[-empyre-] Curatorial Studies
agora158 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 7 14:31:25 EST 2012
I am going a bit skeptical here, I was also involved in the Moderna Museets
discussion about the institution's own role and Museum Futures was a part
I arranged two seminars at the Museum, one about gender and one about
postcoloniality. But the Museum was not able to use the conclusions
collected on all those seminars. And why? Because these kind of national
institutions are often elephants or mammuths or dinosaurs, carrying all the
weight of Modernity and representation and the national pathos and the
national arete and so on.
They are so loaded of symbolical capital and symbolical weight they are not
able to take a step to look at themselves. They are connected to the State
and to the market and to the sponsors and all these ties make them
dependent and bound, they can entertain but they can never subvert.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Brian Holmes
<bhcontinentaldrift at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 06:45 AM, pedro wrote:
> not sure what you mean by a romance, susan, do you mean a fantasy ?
> I was really kinda curious about that too... For sure, with the formerly
> democratic societies in a state of total corruption, basically on the edge
> of a new kind of fascism, and falling over that edge all the time,
> politicized art practices that unfold in institutionally sanctioned spaces
> often DO look like a fantasy. And when they don't, as in the example of
> LABoral that Pedro gave, well, such experiments are often closed down.
> But what exactly do you think, Susan?
> in this sense i think its very important on any debate about curating
>> to talk about open practises such as budgets being well documented and
>> communicated with the artists and public, the willingless to let
>> processes unfold outside of the narrative framework determined, what
>> licenses are used, the role (or absence) of collective processes, the
>> documentation ...
> I'd like to hear more about the above, because those are serious questions
> about the practice of curation, which otherwise are usually tied so closely
> to the power structures of the capitalist/oligarchical state which Ana
> talks about, that I tend to lose all interest. If you want to check out
> what I mean by total corruption, read Andrea Fraser's recent article "L'1%
> c'est moi," whose title indicates a very productive anxiety about who we
> might be becoming in the world of art. And check out the prototype of her
> and Jennifer Gradecki's "Artigarchy" project which I hope will go viral and
> relieve Fraser of the evidently useless and fruitless search for some
> institution that would "take it on" (I think no such institution exists at
> There is also quite an interesting video (I actually love this thing) that
> was made a few years ago by Marysia Lewandowska and Neil Cummings, about
> the possible transformation of art institutions. It's called "Museum
> Futures: Distributed." It was commissioned by the Moderna Museet for their
> 50th anniversary, and the strategy of the video is to take the the
> commission quite seriously and project 50 years into the future to see what
> an institution might become if Pedro's basic ideas - what you might call
> democratic common sense - were actually implemented. If you listen closely
> to what is being said, you realize that the new institution only emerged
> after a great economic crisis and a period of major social unrest:
> There are three parts to the YouTube upload. The script by Neil Cummings
> can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/museum-**futures<http://tinyurl.com/museum-futures>
> subvert and enjoy, Brian
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
long to return.
— Leonardo da Vinci
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre