Beyond the Head: The Practical Work of Curating Contemporary Art

Sophia Krzys Acord 

Abstract In contemporary art, the curator plays an important role in the production of artistic meaning through exhibition-making. Although sociology has tended to see this work as the exercise of tacit or embodied knowledge, curatorial knowledge and plans may be elaborated and altered by the situated actions of exhibition installation. While curators know a successful installation “when they see it,” this depends on the indexical particularities of artworks and environments which cannot be predicted in advance. In demonstrating the practical ways in which culture is mobilized in situations of object (inter) action, this paper emphasizes the “making” in artistic meaning-making.

Keywords Culturalsociology.Distributedcognition.Actor-networktheory. Object-interaction

Introduction

Speaking at the outset of the 21st century, art critic David Sylvester suggested that the most important people in the cultural world are not artists but curators, “the true brokers of the art world” (Millard 2001, p. 118). Curators have risen to prominence in the contemporary art world because of the increased importance of mediating between institutional bureaucracy, market forces, artistic representation, and public taste. In particular, the crux of curatorial practice in contemporary art is the construction of artistic meaning through the exhibition. As Greenberg et al. (1996, p. 2) describe, “Part spectacle, part socio-historical event, part structuring device, exhibitions—especially exhibitions of contemporary art—establish and administer the cultural meanings of art.” Yet, little is known about how curators go about creating these meanings in the physical process of exhibition installation.

S. K. Acord (*)
Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, 771 Evans Hall #4650, Berkeley, CA 94720-4650, USA
e-mail: ska@berkeley.edu

 

448 Qual Sociol (2010) 33:447–467

 

As a form of artistic mediation, curatorial work is traditionally seen by sociology as tacitly structured by “conventions,” “internalized dialogues,” and artistic “codes.” Particularly in contemporary art, this expertise is developed through a curator’s widespread familiarity with the international art world (Moulin and Quemin 1993; Octobre 1999). A curator’s knowledge about how to present contemporary artworks to the public is generally assumed to be part and parcel of their knowledge of the artwork (Tobelem 2005). This reduction of curatorial work to the exercise of tacit knowledge, however, overlooks the role played by artistic objects in their own mediation, and in doing so, fails to provide a documented, explanatory model of how culture enters into action. If something goes without saying because it came without saying, how, when, and where can it finally be said?

In order to look in depth at the practical and material dimensions of curatorial meaning- making in action, this article draws on comparative video-based, microethnographic studies of the exhibition-making process at London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts and ARC/ Musée d’Art Moderne de la ville de Paris, supplemented by visual interviews with 34 other elite curators of contemporary art. This paper also draws on useful theoretical concepts in human-object interaction, distributed cognition, the sociology of affordances, actor-network theory, and learning to illuminate the extra-verbal dimensions of curatorial work. In particular, by examining how curators build successful installations through their physical orientations to artworks, this study demonstrates the reflexive and process-oriented ways in which tacit knowledge, aesthetic codes, and meaningful conventions are born, communi- cated, and mobilized in situations of (inter)action. In doing so, it argues for a more dynamic understanding of curatorial mediation, and the central import of object-oriented qualitative research to the sociological study of culture and action.

Dawn of the curator of contemporary art

The curatorial profession became standardized in the nineteenth century, hand in hand with the advent of the modern museum. As Bourdieu (1993 [1987], p. 204) explains, among an array of “specialized agents” (e.g., curators, critics, art historians, dealers, collectors) who shaped the economy of cultural goods, curators became crucial actors “capable of imposing a specific measure of the value of the artist and his products.” The combining of artworks by different artists to give selective readings on art and on the history of art is one of the fundamental principles that has underwritten curatorial practice since the mid-19th century. As traditional art curators overwhelmingly hold advanced degrees in art history, they generally mount exhibitions that are scholarly in nature (Alexander 1996; DiMaggio 1991; Zolberg 1981). This scholarly nature is reflected in the art historical nature of museum display, where exhibitions generally display artworks in a linear fashion within an overall historical perspective.

The 1960s and 1970s, however, witnessed the emergence of a new breed of curators in the burgeoning contemporary art world, including Harald Szeemann, Pontus Hulten, Lars Nittv, and others. Rather than base their approach to exhibition-making in art historical conventions, these curators engaged in critical curatorial practice, experimenting with the very nature of the exhibition format. In other words, the avant-garde movement among artists was met by an avant-garde movement in curating. This new breed of curator, akin to a stage producer or orchestra conductor, became sought out by institutions, often those dedicated to contemporary art but others as well, for their wide personal networks, effective

 

Qual Sociol (2010) 33:447–467 449

 

social abilities, expertise on a particular subject, and powerful visions, rather than an advanced degree in art history.

Key here to the new museum curator’s role is the planning of temporary “ahistorical” exhibitions (Meijers 1996), often arranged thematically or contextually (Staniszewski 1998), in which the curator plays a role not unlike “author” of the exhibition (Heinich and Pollak 1989a). The exhibition is a way to validate the originality of the curator’s point of view, his or her aptitude for discovering new talents, and the artworks themselves by exhibiting them in a dialogue with each other to an initiated public (Octobre 1999). In contrast to the taxonomical or art historical approach to exhibiting traditional art, the exhibition process in modern and contemporary art is integral to the meaning of the art work (cf. Caillet et al. 2002; Ducret et al. 1990).

Significantly, the exhibition of contemporary art communicates the object by contributing another layer of meaning or interpretation to the artist’s original intention (Davallon 1999), which may be hazy to begin with. Practicing artists and performers have long recognized that artistic creation is an experimental and emergent process, involving input from traditions and intentionality as well as physical objects and spaces (Elkins 1999; Becker et al. 2006; Jarvis 2007). In contrast, as I will now examine in the following literature review, sociology has tended to see artistic mediation as distinct from the creative process, based on theories and guidelines rather than situated knowledge production.

Literature review

In their review of work in the sociological study of culture, Wuthnow and Witten (1988) describe two distinct views of culture as an “explicit” social construction and an “implicit” feature of social life. While the sociology of the arts continues to be driven in the main by the “explicit” conceptualization of culture as a recorded product or symbolic good, the specific study of the mediating activities surrounding explicit cultural forms is a window onto broader sociological conceptions of implicit culture (Acord and DeNora 2008). As demonstrated in this brief literature review, the study of knowledge production by mediators in art worlds (i.e., what informs curators’ decision-making) sheds light on how culture operates in general (i.e., to inform general patterns of individual and social meaning-making).

In the dominant “production of culture” approach in the sociology of the arts (cf. Peterson and Anand 2004), meaning-making is seen to be an outcome of institutional structure or the values held by particular actors. The artistic value of an artwork resides not in its material properties, but in the individuals, institutions, and processes that mediate between artist and spectator (cf. Crane 1987; Heinich 1998; Moulin 1967, 1992; White and White 1965; Wolff 1981). These different groups have a highly interrelated existence; for example, museums buy what galleries promote, and critics justify their value.

As Bourdieu (1985, p. 728) describes, the position of a mediator in this social space— what he terms the “field of cultural production”—plays an important, structuring role by suggesting the cognitive “‘filling-in’ strategies” by which he or she makes meaning. Using the example of a manuscript submission to a publisher, Bourdieu (1993 [1976], p. 134–135) observes how the publisher explains his choice to accept the manuscript with an absolute kind of “flair,” what Bourdieu describes as the “ultimate and often indefinable principle” behind his choice. This indefinable principle is explained by the fact that both parties have

 

450 Qual Sociol (2010) 33:447–467

 

what Lamont (2009) terms a “shared sense of craftsmanship,” which led the author to prepare his text based on what he perceived the publisher would want to read. In his “Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception,” Bourdieu explains how such tacit “codes” play a central role in artistic knowledge:

An act of deciphering unrecognized as such, immediate and adequate “comprehen- sion,” is possible and effective only in the special case in which the cultural code which makes the act of deciphering possible is immediately and completely mastered by the observer (in the form of cultivated ability or inclination) and merges with the cultural code which has rendered the work perceived possible. (Bourdieu 1993 [1968], p. 215)

Artistic meaning-making, then, is the reference to and propagation of cultural codes, as linked to the mediator’s position (and strategic position-takings) in the cultural field. It is exercised through the mediator’s habitus, the set of “objective” dispositions he has by virtue of his place in the social order (Bourdieu 1979). As Bourdieu (1972, p. 79) notes, “It is because subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing that what they do has more meaning than they know.” The power of the habitus as a reproducer of cultural codes (in the explicit cultural sense of the codes by which one encounters art) comes from its tacit mastery (implicitly acting through the habitus). 

Cont. reading...

Narcissistic Behavior and the Economy: The Role of Virtues

Surendra Arjoon

Narcissistic Behavior

Several prominent commentators and academics have recently accused Ivy League schools of breeding narcissistic leaders and executives who have been instrumental in fuelling the global financial crisis. The director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Kevin Hassett, argues that though firms did a terrible job in assessing risks, it is precisely those in charge who exemplified narcissistic mentalities manifested primarily through their grandiose sense of entitlement and their lack of humility (Hassett 2009). In a Times online article entitled: “Harvard’s Masters of the Apocalypse,” Broughton (2009) makes similar claims that MBAs (acronym for Mediocre But Arrogant, Mighty Big Attitude, Me Before Anyone, and Management By Accident) are a swollen class of jargon-spewing, value-destroying financiers and consultants who have done more than any other group of people to create our economic misery and concludes that MBAs and business schools need a dose of modesty. Chris Bones, dean of Henley Business School, in addressing the crisis of confidence in business leadership, suggests that the crisis stems from the creation of a narcis- sistic cadre of senior executives who knew no right but their own perception, and who brooked no criticism or check on their ambition (Bones 2009). In a panel discussion at the University of Darden Business School, professor Ed Freeman pointed out that ignoring ethics and responsibility is what drove the financial crisis: “Finance without responsibility is saying I can do whatever I want. But we must go out and create value in a sustainable way. If we don’t address the theoretical problem—guess what? We’re going to have this again. We have to put ethics at the center of business education” (Freeman 2008). Harvard Business School leadership guru, Bill George, remarked that the United States’ financial crisis was not caused by the failure of the complex instruments but by the failure of leaders on Wall Street who all too often sacrificed their firms’ futures in order to maximize their personal gains (George 2009). It seems that greed and personal gains were substituted for robust risk management. Brunell and Gentry (2008) describe how narcissists have the necessary skills and qualities that propel them into leadership roles, and when they are in charge, other aspects of their makeup (for example, the feeling that rules do not apply to them) can have disastrous consequences. Conger (2002) highlights the dangers and temptations where narcissistic leaders can lose touch with reality (for example, a strong sense of self-importance may blind them to divergent points of view or to whistle-blowers, thus leading to poor strategic and organizational decision-making as witnessed in the case of Enron and WorldCom) by promoting self-serving and grandiose aims. Twenge and Keith Campbell (2009), drawing from extensive empirical research and cultural analysis, suggest that the financial crisis is, in part, a con- sequence of the narcissistic cultural epidemic from which the United States is suffering. Interestingly, Baumeister (1999), in reviewing the literature on crime and violence, concludes that contrary to popular beliefs, like many corporate leaders, outlaws tend to often display narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by an extravagant sense of self- importance, a sense of superiority, self-centered and self-referential behavior, exaggeration of talents, boastful and pretentious behavior, grandiose fantasies of unlimited success, the belief that one is so special or unique that one can only be understood by equals, an unreasonable sense of entitlement, a yearning for attention and admiration, a willingness to exploit others, lack of empathy, envy and the belief that others envy him or her, and arrogant behavior (Ronningstam and Gunderson 1990, Cohen 2005).

