[curatorial.net] Curating Place

Wed May 9 11:52:14 BST 2007

Hi all 

You might also be interested to hear the audio-files of the Istanbul
Biennial Reunion that was hosted by Situations at Arnolfini. Involving
curators Charles Esche and Vasif Kortun, the reunion specifically
addressed the notion of curating international exhibitions within a
perceived peripheral context. The audio-file will be available from our
website at www.situations.org.uk from next week. 

Also, there is a new chapter of the Curating Subjects book edited by
Paul O'Neill (our new Research Fellow), which is called Curating Wrong
Places, and can be downloaded from our research resource at
http://www.situations.org.uk/research_resource_published_articles.htm

Paul will be dealing with many of these issues through the research
studying on commissioning which launches at the Serpentine this month. 

Claire 

Claire Doherty

-----Original Message-----
From: curatorial-bounces at curatorial.net
[mailto:curatorial-bounces at curatorial.net] On Behalf Of Joasia
Sent: 09 May 2007 11:49
To: curatorial at curatorial.net
Subject: Re: [curatorial.net] Tate Debate Art Now Cornwall

Hi Rebecca,

Coincidentally, some of the issues you raise in your posting below link
to the discussion some of us attended couple of weeks ago in Dartington
(at the seminar 'Curating the Other: Curator as Tourist') -  the
currency of terms such as cultural 'centre' and 'periphery' (in the
context of globalisation) and the politics of curatorial selection.

At the Dartington seminar these issue were discussed more specifically
in relation to the phenomena of large international art exhibitions such
as biennales and festivals - which further emphasised the point.

I though these quotes from Sergio Edelsztein's presentation offer one
useful way of looking at the issue:

'These exhibitions served as a tool, but also as a motive for the
internationalization of the art world, and are in many ways the power
behind the drive for the peripheral. [...] And peripheries are indeed a
never-ending resource for young, fresh and compelling art works. Early
examples of the way the market and the institutions collaborated in
creating regional ³hypes² are the Soviet and Eastern European Art rush 
right before the collapse of the Iron Curtain the short-lived Cuban Art
tsunami that washed the New York galleries and Museums  roughly between
the years 1996 -1999.'

I wonder if one would see the 'Art Now Cornwall¹ exhibition at Tate st
Ives as symptomatic in this respect?

On the issue of documentation that you also raised in your posting -
obviously Tate has a fantastic system for documenting, distributing
(streaming) and archiving events in place (see
http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/ ) so you could wonder about the
politics of use of this system (something that might relate again to the
main point of your posting perhaps)?

Joasia

_______________________________________
joasia krysa
KURATOR _curating (for) network systems
http://www.kurator.org

on 7/5/07 19:44, subscriptions at artdept.org.uk at
subscriptions at artdept.org.uk wrote:

> Who: Rebecca Weeks  Curator
> What: Tate Debate Art Now Cornwall
> When: 26 /04/07
> Where: The Mariners Gallery, St.Ives, Cornwall
> Who: Chaired by John Aiken
>      Panellists included Curator of Art Now Cornwall, Sarah Hughes,
Sarah
>      Black of Project Base, independent curator Virginia Button,
selected
>      artists Adrian Piggott, Amanda Lorens, and Andy Hughes.
> 
> Foreword:
> I wrote this article to record the Tate Debate as I was shocked to 
> find when I phoned up and spoke to the press officer at the Tate that 
> no one would be writing it up, that there would be no record of the 
> discussion. As a local artist and curator I was disheartened by this 
> apparent lack of organisation or interest in the outcome of this 
> debate, which I hope will be a catalyst for positive change in 
> Penwith. I have not written a transcript of the debate but I have 
> tried to select the factors that seemed most significant to me in 
> writing about the debate. I have posted this article on the Art 
> Cornwall site and Curatorial Network.
> 
> Article:
> I was surprised to find that even though there had been such wide 
> spread discussion and dissent within the art community in Penwith 
> about the ŒArt Now Cornwall¹ show currently on at the Tate St. Ives, 
> that people were to be charged to attend a discussion and to debate 
> the questions people have raised about why the artists selected were 
> selected, given that some of them seem to have tenuous links with 
> Cornwall. Questions have also been raised over the way in which the 
> selection process was conducted. I would have thought that if the Tate

> were genuinely interested in a dialogue the debate would have been 
> free to attend. I contemplated this and the discussion I had just been

> reading on the Art Cornwall site on the internet about the show as I 
> drove over to St.Ives.
> 
> The debate started with the chair introducing himself and the other 
> panelists to an almost full house, and by framing the debate that was 
> to take place in terms of the significance of the ŒArt Now Cornwall¹ 
> show on an international level, and by asking the question; ³ is 
> Cornwall important to this work or is the work important to Cornwall?²

> He went on to describe the position of Cornwall as a periphery in 
> relation to the centre for the arts that is London, a periphery that 
> draws experimental and unrecognised artists. The debate was also 
> contextualised by the chair outlining the different aims that Tate St.

> Ives is supposed to meet of showing the St. Ives movement, showing 
> contemporary art, showing local practice, delivering an education 
> programme and community events. This long list of objectives seemed to

> be being offered as some kind of apology for not really fulfilling any

> of the above functions particularly well.
> 
> Sarah Hughes began to speak about the show, her manner was tense and 
> she seemed to feel she was there to defend the show, she stated her 
> intention in curating the show had been to provide a Œstarting point¹ 
> for the discussion of contemporary practice in the area. The phrase 
> Œstarting point¹ featured on a number of subsequent occasions whenever

> a member of the audience enquired about how the show would evolve, or 
> what forms the Tate¹s engagement with contemporary art in the area 
> might take next. The details of any future plans were not provided, 
> though Sarah Black of Project Base suggested that the show would 
> evolve around the activities of artists working in the area, however 
> no specifics were discussed here either as to what strategies would be

> deployed by the Tate and Project Base to meet artists and to ensure 
> this kind of dialogue. Sarah Hughes discussed the selection process 
> for the show, another aspect that has come under criticism from 
> members of the local art scene who felt the show was unrepresentative 
> of the work happening in Penwith at this time. Sarah Hughes described 
> how the Tate residency at the Porthmeor studios in 2003 had identified

> a group of artists who had applied for the residency as potential 
> candidiates for the show. That they had subsequently made studio 
> visits to artists on that list and had selected works based on that 
> information. She added that the show was not a survey and the artists 
> works were a sample of what was being done not a definitive 
> collection. She also added that there are three generations of artists

> participating in the show, so that the notion of contemporary Cornwall

> was independent of age. However when Adrian Pigott spoke as one of the

> selected artists it became clear that his work was commissioned by an 
> organisation in the lake district and was filmed and shown in Italy 
> several years ago, and further that he hasn¹t made any work in 
> Cornwall, so he didn¹t feel he could talk about the relationship 
> between this place and his work. Adrian was selected even though the 
> curator was aware of his work from a completely different context, a 
> international context. It seems strange to me that Piggotts work was 
> selected and yet someone like Ray Exworth who is now in his eighties 
> and has had a long record of exhibiting work in many national 
> galleries wasn¹t even on their radar. Maybe they didn¹t have enough 
> time to research who lives and works in Cornwall.
> 
> What I found most interesting and that made the most sense to me, that

> I managed to glean from amongst the overly lengthy introductions by 
> the chair of who people were and what their achievements to date were,

> and which may have been designed to limit the panels interactions with

> the audience, was what Amanda Lorens said. Amanda one of the selected 
> artists spoke about what she hopes will come from the show, she spoke 
> about her experience as part of ŒPALP¹, or Penwith Artist Led Project,

> of co - curating events in Penwith and of the lack of opportunities 
> here for artists to make and show contemporary art. She said she has a

> vision of a lot of different shows happening under and around a Tate 
> umbrella, of a fringe show alongside the Tate¹s Contemporary show. She

> voiced what a lot of contemporary artists here and now in Penwith are 
> thinking which is that with Newlyn¹s expansion, the arrival of Project

> Base and local artists groups planning to do events to co - incide 
> with their launches there is a buzz in Penwith. There is a new energy,

> at last contemporary art has a visible profile, a profile set to grow 
> and expand which hopefully will lead to a better understanding in 
> Penwith of the benefits a vibrant art scene can bring to an area 
> plagued by poverty and lack of opportunity and so investment, not only

