Curating.info

Freelance curators enjoy a degree of flexibility in their work, but are often also in precarious positions when working with large organisations. A clear example of the difficulties faced by curators working in a freelance capacity emerged last week when the Koffler Centre of the Arts in Toronto issued a statement saying they were "disassociating" from artist Reena Katz, that they had commissioned through curator Kim Simon.

According to the statement, the core of the issue for the Koffler Centre, which is an agency of the United Jewish Appeal Foundation of Greater Toronto, is that artist Reena Katz publicly supports activities which reject "... the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state and promotes historically inaccurate comparisons between contemporary Israel and apartheid South Africa, in order to delegitimize Israel." The artist and curator dispute this interpretation of Katz's views.

The project has been under development for over a year and its launch is imminent. As the statement from the curator and artist put it, "...twelve days before the scheduled opening of a project involving over seventy participants, we attended the meeting. We were shocked to learn that the Koffler would be dissociating itself from Katz and our project solely on the basis of her political affiliations they said they had discovered on the Internet." That the organisation would choose to 'disassociate' itself at the eleventh hour is already indicative of a lack of professionalism, and the situation becomes even more perplexing once it is further noted that it is Katz's publcly-stated views that are the issue here, not the content of the commissioned project, which in fact uses Jewish culture as its bedrock and inspiration. The fact that Katz's views were uncovered on the web adds a twist to the tale as well (though again this is disputed by the curator and artist, who contend that the Koffler was aware of Katz's political leanings all along). The fact is that with the advent of web 2.0 and push-button web authoring, any artist or curator can make their views known on anything at any time, offering an unprecedented window on the ongoing fluidity of thought and personal opinion. The fact that this is essentially about Katz's personal digital traces underlines how unfortunate this turn of events has been, wherein an art centre would consider anything other than the work its business. The work, in effect, has been delegitimised here, subjugated to an attempt to pin down whether or not this artist's thoughts permit her to be legitimised by an established institution.

What can a freelance curator do in such a situation? Simon has stated that she is "appalled and heartbroken", and rightfully so. Without co-operation, courage, and support from within the organisation that was to present this work, the curator who is external to this structure has few options. Simon is doing all that she can to ensure that the show goes on, but the sudden lack of support from a well-resourced and branded institution is without a doubt an unwelcome and unhelpful development, that also then becomes a public example which might further dissuade curators from working freelance with large institutions (Simon is working freelance in this case, and is also employed as a curator for Gallery TPW).

It appears that the offer to fund the project fully still stands, so that it can still go ahead, which shields the Koffler from accusations of outright censorship and also from possible litigation. This action distills the problem to the core power struggle that freelance curators and independent artists face, because it's rarely ever about the money. Funding can be obtained without the intervention of an outside institution. The Koffler took something away that is far more valuable, and that's their seal of approval. Unfortunately for them, 'disassociation' in this case denies the rights that artists have to their own views, stifles debate on the subject in the Jewish community, and separates itself from what will surely be a wonderful project that celebrates Jewish culture and heritage in a historical district of Toronto.

Links:

Official project website: Each hand as they are called

Toronto Star story: Kensington Market exhibit stirs controversy among Jews

Globe and Mail story: Centre 'disassociates' itself from artist

Update (May 15, 2009):
Reena Katz and Kim Simon have issued a statement indicating that the exhibition will not open as it was scheduled to, due to the loss of the support of one of the project partners, following Koffler's disassociation. Katz and Simon will continue to work toward opening the exhibition at a future point in time. The latest updates are always available on the project website.

Welcome to the June edition of Pick 'N Mix, my monthly annotated list of things that caught my eye over the course of the previous month. It's a real jumble of stuff this month! Check it out:

- Firstly, this recent article in LA Weekly talks about MOCA’s Paul Schimmel and the concept of "curatorial ecstasy". Schimmel recounts a moment wherein he reflects on a mentor moving him "...very quickly from the idea of art museums being places that just maintained a history to the museum as a place where you define culture at the moment [...] It was a very activist, engaged approach, stemming from a belief that to begin to define what later will be understood as the history of your particular moment is one of the richest aspects of being a curator."

- I've just noticed that the Icebox in Philadelphia, USA takes curatorial proposals. It's also one of many curatorial proposals wherein it specifically requests that the curator be present for the installation. What it actually says is this: "Curators may not include their own work in the project/exhibition proposal and are expected to be involved in and on-site during the installation process." This statement leads me to two questions: (1) Have artist/curators not got the message yet that including their own work is beyond tacky?, and (2) Do curators feel they do not need to be involved and engaged in the installation process (possibly one of the most interesting moments in the manifestation of your curatorial concept, except in a few (obvious) cases)? I admire the Icebox folk for laying it on the line, but I have to say that confronting what should be clear points like these makes one wonder about that black, white, and grey area called ethics.

- Again on the notion of ethics, but with a different approach, I was intrigued by this post about intangible digital cultural heritage on iCommons: Sarah Kansa and her husband Eric Kansa head The Alexandria Archive Institute, an institution in digital open access for world cultural heritage. Sarah Kansa writes:

"There is no lack of digital content out there. Each community, institution or individual creating and sharing it needs to also take responsibility for preserving it. Currently, content isolated in silos stands the least chance of survival because of its inaccessibility and the lack of portability and re-usability of content. An open access (and open licensing and open standards) approach will go a long way towards preserving our digital cultural heritage in perpetuity, albeit a few years at a time."

Curators who are in the position of making or breaking accessibility to intangible cultural heritage surely feel this pressure. Are institutions supporting moves towards openness, or do curators have to take the lonely path of advocating this alone?

- I had a wonderful time at the IKT Congress in Montreal, and shortly will be posting a report on the Congress here, so keep your RSS readers and browsers poised at attention!

The Korean art world is reeling from the news that of one of its up and coming curatorial stars has been exposed as having false credentials.

From the Independent:

Imagine an attractive and talented young woman who said she had an art history doctorate from Oxford. Vivacious and persuasive, she becomes the director of the Tate Gallery. Then, just after being hired to curate the Royal Academy's Summer Exhibition, she is exposed as a fake who failed to get a single A-level.

This scenario, reminiscent of a Patrica Highsmith novel with its hint of The Talented Mr Ripley, is precisely the scandal now rocking the Korean art world after one of its rising stars, Shin Jeong-ah, was unveiled as a fraud.

Until this week, Shin, 35, was at the top of her profession. Claiming to have a doctorate from Yale and a master's degree from Kansas University, she was the youngest professor at Seoul's prestigious Dongguk University and the head curator of the Sungkok Art Museum, home to some of Korea's most prestigious exhibitions and the recipient of millions of pounds in corporate sponsorship from the country's biggest conglomerates.

Fabricating details on one's curriculum vitae seems to be nothing new, as a quick browse of the web led me to another recent article detailing dozens of such scandals in the business world. One particularly audacious and amusing story:

Jeffrey Papows, the former president of IBM's Lotus unit, resigned in 2000 after The Wall Street Journal found that he had embellished details of his military and academic achievements in his CV and in speeches and statements. He also claimed to be an orphan although his parents were still alive. According to the paper, he claimed to have a PhD from Pepperdine University but had in fact only completed a correspondence course at an unaccredited college. In addition, military records showed he had never been a Marine Corp aviator and captain, as he claimed, but a military air-traffic controller who rose no higher than lieutenant.

Mr Papows, who was also the subject of a sexual harassment complaint, later admitted: "I, in some senses, am guilty of exaggerating and embellishing for a purpose from a business standpoint."

Back to Ms Shin, our curator in question who never attended Yale and didn't complete her degree at Kansas University. What makes this story particularly interesting are not the fabrications, which, as evinced in the Times Online article about lying businessmen, seem to crop up quite a bit. The point of interest is that most seems to agree that Ms Shin was a good curator. Despite her complete lack of training, she seems to have performed well enough to smoke by for a long time. "She was very talented at planning exhibitions," a leading Korean art critic told the Kyunghyang Daily News. "She was not much of an art historian or a theoretician but she put on some excellent shows which were very popular. That's why the museums loved her." There are so many classic tensions in this story that the mind boggles - populist vs. academic, raw talent vs. hard-won credentials, appearances vs. reality. One tends to feel pity for everyone involved in the debacle: the museum and biennale officials who were duped, and Ms Shin herself, who - though talented - because of her misrepresentations will never eat lunch in Seoul again.

When a curator simply chooses an artist, that isn't news. (Just as a dog biting a man would not be news, either.) But when a man bites a dog, or an artist chooses a curator, we've got more of a story. (Background on the journalistic expression "Man bites dog").

I'm using "Man bites dog" in jest, of course, but it was a phrase that immediately struck me that whilst reading an article by Dana Gilerman I found at Haaretz.com.

Suzanne Landau, a senior curator at the Israel Museum, will curate the Israeli Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in June 2007. A Culture Ministry committee selected artist Yehudit Sasportas six months ago to represent Israel at the event; Sasportas, in turn, chose Landau to curate the exhibit.

An unusual move, I would say. Landau seems to think so as well:

"I have a problem with this method, in which a random group sits and selects an artist," says Landau. "It seems abnormal to me. I think this group could have irrelevant interests, and there have already been cases in the past that proved this. I have also mentioned this more than once to Idit Amichai, the coordinator of the Culture Ministry committee."

What would you suggest instead?

"That the committee choose a curator, as is the practice in other countries and as was done here in the past."

The reasoning for this inversion of process is provided a bit later on, but is glossed over:

There were also ethical problems in the past with regard to the selection of curators. "Then perhaps the problem is that Israel is a small country and there is nothing that can be done about that."

The ethical problems that would blight a selection process for a curator would also no doubt cause problems when selecting an artist. I don't have the knowledge of the art scene in Israel that would allow me to comment on this specific case with special insight. However, I think that the reasoning behind why the process ended up being a "man bites dog/artist chooses curator" situation is quite interesting. Suzanne makes a fair point in her response, but even the largest countries break down into very small art scenes, usually defined by city boundaries, but also sometimes subdivided even further. "Ethical problems" could mar a selection process in a scene of any size. The question is, how do we handle these problems, and is the solution to invert the process entirely?