It seems that the growing and complex ethical environment is mirrored by the increase in the variety of personal and mental disorders. The first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association) was a pamphlet that listed sixty dis- orders; the current fourth edition (published in 1994) has hundreds of disorders including subcategories and combinations (the list includes disorders associated with adjustment, anxiety, dissociation, eating impulse-control, mood, sexual, sleep, psychotic, somatoform, substance, and personality). Kets de Vries and Miller (1986) further note that pathological organizational types seem in many ways to mirror the types of dysfunctions common to the most widely discussed neurotic styles among individuals. Until recently, NPD had not been the subject of many studies and had received relatively little empirical attention. Naturally, the fields of psychiatry and psychology have played a dominant role in furthering our understanding of NPD, especially as it relates to diagnosis, leadership, and factor structure (Brunell, Genry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert, and DeMarree 2008; Buono 2001; Corry, Davis Merritt, Mrug, and Pamp 2008; Gabbard 2009; Goldman 2006; Goodie 2009; Horwitz 2000; Kay 2008; Miller, Keith Campbell, Young, Lakey, Reidy, Zeichner, and Ronningstam 2009; Pryor, Miller, and Gaughan 2008; Russ, Shedler, Bradley, and Westen 2008; Trzesniewski, Brent Donnellan, and Robins 2008; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith Campbell, and Bushman 2008a; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith Campbell, and Bushman 2008b).

Empirical studies have supported clinical observations that pathological nar- cissism characteristics can be expressed in temporary traits or in stable, enduring personality disorder manifested as: grandiosity (the most distinguishing and discriminating evidence-based criterion), vulnerable and fluctuating self-esteem, strong reactions to perceived challenges or threats to self-esteem, self-enhancing interpersonal behavior, self-serving interpersonal behavior, interpersonal aggres- sion and control, fluctuating or impaired empathic ability, and exceptionally high or perfectionist ideals and standards (Ronningstam 2009). Reich (1960) sees pathological narcissism as stemming from early traumata (that is, threats to one’s bodily intactness at a time when the ego is not sufficiently developed to be able to master them) and so compensatory measures are instituted. The individual is unable to accept reality and to develop a mature superego. Imbesi (1999) also observes that when placed in structured settings where rules were imposed on them, NPD children had a deliberate, premeditated quality of aggressive impulses. 

Cont. reading...

Bring on the Shock Troops: Artists and Gentrification in the Popular Press

Daniel Makagon

Abstract

Gentrification is one of the most important and talked about contemporary urban issues. Critics have tended to treat the class remake of urban neighborhoods as a geographical and sociological phenomenon. This article critically examines gentrification as symbolic action. Focusing on press coverage of artist-led gentrification, I argue that reporters present a diffusion narrative that casts artists as both urban pioneers and victims of gentrification and glosses over the function of artists as the first gentrifiers in some urban neighborhoods. Ultimately, press accounts of artists as victims of gentrification reflect an underlying desire to find and maintain bohemian spaces in the face of homogeneous and sterile corporate urban revitalization projects that have contributed to a broader sense of urban placelessness. Yet, this vision is based on a bohemian image of the city that consists of young white artists while stigmatizing (through a frontier discourse) the more diverse population(s) that lived and worked in the urban neighborhood prior to the arrival of the artists.

Keywords: GentrificationUrban CommunicationFrontierPioneerSymbolic Action

Purchase full article...

