(Mrinalini Mukherjee's work in a curated show- for representational purpose only)
Of late I have been thinking a lot about the contradictions
involved in the thematic curatorial projects. When a curator plans out a road
map for a thematic curatorial project, he/she considers a series of factors,
right from accommodating the funder/gallery’s interest in it to the possible
ideas pertaining to thematic of the project that the artists could conjure up.
The curator approaches a set of artists with a theme mainly for three reasons;
First one is the ideal case, that the curator knows that the artist whom he is approaching
has been doing the kind of works that could fit into the thematic frame work of
the project. Second reason is more practical, that the curator knows that these
are the artists who are the properties of the season and roping them in would
help the project to get a good visibility and economic mileage. The third and
final reason is more authoritative from the curator’s part that as he knows
that the artists would respond to his curatorial call. I find all these three
are a bit haphazard as far as the very idea of art creation goes.
Before going into the matter further, let me confess that I
have done all these three types and perhaps still continuing to do so due to
various circumstantial and professional reasons, however, I feel it is
pertinent to discuss it here in order to give a different direction to the
young curators who would dare to think differently than what has been hailed as
curatorial practice not only in the gallery/funding circuit but also in the so
called biennale and art fair circuits. It is even a curious factor that none
has even asked once why there should be curatorial filtering in the case of art
fairs because fairs are basically business platforms where those who could
afford to hire a stall should be given an opportunity to exhibit their wares.
There comes the class consciousness then; most of the art fairs and biennales
work on a class/caste based ideology and prevent the so called low art from
being exhibited in their platforms mainly because they want to cater to the ‘taste’
of the upper and affluent classes/castes. The generic argument that the art
fair curators often place before the galleries and artists apply for a space is
all about maintaining ‘quality’. That means, whatever we see in the art fairs
are the kind of ‘quality’ works of art and we are supposed to believe in it.
(for representational purpose only)
Talking about artistic creativity, it is unbounded by any
curatorial or social themes. It happens spontaneously based on the creative
inclinations of the artist, which however does not rule out his/her interest in
the socio-political and economic issues of the country or the world. I would
not subscribe the fact that art is a spiritual activity as understood generally
by the art people. While creativity cannot be tailor made, contemporary times
have made most of the young generation of artists to accept the curatorial
interventions as a natural phenomenon in the art field therefore they find
there is no problem in succumbing to the curatorial pressures, which is not a
bad news for the curators. With an art scene where anyone who puts together an
exhibition claims the status of a curator, in certain ways artists could
circumvent the curatorial diktats because the curators themselves do not
understand what the artists are doing for the exhibition that they are ‘curating’.
But that is not the case of the curators who in fact directs the artists to
come up with something that would go with their curatorial themes.
If artists are ready to work with the curatorial themes or
in other words, if artists show their willingness to respond to the given curatorial
thematic, despite showing their creative skills and sparks, wouldn’t it be
reduced to a sort of experimentation or in the worst case, an assignment? If
such a question is raised to the artists, most of them would say, why shouldn’t
they give it a try as it is an opportunity to do something different, in a
different medium, in a different context, perhaps in a different country? When
artists think in that fashion there is no problem but the issue that comes up
their is whether we should see that as a work of art or a work of art in process,
or a work of art which is an outcome of a contextual experimentation or even a
work of art which loses its relevance once the given context and theme are
removed from it. These days, when there is no other argument to support their
works, most of the artists say that it is created in a particular space, responding
to a particular curatorial theme and perhaps they are not going to continue with
similar works or they would enter into a kind of experimental mode only when
they are given such a context elsewhere.
(Black Water Vortex by Anish Kapoor)
When artists do such kind of art practice, we could call the
outcome as ‘response art’. Response art is such kind of a work of art done by
an artist responding to the given curatorial theme, given space where the work
is created and within the given temporal experience though the artist would make
use of his/her hard earned technical skills there in the implementation of it. However
I should add here that ‘response art’ is not ‘responsible art’, nor is it a
sort of art that has larger socio-cultural or economic validity due to its
responding nature. When the curatorial thematic is taken away from the final
outcome, when the physical context is removed and also the circumstances that
triggered the artist to make such a work of art is removed from the work, then
what does one have there to look at? A simple experiment would prove it. Let us
take any ‘site specific’, ‘experimental’ work of art that we see in the
biennales and other avenues; at times even in the galleries. And try to see
them in a different location and context, with absolutely different material
and intellectual conditions? Would the work generate the same effect? If Anish
Kapoor’s Biennale work (2014) is removed from there and put it in a washing
machine showroom without mentioning the name of the artist, will it create the
same effect as it had created in the KMB? Just think about another work of art,
a painting or a sculpture in the gallery and then in a washing machine
showroom. Find the answer for yourself.
I do not intend to say that all the thematic curatorial
practices should end. Nor do I say that the artists should not respond to the
curatorial themes. But I would like to see how artists could make their works
of art so naturally without any compulsion including the economic pressures. In
that case, if the curators are making thematic ideas for a project, they could approach
the right kind of artists and choose the works from their studios.
Unfortunately, such efforts are neither undertaken by the curators nor funds
are given to them to do so by the galleries. When such an ideal curatorial
practice come into being, we would have a variety of curators who involve in
their studies and come up with ideas that are relevant not only to the times
and galleries but also to themselves. Now what happens with curatorial
practice, especially done by the young and mid career curators is quite
ironical: They look around and find who are all the happening artists and whose
works are highly demanded in the market. And they make a curatorial thematic so
that they could invite/accommodate these artists in the project. When it comes
to the young artists who think themselves as radicals (I wish all of them were
thinking radically these days), they put a great effort to find some radical
practices and try to create a thematic around it; that’s why we have curatorial
themes with the words ‘political’ and ‘experimental’, ‘cutting edge’, ‘universal
trope’ and so on coming up quite often.
(for representational purpose only)
It is quite unfortunate to see that most of our curators
have either become part of the establishment or have created their own
establishments. The rest of the new lot are desperately trying to be a part of
the establishment. Nobody can create a work of art within the establishments;
that is a truth. After creating one’s works of art, one could enter into the
system for its further life. It is almost like you inside your bedroom and you
in the street. Inside the bedroom, you are not answerable to your dreams but in
the street you need to negotiate with the system. Similarly, curators can dream
up anything in their minds but they also need to negotiate with the system once
they come out in the streets. But the whole idea is to negotiate the system not
with the system. Here negotiation means avoiding the slaps that the system
would give you on your face when you go with your curatorial dreams; but the
moment you negotiate with the system, at each level you need to compromise or
re-adjust yourself. That’s why most of the curatorial projects fail to make an
impression in the minds of the people once the show is done. The best way is to
discard the whole idea of curating and to find a different way to put together
shows. If not assume a clinical academic position and do not make any radical
claims because a curatorial thematic cannot make any dent in the current
culture. The best way is to let the artists and curators work differently and
let the curators do a lot of hard work to find out the artists doing works that
would reflect their curatorial ideas. Let the artists stop responding to the
curators’ ideas; let them learn to make their art as they breath, naturally.
To create such a situation, one has to imagine such a
situation. That needs a lot of courage; perhaps, leaving the art scene
altogether for some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment