The new artists. This issue is also an over-discussed subject. Obviously, “the notion
of “ curator as artist” or at least some sort of not entirely un-artist-like auteur is out
there. This is Tom Morton speaking, the curator of Cubitt in London. He says, as far
as curators being artist-like, the cat is out of the bag and trying to put it back will
result in nothing but hissing, scratches.
Hmmm… I wonder who the cat and who the owner of the cat is here. It seems
somehow, during the poststructuralist ruins of modernism, the exhibition has
become the new art object, and its curator the new “artist”. In discourse this “
curator as artist” claim is rejected by most curators, however in practice there are
just too many examples of curators acting like artists. In fact, in many instances,
their romantic, intuitive and temperamental approach towards selection of
component artworks appears very similar to the behavior of many moody artists with
expressionist tendencies. A relevant example was the 2001 biennial at SITE Santa Fe
in New Mexico. Dave Hickey, a critic and recipient of one of the prestigious
MacArthur “Genius” grants, curated it. The title of the biennial was Beau Monde:
Towards a Redeemed Cosmopolitanism
In the curatorial statement Hickey writes:
“The exhibition will come first, in other words. Meanings will arise as a
consequence, since what I have in mind is not an ideological point that I wish to
prove, but an exhibition that I want to see, and hope that others might, as well”
Hickey actually employed a Los Angeles based design firm to design the exhibition
that was acknowledged as an “achievement” in curatorial practice due to his
cutting-edge approach towards exhibition design and conception. Artwork was
SESSION 3 / 3. OTURUM / ERDA⁄ AKSEL 89
Ben burada kedinin ve kedinin sahibinin kim olducurrency1unu merak ediyorum.
Modernizmin yap›salc›l›k sonras› kal›nt›lar› s›ras›nda sergi, yeni sanat nesnesinin,
küratörü de yeni “sanatç›n›n” yerine geçti gibi geliyor nedense. Söylemde bu
“sanatç› olarak küratör” iddias›, küratörlerin çocurrency1u taraf›ndan inkar edilir, ancak
uygulamada, sanatç› gibi davranan küratörlere, haddinden fazla örnek vard›r.
Asl›nda, bir çok durumda bileflen sanat eserlerinin seçimine yönelik duygusal,
sezgisel ve kaprisli yaklafl›mlar›, d›flavurumcu ecurrency1ilimlere sahip decurrency1iflken/huysuz bir
çok sanatç›n›n davran›fl›na çok benzer görünür. Buna iliflkin bir örnek, 2001’de New
Mexico’da SITE’deki Santa Fe bienali’ydi. Küratörlücurrency1ünü, sayg›n MacArthur “Dahi”
burslar›ndan birinin sahibi Dave Hickey yapm›flt›. Bienalin bafll›currency1› “fi›k Dünya:
Affedilmifl Kozmopolitizme Docurrency1ru” idi.
Küratöryel aç›klamas›nda Hickey flöyle söylüyor:
“Sergi en önde gelir. Akl›mdaki, kan›tlamak istedicurrency1im ideolojik bir mesele decurrency1il,
görmek istedicurrency1im ve baflkalar›n›n da görmek isteyececurrency1ini umducurrency1um bir sergi
olducurrency1una göre, anlamlar bir sonuç olarak ortaya ç›kacakt›r.”
Hickey, asl›nda sergi tasar›m› ve kavram›na yönelik keskin yaklafl›m› nedeniyle
küratöryel pratikte bir “baflar›” kabul edilen sergiyi tasarlamak üzere Los Angeles
merkezli bir tasar›m flirketini görevlendirmiflti. Sanat yap›tlar› duvar etiketleri
olmaks›z›n sergilenmiflti; müze ziyaretçilerini, bir sanatç›n›n katk›s› ile dicurrency1erininki
aras›nda ay›r›m yapamayacak k›vama getirecek kadar birbirinin üstüne binmifl halde.
Baz›lar› taraf›ndan Hickey’in bienali, güncel bir ecurrency1ilim olan küratöryel görüfle sanatç›
ve sanat nesnesinin üzerinde ayr›cal›k tan›man›n uç bir örnecurrency1i olarak addedildi.
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119