<nettime> CEI 3 - Forum: Continental Breakfast. Outposts 2007', June 7th

[Ana Peraica <ana.peraica@st.htnet.hr>]

Hello, everyone,

here is the event and my presentation for the

*Presentation on 3rd CEI Venice*

The 'Third CEI Venice Forum for Contemporary Art Curators - Continental 
Breakfast. Outposts 2007', organised by the Trieste Contemporanea 
Committee, will *June 7th and 8th*, at the *Palazzo Zorzi *(Castello 
4930), seat of the UNESCO Office in Venice-Regional Bureau for Science 
and Culture in Europe (BRESCE) 
<http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1314&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>. 


http://www.triestecontemporanea.it/news.php?id_news=36&l=e&id_m=2

Ana Peraica

Last years we are witnessing the appearance of bureaucratic global 
cultural policies and the appearance of "creative industry" which are 
defocusing, in large, our attention to the original "accident" of art. 
These incomprehensible and banal approaches are actually giving a 
perspective of globalization process on the art itself, as a political, 
economical and market field, treating the phenomena we used to call art 
as inherent to the history, groups and therefore being reduced onto pure 
social epiphenomena. Besides this, actually being Marxist definition 
used by market, reminding more than on any on programs of Socialist 
Realism, may have some of a operative truth, they are actually having an 
error of defining society in terms of groups that are consisting of same 
or similar individuals. Furthermore, they are generalizing in terms 
of "majority." This definition is in complete contradiction to the art, 
and I intend to show -- to the public.

*Do the current overall rules of creative innovation for competitive 
advantage influence the evaluating criteria of art in force?*

As advertising becomes stronger managing to sell even "what I will not 
name," competing with original art's mediums, the chance of recognition 
of art, as a primarily individual and isolated event (as; act, 
accident), it has become hard to recognize art and to actually isolate 
its phenomena outside of mess of what competes for its definition. This 
would mean to distinguish "what is engineered" at arts place and "art 
itself" for what methods and techniques visual studies appear 
insufficient, not even speaking on the old discipline art history. What 
misses is the ontological picture, rather then epistemological, that 
would define art in terms of the single event, rather than analyze its 
visual layout and message or define it in terms of style.

That would be hard, but one thing is clear to professionals in the 
field, I assume: what fights to be defined as art is - surely not that. 
Or, to be closer to disciplines; what resembles on art -- is not art. It 
is a copy and in the world of copies there are also copies of art. So 
the hardest choice on curators today would be to find not originality 
but individuality, as originality can be industrial, it seems.

*Is it useful to consider exhibitions in terms of their contribution to 
research and to understanding social transformation?*

This has become more and more important? Emphasizing the individual 
creation and perception, by which I also mean -- researching needs of 
public not as a mass but the space or event connected group of 
individuals, the research undertaken by curators previous to the 
exhibition is to find all possible individual perspectives and 
approaches to individual art piece and make its, lets use that terrible 
word "consumption" easier.

Namely, giga exhibitions and festivals are "user unfriendly" layouts for 
art. They treat the public as the background of the show at its best. 
Except for the resizing for the use of individuals, not a mass - 
curators should be able to find and define channels and open them up, 
for different individuals, even if it is not the standpoint of a 
curator, even at the cost of inner contradiction?

*What is the responsible (and reliable) role played by the curator in 
the era of virtual-media and market saturation?*

One is sure - both virtual media and market are dealing with copies. 
Moreover, what comes with so called "virtual media" that in the newer 
age of the net emphasized moreover "what is linked" is that actual 
individual phenomena are staying disconnected.

We are facing the situation in which some possibly original art can be 
lost behind those super-sponsored, mega-announce and extremely linked 
layouts. The role of a curator would therefore be to dig behind the 
surface or interface that economy and politics but especially 
advertising are offering as art. This would mean firstly to clearly 
distinguish art from its ontological copy as; art would appear as 
something that can be approached in plurality of ways, while copies 
would stand for one, usually designed by the market or political way.

*Will good information on contemporary art philosophy offer suitable 
instruments for a better understanding of the individual in an extended 
and mediating field of relationships?*

Yes, all but all the possible approaches should be offered in a simple 
way and moreover discussions and roundtable should be opened as once 
triggered the dynamics made by art will continue by itself as the goal 
of curators should be to find individuals in the public to address the 
individualism of art.

*Are there any exhibitions that supply, at least on a general level, 
supplementary tools for the formation of the individual?*

I have curated a project, for which I am originally invited to this 
meeting, named Women at the crossroad of ideologies. The program was 
fully orientated to a public, including the possibility to download the 
program and a reader being produced.

It was consisting of many of "entrances" for different kind of public 
all addressing the same issue women's rights, so there were exhibitions, 
concerts, public lectures of scientists, talks with artists, round table 
discussions, but also a small library opened. An especial interest has 
been given to "advertising" of the project, this one being done by an 
artist Andreja Kulunc(ic', whose interactive installation in public 
space has given results of anonymous voters and street passengers none 
could neglect, demonstratively giving quite alarming results of the 
discrimination. At the same time public was constantly invited to 
interact, to help producing a reader. Given the opportunity to show they 
are not "a public" but individuals they have attempted to clear up their 
voices.

The most interesting interaction was done on "questions and answers" 
part of the lecture and roundtable program, but also one may note 
individualism has shown up in official publishing -- writing in newspaper 
and new way of publishing -- blogs. I actually give a lot of hope to the 
new blog phenomena that it would show up individualism and particular 
view even in the most ownership censored mass society. I hope that new 
public -- the one that can read about artworks, download preview movies, 
but also say something about it (and the matter of curators is to listen 
those historically silent voices, too), will manage to break through the 
universe of adds and engineered market of art simulation.

One may give different statistics of the show, like presenting 70 
presenters from 20 countries, 400 people for the opening, 300 for a 
lecture, 200 people a day on the exhibition, which indeed are truth, but 
I would like to say more of my public.

Rarely someone in the public knew each other before, they were rarely 
communicating to each other. Mostly they were women, which was 
predictable, but there were men there too, and they were brave which 
after they were admitted made them proud and loud. Older women were more 
able to express themselves, still younger had more vibrant voices and 
they were active in publishing. Part of them wanted to educate further, 
so they were following everything which was allowed by the program set 
up always for 18 PM so an ordinary worker can arrive having own time 
after the working day. Some of them were ashamed, probably thinking they 
would be not fit there. But what was emphasized every day is -- they are 
all more than welcome. Some mothers and daughters appeared together but 
at the end only daughter would stay, probably to get rid of the first 
sense of being lost in the group, After emancipating a public was really 
consisting of individual voices; some decided to read own poem to a 
small group, some have stolen the mic from presenters, having own small 
talk-shows. Some were SMS-ing during round tables and these messages you 
may find in the book were great. Some copied Breda Beban's video with a 
mobile phone so the video doesn't run away, thought it was forbidden. 
But this effect says a lots, really a lots on art. A week latter I got 
the phone-call a music number from her video is a radio hit, two Gipsy 
music parties were organized? Some unknown people told me they want to 
go to Venice to see it again. Maybe they would be there? and I started 
to be curious whom they are, one of them repairing motorcycles and it 
was his first encounter with the video art.

This would underline my thesis -- the public of art - is not a group.

Post n www.anarchiva.blogspot.com

<http://www.artandeducation.net/display.php?file=message_1179780867.txt>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net