Ramble 212121

I think it is kind of interesting to hear from twenty curators, however when reading this issue cover to cover the different curators and the institutions they represent begin to blend together. Add to that the fact that I have already read interviews with many of the curators in the other magazines we have read this semester and I found that I had a difficult time focusing on what each individual had to say.

The sense I did get is that "The Curator" is definitely the star of the art world. Because of their ability to create careers they are much more influential and respected than most artists. That is because most of what we see in the art world is decided by these people. In the beginning of the magazine Alex Coles makes the argument that curators should be viewed as stylists who "Shuffle and filter" the available artwork just as a stylist would bring together a variety of materials and fabrics to create a really great look. My initial reaction to this analogy was to vomit into the magazine. Is Coles suggesting that curators are the creative and innovative force within the art world and that artists are just simple minded producers who don't really understand how to discuss or represent their work, and if it were not for the curators intervention artists work would have little or no relevance? Yes of course that is what he is suggesting and the annoying thing is that once I was able to get the taste of vomit out of my mouth I realized that he is not completely wrong. Although artists are the creative force in the art world we do not always do such a great job of presenting our work or ideas. We also are realistically unable to create the kind of exposure and attention that a curator of a museum can.

It is true that there are a number of underground and artist run spaces that work to fill the space of the curator, but honestly while these venues offer good places for exhibitions and discussion the shows are rarely ever noticed outside of a regional scene. In the situations that they do gain attention they become co-opted into the museum system. A good example would be the Providence artist group Fort Thunder. This small group of RISD grads took over a warehouse in Providence filling it with their electric prints, paintings, costumes and eerie collections. The warehouse also became a site for their intensely loud band Lightening Bolt to perform. Fort Thunder began to gain national attention just as the street art/faux-naive/ do-it yourself trend took hold in the late nineties. Because of this they became a favorite of many curators, all of a sudden hallucinogenic Fort Thunder installations began to pop up in museums around the country (you may remember the installation at the 2002 Whitney Biennial). As the group was gaining more prominence the warehouse in Providence where everything started was torn down and Fort Thunder could only be seen in museums and galleries. Unfortunately most artist run spaces and groups disappear when their buildings, money or patience does. My point is that you can show and work outside of the museum and the curators reach but you will not really be able to escape a regional discussion unless you are taken up by the institution.

But lets say you don't give a fuck about the national scene and are content with being a large fish in your pond. The realty is still that running these type of spaces can be a real pain in the ass, and require a lot of your time. For four years I was the president of the artist cooperative Vox Populi, and let me tell you it was a lot of work. We were constantly working to raise enough money for rent and and exhibition cards, while trying to organize a large group of very different personalities. On top of the large time commitment we were all working for little or no money. Ultimately the time I had to devote to Vox began to interfere with my artwork. It is hard enough to balance a full time job with art making, let alone two full-time jobs.

What am I getting at? Well besides trying to meet my word count requirement I'm suggesting that although our reaction to the positioning of Curators as the "stylists" of the art world may be negative it really is not such a bad thing that they are filling that role. Curators can and do create a lot of opportunities for artists, many of them are even nice people with good intentions. And no matter how large of a personality a curator becomes good work within their shows still gets attention. So I suggest we let them be portrayed as the titans that they see themselves as. As artists we have very few people concerned with promoting our work. Most are either concerned with commodifying or profiting from it or discrediting it. So I say the growth in the importance and in the number of curators is a good thing that ultimately provides more opportunity and exposure for artists while allowing them to focus on making their work.