> for those outside the arts community but for arts professionals 
> themselves who are also diasadvantaged. A point that Sovay Berryman 
> and Andy Whall, both local artists raised in different ways 
> respectively through discussing the cost of housing here and the 
> development of an arts infrastructure and the Tates presence in 
> St.Ives actually contributing to artists being priced out of living 
> and working in St.Ives. There was no assurance fourth coming from 
> anyone on the panel that wealth generated through arts related 
> regeneration in the area would find its way back to artists in some 
> form, that there are strategies being developed for that such as set 
> aside housing for young creatives or subsidised studio and exhibition 
> spaces, or even that it has occurred to the Tate, Project Base or the 
> local council as an issue to address.
> 
> I spoke to Sarah Hughes after the debate and said that I felt that the

> show has functioned as a much needed catalyst, as a ray of hope for a 
> frustrated community of contemporary artists, a community in need of 
> opportunities to develop their practices. I¹m not just talking about 
> those artists selected, although I¹m sure the show will have a 
> positive impact on their options, but for the rest of us who remain on

> a periphery creating our own spaces and contexts to make and show work

> in as best we can. I said that if the show does evolve to work with 
> local projects and to include works operating beyond the gallery it 
> will be a great thing. I still left wishing that how that kind of 
> engagement will be achieved had been outlined.  To achieve that the 
> curator needs to spend time here, to talk, walk and be here. They need

> to be part of the situation.
> 
> Just how out on a periphery we are here in the Contemporary art 
> community in Penwith  can be quantified in these terms, the Tate 
> cannot get the press to attend its shows and events. There is no 
> documentation as standard of debates that take place around shows, 
> there is no procedure in place. I am writing this debate up because as

> far as I am aware it is the only written record of this debate, which 
> according to the curator of the show it was her intent to create all 
> along. It is for exactly that kind of reason that the debate here 
> could go around and around. I would answer the chairs question ³ is 
> Cornwall important to this work or is the work important to Cornwall?²

> in these terms, we desperately need opportunities for local artists 
> and curators, we desperately need a dialogue with the art institutions

> here, who until recently have chosen to ignore contemporary art in 
> Cornwall, but we also desperately need to engage with international 
> practice, with international standards within practice and around 
> professionalising the role of the artist and the whole of the arts 
> infra structure. The isolated and neglected situation of the arts in 
> Penwith has led to an unhappy bitter culture of antipathy, of fierce 
> guardianship and limitation of what it is to make art in Cornwall, a 
> hostility of the Cornish to art, as distant and privileged activity 
> imposed upon them and not of them, and a hostility between commercial 
> galleries and publicly funded galleries. In short there is a culture 
> of squabbling over pasty crusts like sea gulls. These tensions about 
> what art in Cornwall should be about are reflected by the list of the 
> Tates aims, the influence upon the Tate of warring factions is 
> manifested in the aims that it is supposed to meet, through selling 
> local jewellery and pottery, dumming down exhibited works for a public

> who leave knowing nothing more than when they came in about those 
> works position in art history, and a contemporary show as a placebo 
> answer to the accusation of ignoring contemporary art in Cornwall. 
> None of these issues or short comings can be addressed unless it is 
> accepted that Cornwall is important to the art that happens here and 
> art that happens here is important to Cornwall, and that doesn¹t mean 
> we all have to paint fishing boats.
> 
> We need to create a positive feed between the local and the global and

> to understand the local in relation to the global. We will only 
> succeed in doing this if there is serious and strategic investment in 
> the arts here that allows artists practices to direct its agendas, and

> that shapes itself to meet this place, Œthis situation¹ as Sarah Black

> would phrase it.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> [curatorial.net] - mailing list of the Curatorial Network 
> curatorial at curatorial.net 
> http://www.curatorial.net/mailman/listinfo/curatorial
>  
> List Archive
> http://www.curatorial.net/pipermail/curatorial/
> 
> Curatorial Network website
> http://www.curatorial.net
>  

_______________________________________________
[curatorial.net] - mailing list of the Curatorial Network
curatorial at curatorial.net
http://www.curatorial.net/mailman/listinfo/curatorial

List Archive 
http://www.curatorial.net/pipermail/curatorial/

Curatorial Network website
http://www.curatorial.net

This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found