Yesterday in an intense discussion with Aditya (Sawant) and Deepti (Talpade), we came to question the constitution of the position of a Curator. Aditya's argument was that the act of curation was a self-legitimised enactment of power. He questioned where, after all, does the curator derive validation for the works he selects to be a part of any exhibition. Who testifies his knowledge and how does it gain currency?
To be sure, his observation sat well within a Marxist framework. In the increasingly capitalising art world, curators are often appointed on the basis of their potential to bring sufficient funds for / to any project. In this situation, the power of the curator is constituted in the role of administering and managing money that mobilises the exhibition activity.
Aditya went on to say that a specific framing of any event by a curator fundamentally starts shifting the nature in which the artist himself/herself sees one's own work. Thus, it impacts the true nature of the evolution of an artist, giving in to a relationship that has been established between the organiser (curator) and the producer (artist).
Dipti however expanded to say that every position, in that notion would be an enactment of power. At the same time, there would be many curatorial acts which donot necessarily fall merely within the logic of economics. While many of these network relationships have come to feed into the present structure of several art events, there are scenarios in which curators do not necessarily impact the producer's work.
We debated a lot on the role of the curator, and the underpinnings of executing art exhibitions today. Much of it seemed like intellectual masturbation. But thinking back, I just thought it might be worthwhile to put down the arguments for a future date.
To be sure, his observation sat well within a Marxist framework. In the increasingly capitalising art world, curators are often appointed on the basis of their potential to bring sufficient funds for / to any project. In this situation, the power of the curator is constituted in the role of administering and managing money that mobilises the exhibition activity.
Aditya went on to say that a specific framing of any event by a curator fundamentally starts shifting the nature in which the artist himself/herself sees one's own work. Thus, it impacts the true nature of the evolution of an artist, giving in to a relationship that has been established between the organiser (curator) and the producer (artist).
Dipti however expanded to say that every position, in that notion would be an enactment of power. At the same time, there would be many curatorial acts which donot necessarily fall merely within the logic of economics. While many of these network relationships have come to feed into the present structure of several art events, there are scenarios in which curators do not necessarily impact the producer's work.
We debated a lot on the role of the curator, and the underpinnings of executing art exhibitions today. Much of it seemed like intellectual masturbation. But thinking back, I just thought it might be worthwhile to put down the arguments for a future date.
No comments:
Post a Comment