Rant 31: Alice and the Curious Curatoriat

you are here: dialogue > webzine > rant 31: alice and the curious curatoria ...

Rant 31: Alice and the Curious Curatoriat

This week Shaun plunges into the world of the semi-professional art guru - or the 'curatoriat', as he has termed the ever growing army of art school graduates working not as artists, but as facilitators of art activity in their cities. With his ever critical eye he asks what the growth of the 'curatoriat' means to the individual artist...

Contributed by: Shaun Belcher

The views expressed in the rant are those of Shaun Belcher and forum contributors and unless specifically stated are not those of Axis. See Axis terms of use
My own private wonderland, 2007
Teresa Sá My own private wonderland, 2007
view more details

When did it happen? When did the power structure in the arts shift so fundamentally away from the practising artist and into the hands of a new breed of art school trained curators or as I have re-designated them ‘curatoriat’? The growth industry in ‘curatorial’ courses like the MA at the Royal College of Art reflects a far wider shift and a worrying one for us poor artists at the bottom of the arts funding pecking order.

Almost every city now has a semi-professional (very few of these self-appointed arts gurus actually make a full-time living) ‘curator’ or self appointed ‘arts expert’ who acts as a buffer between the funding administrators and us ‘difficult’ artists. The clever marketing departments at academia plc. realised that here was a growth market; young academically inclined individuals who, whilst not having the skills to become artists themselves, saw opportunities to ‘manage’ the over-supply of artists, to create a new layer of administration and influence. Thus the ‘curatoriat’ was born.

Usually highly articulate individuals who in the past would have become arts officers, press officers or event organisers, they have now taken over the ‘critical network’ of mostly enthusiastic but unpaid artists that litter our cities in clumps of artist-groups. It is not enough to rent a studio and have a practice. To succeed now an artist has to be part of a fashionably named ‘collective’ and pay homage to these mini culture gurus to take part in any state-funded activity.

For artists, particularly those trained before 2000, still holding on to ridiculously outmoded dirty practices, and who are not party to this new level of curatorial ‘sifting’, the future is bleak. Worse still they may not realise, as some younger artists have, that a simple practice like painting is not enough these days. Recently I saw an artist website where a reading list consisted solely of pictures of pretentious curatoriat approved books. Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard. You name it they were there. They are unlikely to have been actually read, all this complicated foreign philosophy, they were simply there as a signifier of being able to play this new curatorial game.

As an old Alice in this new arts wonderland all I can say is …

"Well, I've often seen a cat without a grin, but a grin without a cat? It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

 


add a new commentadd a new comment
Post #1
Posted on 09 March 2010
When did it happen? It never happened, because the power in the arts never resided with the practising artist in the first place! When was there ever not a class of mediators between art and its various publics. Lets face it, artists are just another link in the chain! In his book "Slaughterhouse 5" Kurt Vonnegut's aliens the Tralfamadorians assert that there are no less than seven sexes on planet earth, all but two invisible to humans, and they try to explain to the novel's central character, Billy Pilgrim why some are necessary for human reproduction: "The Tralfamadorians tried to give Billy clues that would help him imagine sex in the invisible dimension. They told him that there could be no Earthling babies without male homosexuals... There couldn't be babies without women over sixty-five years old... and so on. It was gibberish to Billy." Art's a bit like that, except most artists are so solipsistic they think there's only one sex involved - them!

Post #2
Posted on 09 March 2010
200 words is too short a limit to allow a worthwhile response. You should increase it, Axis!

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #3
Posted on 10 March 2010 as a reply to #2
image posted by user
Thankyou Mr Lewandowski for reviving the rant that never was...all of AXIS seemed to have buried its metaphorical head in the sand on this subject..maybe because too many artists are either in thrall to the Curatoriat or worse still are already embarked on redefining their practice to be curators. As for 200 words I have hardly begun to warm to my subject before the shutters fall....

Posted by
Shaun Belcher
Post #4
Posted on 10 March 2010 as a reply to #3
As for your point. The idea that there was never mediation is not one I making..from Caveman onwards there always been some patron, influence, King..multinational in the way. My point was that in midst of the biggest field of runners in history ( the Art Grand National has many fallers) some are either dumping their artistic status altogether or trying to play at being curator and artist. Maybe we should do away with artists altogether and just have a new species in Vonnegut stylee who 'Curartists' or 'Artators'. Whatever the reson there is a a lot of obscurantism about in the name of 'discourse' and a lot of fake 'erudition' too....

Posted by
Paul Matosic
Paul Matosic's artist profile image

Post #5
Posted on 12 March 2010
Maybe it is a funding thing. we all know that ACE and other agencies are scared shitless by art as an independent unit, it has to be art in the public, art with social engagement art with this that and the other. So it is little wonder then that artists have had to side step these problems by creating new roles for themselves artist as organiser, artist as project manager, artist as curator. There is of course that other elephant in the room due to the onset of academia many artists coming through the colleges are not able engage with "dirty practice" not only do they not have the luxury of a large studio space, they are restricted by lack of resources, lack of money (for materials, they spent it all on books, or was that beer) and as time goes by lack of guidance by tutors who themselves get their hands dirty. It is far easier to move into organising others, into studio groups, exhibitions etc than it is to actually make work.

Posted by
Lucy Gibson
Lucy Gibson's curator profile image

Post #6
Posted on 15 March 2010
Thanks for your posts Simon, Shaun and Paul. Comments about the word limit have been noted and we are looking into it. Hopefully we will be able to increase it soon!

Post #7
Posted on 22 March 2010 as a reply to #5

 I don't think that ACE or anyone is remotely "scared shitless" by art as an "independent unit" (whatever that is). They may be bored shitless by it, mind. 


Posted by
Paul Matosic
Paul Matosic's artist profile image

Post #8
Posted on 24 March 2010 as a reply to #7

 Art that is not tied to 'other funding criteria'  the loose cannon of artists tackling social political issues head on rather than it being initiated by 'professionals' who know better.

How many so called art projects have you seen that attempt to use art in a very specific manner to address very specific social problems.

Art projects that require 'creativity by committee', where the artist is merely the facilitator translating other peoples (usually children's drawings) into yet another lump of ineffectual public art.

Art produced by yes men (and women) that has all its fire dowsed now that's what bores everyone shitless, but it is easier to fund because it does not challenge the status quo



Axis logo
Copyright Axis 1999-2010 unless stated otherwise. No reproduction of text or media without written permission. For terms and conditions visit www.axisweb.org/copyright.