Curatorial Practice
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

136
(FIVE YEARS 91)

H-INDEX

3
(FIVE YEARS 3)

TURBA ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-43

In order to grasp the significance and potential of live arts curating, I claim it is essential to understand the coming-to-visibility of the curator function in the artworld from the 1960s. This helps to navigate the question of whether the arrival of this discourse and practice for performance in the last decade is an extension of a curatorial remit founded in the gallery arts. Has the scope of curatorial work expanded, or is there a parallel operation for live arts? I argue that a third possibility remains, that it signals a mutation of curatorial practice that bears on both the formerly visual arts and on the shift ing ground of live arts. What becomes possible when curatorial work lays aside its visual privilege, its expert eyes and the authority of its insights?


TURBA ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-124

From October 5 to 10, 2020, Performance Curators Initiative (PCI),1 a network of artists, curators, performance-makers, cultural workers, educators, practitioners, and enthusiasts based in the Philippines, held their third conference online via Zoom and streamed it on YouTube. Entitled “Conversations on Curation and Performance in the Time of Halting and Transformation,” I participated in this conference that opened a digital space for curators and performers around the world to talk about the effects of the global pandemic on the live arts. Connections, conversations, creative research, collaborations—as PCI founder and conference organizer Roselle Pineda notes—are the main focus of the network, which seeks to look at the relationship between “[p]erformance and curation, the role of curation in performance and role of performativity in curatorial practice” (from the network’s website). Pineda had invited me to register for the conference, which was focused on the role of curator as one who activates enabling spaces.


TURBA ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-59

Why curate live arts without the bodily presence of external live audiences? After all, are the latter not the omphalos of live arts? This article responds to the above questions through a case study of the 2018 GAN and GAN International Performance Art Festival that took place on May 1, 2, and 3—an annual off-the-grid festival in the village of Meibei in the Southern Chinese province of Jiangxi. As a festival without an external live audience, GAN and GAN challenges both the central position of the audience in the conceptual framework of live arts curating and established concepts of audiences. I examine the curatorial practice and philosophy of the festival’s two curators, Xiong Yunhao and Xiao Shang and demonstrate how their live arts festival—curated for its artists—not only preserves the endangered genre of Xingwei Yishu (performance/behavioral art from China) but widens the scope of contemporary curatorial practice.


TURBA ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18

To Discover Meaningful Ways to Be Together by Bertie FerdmanIn the Era of Context by Ken TakiguchiThe Cultural Industries in Africa by Funmi AdewoleSome Observations on Terminology by Gordana VnukNational Dance Platforms: Building Danceland or Curating the Nation? by Gustavo FijalkowA Reflection on the Start of It All: Festival Curation as the Artist’s Liberation of Divulgation by Lieven BertelsWhen Curatorial Practice in the Performing Arts Meets Production by Ashley Ferro-MurrayToward the End of Innocence in Programming Live Arts by Brandon FarnsworthCuratorial Practice as a Claim to Public-ness by Gurur ErtemSome Aspects from a European Perspective by Sigrid Gareis and Nicole Haitzinger


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bruce E. Phillips

<p>This thesis questions the ethics of curatorial agency: an issue that has plagued the profession since the influence of institutional critique of the 1960s. The proliferation of the ‘curatorial turn’ during the 1990s developed out of this legacy of institutional critique by grouping a diverse range of alternative practices that aimed to question curatorial agency. Curator Maria Lind defines this shift by making a methodological distinction between ‘curating’ and the ‘curatorial’. This is a binary division that posits curating as conventional practice that maintains hegemonic power structures and the curatorial as progressive and emancipatory. However, critics and curators such as Paul O‘Neill and Nina Möntmann argue that methodologies of the curatorial turn have become compromised by personal, institutional, political and economic motivations. Due to this, it is apparent that a shift in methodology alone is not sufficient to question the ethics of curatorial agency and that Lind's dichotomy of curating and the curatorial requires revision.  This study therefore explores how curators practice by studying different methodologies and to understand why curators practice by considering to what extent motivations influence the application of a curator’s methodology. The research specifically addresses these questions in relation to contemporary art curating within the broader framework of museum and heritage studies. To do so, I have put my own curatorial practice under scrutiny, using a range of mixed qualitative methods such as autoethnography, in order to delve deep into the decision-making process.  My research consists of six exhibition case studies that pertain to one of three common exhibition forms: group, solo or process-led exhibitions. Through a cross case analysis of these different exhibitions my findings suggest that there is not a distinct division between curating and the curatorial. Instead, I reveal that there is a complex interplay between spectrums of methodology and motivation. From this perspective, I argue for a new philosophy of curating that considers curatorial practice as an emergent spectrum charged with infinite possibilities, what I call the curatorial continuum.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bruce E. Phillips

<p>This thesis questions the ethics of curatorial agency: an issue that has plagued the profession since the influence of institutional critique of the 1960s. The proliferation of the ‘curatorial turn’ during the 1990s developed out of this legacy of institutional critique by grouping a diverse range of alternative practices that aimed to question curatorial agency. Curator Maria Lind defines this shift by making a methodological distinction between ‘curating’ and the ‘curatorial’. This is a binary division that posits curating as conventional practice that maintains hegemonic power structures and the curatorial as progressive and emancipatory. However, critics and curators such as Paul O‘Neill and Nina Möntmann argue that methodologies of the curatorial turn have become compromised by personal, institutional, political and economic motivations. Due to this, it is apparent that a shift in methodology alone is not sufficient to question the ethics of curatorial agency and that Lind's dichotomy of curating and the curatorial requires revision.  This study therefore explores how curators practice by studying different methodologies and to understand why curators practice by considering to what extent motivations influence the application of a curator’s methodology. The research specifically addresses these questions in relation to contemporary art curating within the broader framework of museum and heritage studies. To do so, I have put my own curatorial practice under scrutiny, using a range of mixed qualitative methods such as autoethnography, in order to delve deep into the decision-making process.  My research consists of six exhibition case studies that pertain to one of three common exhibition forms: group, solo or process-led exhibitions. Through a cross case analysis of these different exhibitions my findings suggest that there is not a distinct division between curating and the curatorial. Instead, I reveal that there is a complex interplay between spectrums of methodology and motivation. From this perspective, I argue for a new philosophy of curating that considers curatorial practice as an emergent spectrum charged with infinite possibilities, what I call the curatorial continuum.</p>


2021 ◽  
pp. 120633122110467
Author(s):  
Danzhou Li ◽  
Qing Wang ◽  
You Wu ◽  
Shuting Zhong

Based on immersive participatory observation of the curatorial practice of the 2019 OCAT exhibition Rural Construction through Art in Shenzhen, we identified two modes of community-based artistic interventions: a cultural “governance/capital” intervention deeply embedded in the social structure and a collective experimental art production intervention dissociated from the social structure. However, both forms of “production art” are essentially “unities of opposites” integrating incorporation and resistance, consistent with the socialist art policy of promoting the flourishing of all types of arts. Though the aesthetic divide between “art for society’s sake” and “art for art’s sake” positions these artistic interventions in different places in society, we argue that the domain of Chinese contemporary art is shifting away from the studio and toward scenes, events, experience, and dialogue. The approach of “the era of mass art” also means that “art-as-resistance” is being legitimized as “art-as-incorporation” in a subtle but unremitting way.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-351
Author(s):  
Monica Eileen Patterson

For decades, Museum Studies scholars have called for a new ‘critical museology’ with greater inclusion of marginalized communities and diversification of exhibition content, but children have been largely ignored in these efforts. This paper explores the possibilities for what I call a new ‘Critical Children’s Museology’ through in-depth analysis of the Anything Goes exhibition at the National Museum in Warsaw, Poland in 2016. Curated by 69 children, this ground-breaking exhibition radically broke from current and traditional museological practice by offering prominent institutional space and professional support for children’s cultural production in the form of curated exhibition galleries and programming. I analyze the exhibition, its production process, and its strengths and limitations to consider the possibilities and challenges of bringing child-centred praxis into museology. This work contributes to the larger charge of democratizing museum and curatorial practice by upending the patronizing view of children as passive recipients of museum offerings, focusing instead on their capacities for cultural production, critical interpretation, and curatorial innovation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Simeona Martinez ◽  
Joseph Palis

This article is a critical reflection on our forays in the curatorial practice and exposition in March 2018 for a map art exhibit called Faces Places: Mapping Embodiments held at the University of the Philippines campus in Diliman. The exhibit was an exposition of different and alternative forms of mapping through the works of three Filipino artists: Mideo Cruz, Cian Dayrit and Mark Salvatus. We analysed their interventions in making visible the progressive geographies inherent in the everyday lifeworlds of Filipinos. Drawing from Nancy Fraser’s subaltern counterpublics, we argue that their artistic outputs are forms of counter-mapping vignettes that allow the possibility to illuminate the voices and habitus of the sifted and the excluded as new cartographical interventions intended for critical reflection and pedagogy. The art maps and countermaps of the artists evoked different responses that broadened and expanded understanding beyond what maps are, which allowed us to further interrogate the power structures that define world order through time. The production of new knowledges was derived not only from analysing the textual and symbolic aspects of the artistic countermaps but also with the processual aspect of art-making as emancipatory politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document