Andrea introduced the session with several startling facts.
For instance the Bank of America is the biggest owner of art in the world. They can afford half a billion for a Matisse of a Picasso… they curate their collection of say, Van Gogh’s, and send them round the world like a travelling circus. Local museums buy them as a package and tweak the publicity (all the curating is done). This is income for the bank – like getting interest on cash only the paintings are the cash, and maintains the value of their holdings as there’s worldwide clamour to see the paintings… and it guarantees footfall for the museums as it’s like having Hollywood stars turn up.
Another interesting fact is how few (under a 100?) big collectors there are, and how their purchases (of old and new art) shape the rest of the art market.
We then had a big brainstorming session which you can see on the board. It’s what I imagine group sessions are like at Art School and I really enjoyed sharing and debating ideas with my fellow students.
I found it very useful (if a little depressing because I realised just how money driven the art market is) as it lifted a veil from exhibitions and gave me a way forward with my own practice – when I get there.
In this context we were thinking of curators as people who select and arrange exhibitions.
Here’s what I can remember about each point:
1) Own work:
We curate our ten final pieces for Assessment as we have to select our ‘best’ work and choose how to display them. Given that the audience is given, it’s the examiners, we only have to think about our goal; usually I would think that it’s to get the most marks? So we need to pick the best pieces/combination of pieces to achieve this.
Our curation is part of our assessment, however students often have help from tutors (who act as co-curators) because they have a much better idea which pieces to select and know the university culture.
2) Personal photographs:
Most people take hundreds of digital photographs yet very few are printed, framed and hung. This selection and display (where and how do you place them in your house?) is curation. In this case we are likely to be the audience and the goal will probably be to remind us of distant loved ones or life events.
3) Social Media:
Very similar to above but here we have a much wider audience… potentially the world, but most likely our friends and associates. Our goal, I guess, is to raise our status. Given that we could post about anything but don’t, we’re very selective, we are curating our lives a bit like the old publicity agents did for the Hollywood stars of the 1930’s. The world only sees what we want it to see, and that is very unlikely to give a complete picture… we’re creating a myth.
4) Foot Fall:
Running a museum like the Tate is all about money. If they don’t get the footfall and shop sales they’d have to close. So a big show or event is essential… and the best way to get bodies over the threshold is to create scandal or fly in superstars… and, if possible, give the punters an immersive experience like at DisneyWorld. A Picasso exhibition will always be sold out… or you can fill your turbine hall with a big sun and some mist.
5) Collectors:
A tiny number dictate fashion in the art market, the rest follow.
6) How Presented:
Curating is as much about how the art is presented as about which pieces are chosen. How much text? How are the pieces grouped? Do you include a themed cafe half way round? Can people interact with the exhibition?
7) Context:
This could be the physical and psychological context of the exhibition or it could be the wider social and cultural context. How does a curator ‘position’ their exhibition? Who is the target audience? What are they trying to achieve?
8) Whose story are they telling?
Traditionally exhibitions in Europe and America told the story of the Western white middle class male, women artists and artists of colour were ignored. There are always lots of stories to tell and you can’t tell them all, so which story are you going to tell… is it the story of the art establishment? The story of the curator? The story of money and power? In China (for instance) it would never be the story of social dissidents.
I’ve never yet been to an exhibition that has acknowledged the stories its not telling. The story is given as if it is the only one, so (generally) isn’t questioned.
9) Intentions:
What’s the main intention? To expand artistic knowledge? To ferment political change? To support the establishment? To make money for the museum?
10) Manipulation:
In a university you would hope tutors always foster open debate and welcome challenges… this is never the case in a commercial exhibition. And if you are only putting forward one point of view, you are manipulating your audience.
Unless politically or financially driven this will be innocent, but is still manipulation.
11) Fashions:
Just as the fashion world is constantly changing so is the world of curation… in the 1980’s it was the death of Abstract Expressionism and the rise of figurative painting. One minute Damien Hurst is God and the next he’s a charlatan who can’t paint.
12) Commodification:
Once something is bought and sold it becomes a commodity… it could be oil, gold, wheat… or paintings.
In the past paintings often had jobs such as religious propaganda or to showcase someone’s wealth… and social realist painters used the power of painting to foster social change. Picasso expressed his horror of bombing civilians in his painting Guernica.
And paintings still ask questions, have a voice and act as a mirror and sounding board for society. But there seems to be an increasing drift towards art as investment where its primary value is financial rather than social etc.
13) Novelty:
Novelty gets attention, and artists get attention by doing something different, from pickling a shark to making black paintings. And in today’s crowded market the first step to success is visibility.
So, there may be a temptation for a curator to be novel and to further their own career rather than being artistically led.
14) Clothes:
Fashion collections, the cat walks, are all curated. It’s art as fashion and fashion as art.
15) Full Time:
A full time curator has to please his clients and get recommendations, and is part of the system, whereas a part time curator has the freedom to tell different stories.
16) Star Curators:
They travel the world like pop stars.
And if a star curator finds you in an art fair or graduation show and puts you in their collection your career is made, so they are the new gatekeepers.
17) Dealers:
These are like actor’s agents – the good ones have access to rich collectors. But of themselves they don’t control the art market.
18) Financial:
I think this is about the driver for the exhibition… if it’s to make money then the curator will produce a very different show than if it’s to educate. Like an artist, the curator is employed by somebody, they don’t own the paintings, and they have to do as they are told.
Just like an artist painting on commission.
19) Untruthful:
What is truth… let’s say it is the generally accepted artistic understanding at any one time.
If a show is curated to make money it will be entertainment with lots of themed merchandise aimed at a mass audience… which may not leave much space for in depth analysis and challenging ideas.
20) What you leave out:
As with the student curating his 10 assessment pieces what you leave out of your curation is as important as what you put in. Who’s story are you not telling?
For many years women artists were left out. But it could be unknown/unfashionable artists. Or artists with a certain point of view. Or artists whose work is difficult to access.
21) Women artists:
Many brilliant women artists in the 20th century who were married to famous male artists (Lee Krasner was only ever mentioned as Jackson Pollock’s wife) were left out of exhibitions. Now many of them are having their stories told and are being recognised as being as good as, or better, than their male counterparts.
22) Critics:
It seems that these are much less important these days.
23) Theme Parks:
Many big exhibitions now seem to be more like theme parks… the show is like the blockbuster movie, exciting in its own right but almost an advert for the merchandise and immersive attractions.
Art as candy floss entertainment to make money or art as an indie film which leaves you thinking about the world?
………………………..
Which leads me nicely on to my (one day) painting practice.
I’d like to make money from painting… but I’d also like to make meaningful paintings.
The problem is a bit like acting. If you had the choice would you do low paid theatre which you toured round village halls (and barely paid your food bill) but made a difference to peoples lives, or star in a fluffy blockbuster and buy a mansion?
It’s not a silly question.
I’d like to try and find a middle way… which would be like doing indie films, an occasional small part in a big film and mid range TV that dealt with serious issues (and was also great drama).
So, my take away for my practice is that (however I do it) I need footfall both to my physical paintings and digital assets, and I need to sell merchandise. For my paintings that may be making my front room into a gallery and advertising on the village Facebook page, a local pub… or digitally my website, Online Gallery and Redbubble.
And to get physical and digital footfall I need to build a profile and become visible.
I’ve no idea how I’ll do that, though there may be some scope in linking it to my acting profile, but it’s really useful to know something about about how curation (and the art market) works.
And finally, and most importantly, it’s really made me think about exhibitions. I’ll never go to an exhibition again and take it as the only truth… I’ll search for an agenda and challenge it.
Understanding Painting Media 