job of a curator is really changing from the past, it is expanding in a shrinking world like everything else, remember, this is a unique time in history, we are overtaking the earth in every possible way without a vision of an end. We must keep treading to stay afloat which in turn creates new currents. I see that the position of a curator is different than the artist, but the purpose is the same. To believe in the power of art, to bring together ideas and focus these ideas in ways where the audience is appreciated for their contribution in keeping art alive. The boarder between artist and curator is nothing but a categorizing word. I agree with Mel when she mentions Mark Beasley as both artist and curator and talking with Dan Byers in critique, he is an artist, a painter, but he himself said it was coming from a different part of him and he likes to keeps the two hats separated. This isn’t a boarder of separate goals, but of different personal interests in approaching materials and ideas. Artist are part of cultural communication and the curator is inspired to bring communication together, to make big statements about our time and place in a global society and bring art to the people.

I didn’t like the statements Brenson made about the art in the U.S. and its contempt towards art that emphasizes personality, individuality and the hand of the artist, he maybe right to some extent, but why can’t there be room for all ideas to surface, this maybe where the curators and artist work together, the position of the curator does make them the “trend setters� due to their power of presentation and choice. Then in that same sentence Andy Goldsworthy’s quote about art “taking credit for itself� seems to be this new approach to art as situation and process, rather than reflecting on the artist.

I also want to mention that the paragraph about modernism struck a note, a communal note that modernism is not the dominate force behind today’s curatorial decisions. I want to put it on the back shelf, but I do see it as a part of history, mostly a Euro-centered one, but it need not be mentioned at every turn. Not every culture needs modernism as their front and center. To end this rant I look forward to the future of these international Biennials as Brenson states, these exhibitions will help build respect for art and culture throughout the world.

I want to comment on Ben's ideas of the right wing conservatives and the art funding....I feel like I have been a dedicated artist only since the National funding has stopped. so even with out the NEA, the arts are alive and well in my mind. I may be not seeing the whole picture, but we have to move past that excuse and realize that art in culture is always growing even without federal money, and even with Obama, there is no "Extra" money for humanities....unless there is job creation. I think Minnesota is a great funding source for the artist here and I think state funding is the way to go....I don't really know what I'm trying to say here, just stirring things up.

Ben and Robin, I loved your analogies! The analogies made me question the role of the curator. While the various definitions of a curator tend to be related to the keepers, specialists, collectors, conservers, interpreters or custodians while generally pertaining to a museum, zoo, library or other collection or exhibition. Brenson describes the role of the curator as aestheticians, economists, critics, historians, politicians and audience developers and also states that in this role, a curator must be able to communicate with community leaders, business executives and heads of state…in addition to the artists.

Brenson states, "when a connection is made between viewer and work that is intimate and intense enough to convince the viewer that that work, and art in general, is vital to his or her life."’ It seems the question is then: is the curator or the artist responsible for this connection? While the roles are separate they can also cross. While paging through articles of controversial exhibitions that have been shut down, it is the artist that is continually referenced for having created the controversial work, while the curator is minimally if at all referenced.

For the past few years I have been noticing the rise of the biennials. In art publications, talks and conversations, it seems that there are more and more of them and now I am finally starting to understand why. I am also starting to see the structure of our readings and how Brenson’s article is a logical follow up to the articles of the past few weeks.
The ambitions behind these biennials are noble. They answer a need, to create an art world interconnected and not one divided between the West and the other. They seek “the construction of a more balanced world�, giving legitimization to areas of the world formerly not considered part of the art world.

It is refreshing to see, that even though the support and understanding of the value of the arts is threatened or not believed in, in the United States, that other parts of the world believe in the power of the arts. That art can improve society, and make the world a better place by creating dialogs and exchanges between countries and cultures. That art can create more transparent, open relationships between audiences, artists, curators museums, and communities.

The curators of these biennials wear many hats and play many roles. They create exhibitions out of diverse artists and complex work, that make me really see the parallels and comparisons to cooks and DJ’s given by Robin and Ben. These biennial curators seem to fill a very specialized niche unseen before, with new cultural and international responsibilities. Their roles are different and more expansive than say a curator of a regional art center or small institution. They seem to wield more power in the art world, and hopefully more responsibility to creating respect for the contributions of art and culture to an ever more increasingly interconnected world.

In response to Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous. I never meant to imply that the arts wasn't doing well without the support of the NEA. Artist feed off of conflict and repression. In some ways it has probably helped to produce better work. That's not really the issue though. This issue is does the more provocative work get seen or not. Museums and other art venues are being pressured by the more conservative powers to sensor what they show. I also think that is important for our cultures to support the arts. Our country's culture shouldn't be created by the entertainment industry alone.

I think the curator as an increasingly relevant role is simply part of the evolution of the arts, and even more so a reaction to globalization. The ship has taken off and the arts have a important hand on the wheel. We get a little bored with the colors at hand in our part of the world, and then we discover with the help of the web and modern aviation that other parts of the world got some crazy shit goin' on we've never seen before, so naturally we diversify our palette, our perceptions, our ideas. The curator is crucial in this situation to grease the wheels and bring it all together. The artists need to focus on their art-making, and not on the business side of it, just like the musician should focus the energy on the music and not the production and engineering.
I find it extremely heartening to read that these international biennials are improving society and having 'the ability to to give a city a "soul". Not to mention biennials making clear 'that many cities and countries are capable of being seats of cultural power.' Its almost as if these biennials are becoming a work of art on their own, a social awakening, a platform for different ideas and perspectives to call home for a moment and be protected. Is it born from a global need and yearning for connecting and communicating on a worldwide scale? Is the role of the curator to take the reins of this movement? I think the contemporary role of HOLY SHIT BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA curator museum important bridge cultural divide biennial artist as curator moment come welcome here now thanks.
focus now sam
I think the spread of international ideas and art being grabbed and collected by curators and put into biennials and exhibits is crucial to the growth and dare I say it, to the survival of art and artists in general. I believe that art (whether it be film, music, drawing) is an extremely intimate form of communication. So if one of the biggest problems we face as evolving human beings is an ignorance of each other's culture, than spreading this intimate communication, that is crystallized in the form of a work of art, is a good thing. The idea of putting on pair of headphones and being totally moved by music made by someone across the ocean is wonderful. That sort of connection is better than what words or text could ever do (in my opinion). That is the sort of stuff I live for.
In conclusion, I feel that (good) curators are an important part of the team of contemporary art. Curating as a form of art itself is just like film editing as an art form. I would love to see these international shows grow and flourish and blow my mind, challenge me, introduce my imagination to more colors and sounds and ideas.

I really like the comparison Ben made of a curator being like a DJ. A guess a DJ's role is to take finished works(songs) and put them together to fit a certain mood for a specific place/situation. Mostly for a larger audience, but I don't feel that the music is watered down necessarily in the process. It introduces people to an array of artists, and then if those people want more of that artist, they can explore and research more. A curated show is similar. The curator presents a collection of ideas from different artists, and the viewers are introduced to artists that they may have never been introduced to if it wasn't for the 'packaging' and ground-work by the curator.

I also think it is interesting to see artwork becoming more and more of an installation. I feel it is the same as the consumer market now trying to sell you more than just a product, they are selling you an 'experience'. Is this a result of our increasing thirst to consume things? We want more and more, and we aren't satisfied unless we have a full experience that effects our total being. Are we growing numb from to much television, advertisements, internet, coffee, beer, nicotine, painkillers, that we need something full and intense to actually feel something?
Is the art world following this trend? A small picture on the wall isn't enough?

As Robin pointed out, I do suspect that many curators are also artists—-if you have that deep of an understanding of art, you likely have the urge to create art at some level. From the other side, I think if I had the chance to curate or jury a show, I’d jump at-- I get excited about certain pieces of art and naturally want to share the discovery and beauty with others. Have anyone of you ever curated a show?