Curating with a Click: The Art That Participatory Media Leaves Behind

 

Bonnie Ruberg

Abstract: At a moment when technological participation seems to promise to bring innovation and democratic access to the contemporary museum, the results from one community-curated exhibit suggest that conservative cultural biases continue to shape the American public’s taste in art. In 2013, the Michener Art Museum in Doylestown, Pennsylvania collected more than 10,000 online votes for their People’s Choice exhibit. Voters were invited to choose their ‘top’ three artworks from among 125, and the twenty-five artworks that received the most votes were then displayed, while those that didn’t make the cut stayed tucked away behind closed doors. Rather than promoting diversity by making curatorial practices interactive and accessible however, the People’s Choice voting process rendered difference invisible. The result was an exhibit that appealed to the largest number of voters, yet excluded artwork that challenged dominant norms of gendered or racial privilege. Voters consistently chose realistic paintings of landscapes and white female subjects over abstract works, pieces by women, and images of people of color. The People’s Choice exhibit serves as a valuable lesson about the use of participatory media in museums, and about the potential pitfalls of crowdsourcing in new media cultures more broadly, demonstrating the importance of self-reflection as a key component of participatory cultural programming.

 

Anthropology & Design

by Ron Burnett

Design practice is centred on audience(s). It matters little whether the audience is hypothetical, real or imagined, there is always someone for whom designs are created. This is often used as the fundamental distinction between design and art practices. The practice of creating art on the other hand, is seen as personal and evolving out of processes that don’t have an overt goal in mind. Yet, there are audiences for art, perhaps best exemplified by the fact that every major city in the world has an identifiable museum. And, do artists try and understand their audiences and cater to their needs? Let’s leave that question open for the time being.

The challenge of course is how do we understand audience, client and user?—Or, in the digital design world, the agent, interactor or participant? Another way of approaching audience is to create one, just as Apple did with the iPad and the iPod. Notice that irrespective of historical circumstances, projections or perceived needs, the term audience remains abstract. This is because it is virtually impossible to draw a straight line between for example, creating a logo and anticipating the response of groups of people to it—or, developing a product and knowing how clients or users will react to it. This is why designers often develop many alternative strategies to their designs and also work iteratively on various prototypes; all with the goal of creating something that will be closer to the perceived needs of the user.

In anthropology, efforts to understand both contemporary cultures and ancient ones are circumscribed by the challenges of observation, analysis and fieldwork. Prior to the revolution in anthropological thought provoked by George Marcus and Michael Fischer [4] in the 1980’s, there was endless debate among anthropologists about the relationship between observation and subjectivity. Put another way, to what extent does your own cultural, class and ethnic background influence what you see and what you observe? It is clear that your own personal history, desires and orientation will have a big impact on the conclusions that you draw from the observations you make. [5] The challenge therefore is to try and articulate what you know and examine how that may influence your assumptions about other people. It means that fieldwork is essential only if you bring to it a self-reflexive awareness of the contingent nature of the experiences you may have with complete strangers.

Designers are well aware of these obstacles and have developed many different strategies to deal with them. One of the most important is testing designs with users and trying to learn about utility, reaction and aesthetic response. But, how far does the process of learning about response go? To what extent are designers able to test their assumptions about their audiences? These issues are even more complex if as is often the case, designers are now crossing the boundaries into the ways in which people organize their lives (design thinking, design process), and the many ways in which design thinking is applied to businesses and to innovation.

“Professional design is now operating within an expanded and increasingly complex field. Some design professionals take solving complex social issues as their domain, often but not always working in close collaboration with specialists in public services from healthcare to those working with disadvantaged families to policing. Other designers and their ways of working are welcomed into business schools to teach the next generation of managers and leaders. Concepts and language that used to be associated with designers now enter other specialist areas: policymakers are told that public services should be more user-centered (Parker and Heapy 2006); businesses engage with customers by offering new meanings for things (Verganti 2009); the US Army is considering the role of design in warfare (School of Advanced Military Studies n.d.). Professional design, in particular design as practiced within the studio-based tradition of many art schools, is taking a new place on the world stage.” [3]

So much of the knowledge that we share in any given society is tacit. So many of the assumptions we make about ourselves and about others are unconscious. It is easy to say that designers should uncover their cultural bias. [6] But, which methods are best suited to the task? Janet Murray suggests bringing multiple stakeholders into the discussion of the design process “and elicit their different perspectives and needs.” [3]