EXHIBITION
Found this EXHIBITION... just by accident walking by. EXHIBITION is a six-month show of 40+ successive artists; each artist comes in for a week and can do whatever, within an area determined by a roll of dice, to be followed by the next artist. Earlier work can be worked over. There are no labels, no way of knowing who did what. Nothing is for sale.
EXHIBITION
Watch your step.
3 comments:
this strikes me as very academic, in that it requires artists to subordinate themselves to the curatorial game. Control freaks (i.e., those with an individual vision) need not apply. I don't think it's all bad, of course, being about community and surprise and anonymity, and the art world could use some ego-moderation to be sure. But it still stokes the ego of the idea, if you know what I mean. I can see it featured in the monthly bulletin of some contemporary art center as an exciting project that will spark interest. It's a refreshing departure, to be sure, but the parameters seem arbitrary and not conducive to the visionary/critical thinking of any one player, but that's the point. So the organizers and I differ on what we expect, that's all.
Im with VC, curators may be artists, but they should tell the artists they curate what the deal is - though I suspect many artists know what they are gettign into. And really, if you become famous, there is little harm done - many artists with names go on to challenge assumtions formed by curatorial conceits. No sweat.
off the grid
oh and also, a good curator is hard to find. I think most curators just try to find enough art they like to put in a show - it takes a lot fo effort and skill to make something more ambitious than that - and money, lets not forget most well know curators are backed by some institutional firepower. But presumably you have to have some scholarship and knowledge and taste - right? The funny thing is, is that artists love to talk to curators, only there dont seem to be any in the wild.
Post a Comment