Contemporary art curating news and views from Michelle Kasprzak and team

Opportunity: The Foundation for a Civil Society: YVAA – Vilcek Curatorial Fellowship Open Call

Posted by Sofia Landström • Tuesday, April 23. 2013 • Category: Jobs & Opportunities

The application date for this opportunity has passed.

The Foundation for a Civil Society: YVAA – Vilcek Curatorial Fellowship Open Call
Deadline: 30 April, 2013

The Foundation for a Civil Society is pleased to announce the Young Visual Artists Awards: Marica Vilcek Fellowship.

Fellowships will be awarded to two US-based curators, critics and art historians with demonstrated experience and excellence in engaging with international contemporary art. The fellowship is composed of two main features: First, fellows will be provided with an opportunity to travel to one or more of the YVAA countries in Central and South-East Europe to serve as guest jury members for the national awards, as well as conduct short-term independent research, curatorial projects and develop professional networks. Second, fellows will serve as guest critics for the 10 YVAA artists in residence at International Studio and Curatorial Program (ISCP) from September 2013 to May 2014, should they reside in NY. Fellows may be asked to write and publish features on the resident artists for the YVAA blog and other outlets. Furthermore, fellows may be invited to a six-week curatorial residency at ISCP between December 2013 and January 2014. The fellowship will cover economy air travel to and ground transportation within the YVAA countries (up to $1700), accommodation and per diems (up to $600), and honoraria ($500). A panel of professionals who live in, or have extensive knowledge of the region, will select the successful applicant. The YVAA juries convene in June and October and short-listed candidates will be contacted by YVAA Program Director for an informal conversation to establish eligibility and availability.

The Young Visual Artists Awards is an international network of awards and a New York residency program in Central and South East Europe. First established with President Havel and a group of artists in Czechoslovakia in 1990, this highly successful program has grown to 10 countries and has to date awarded and presented in the US 111 artists.

The YVAA awards and their local organizers are: ARDHJE AWARD – TICA , Tirana, Albania; ZVONO AWARD – Sarajevo Center for Contemporary Arts, Bosnia and Herzegovina; BAZA AWARD – Institute of Contemporary Art – Sofia, Bulgaria; RADOSLAV PUTAR AWARD – Institute for Contemporary Art, SCCA, Zagreb, Croatia; JINDRICH CHALUPECKY AWARD – Jindrich Chalupecky Society, Prague, Czech Republic; ARTIST OF TOMORROW AWARD – Kosova Art Gallery, Prishtina, Kosovo; DENES AWARD – Contemporary Art Center, Skopje, Macedonia; DIMITRIJE BASICEVIC MANGELOS AWARD – Remont Gallery, Belgrade, Serbia; OSKAR CEPAN AWARD – Foundation/Center for Contemporary Arts, Bratislava, Slovakia; OHO AWARD – P74 Center and Gallery, Ljubljana Slovenia.

This fellowship is made possible by the generous gift of Marica Vilcek – an art historian and co-founder of the Vilcek Foundation.

Please submit the following with your application:
1. One page cover letter stating the applicant’s interest in the fellowship and particularly in the artistic scenes of the YVAA countries. Please note how the applicant is qualified to recognize artistic excellence? And how the applicant’s practice will benefit from and incorporate YVAA artists. Preference for a particular YVAA country will be taken into consideration, but fellows will be assigned according to the needs and availability of all participating countries.
2. A current CV (abridged to no more than 4 pages).
3. Two writing samples

Candidates must be US-based, and have a Master's Degree or higher in art history or related field with emphasis on modern or contemporary art. Minimum 5 years curating and writing about contemporary art experience. Independent curators and those with institutional affiliations may apply. Availability to travel in June or October 2013

Further information:

Defined tags for this entry: , , ,

Opportunity: Curator Residency, Fogo Island Arts

Posted by Sofia Landström • Friday, March 22. 2013 • Category: Jobs & Opportunities

Curator Residency, Fogo Island Arts
Deadline: June 1, 2013
for residencies starting September 1st, 2013.

Located off the coast of Newfoundland in Canada, Fogo Island Arts was established in 2008. A residency-based contemporary art venue, Fogo Island Arts supports artistic research and production for artists, filmmakers, writers, musicians, curators, designers, and thinkers from around the world. In addition to artist residencies, exhibitions and publications, Fogo Island Arts produces a series of think tank events called the Fogo Island Dialogues, held on Fogo Island and in other locations. All Fogo Island Arts initiatives are part of a social enterprise-based business model that supports the economic viability of the Fogo Island Inn and the growth of tourism on Fogo Island.

Fogo Island Arts Residencies provide opportunities for artists and thinkers from a wide range of disciplines to live and work on Fogo Island for periods ranging from three to six months. All artists-in-residence live in heritage houses and work in one of four offthe-grid studios designed by architect Todd Saunders. Situated at different locations around the island, the studios and artists’ homes help connect artists-in-residence with the day-to-day lives of the Island’s local communities.

Artists-in-residence often undertake collaborations with Island residents. Recent projects have included films made with the participation of Fogo Islanders, and international designers and local craftspeople working together to create furniture designs informed by Outport ways of life. In many cases, these initiatives are a source of income generation for artists, designers and the Island’s communities, helping to fulfill the social enterprise mission of the Shorefast Foundation and Fogo Island Arts.

For its 2013-14 residencies, Fogo Island Arts is seeking proposals from curators for projects carried out within the organization’s Education Program. Deadline: June 1st 2013, for residencies starting September 1st, 2013.

For more information contact: [email protected]
Fogo Island Arts
Highway 334 — Suite 100
P.O. Box 102 — JBS
Fogo Island, NL
A0G 2X0 Canada

Further information:

Defined tags for this entry: , ,

Opportunity: Art Curatorial Trainee, Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery

Posted by Sofia Landström • Sunday, March 10. 2013 • Category: Jobs & Opportunities

The application date for this opportunity has passed.

Art Curatorial Trainee, Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery/Birmingham Museums Trust
Deadline: 14 March, 2013

Birmingham Museums Trust (BMT) vision is to be a world class organisation which capitalises on the power of Birmingham's unique collections to educate, inspire and transform individuals of all ages, and the local, regional, national and international communities that we serve.

BMT operates nine sites in and around Birmingham. The Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Thinktank Science Museum, Soho House, Sarehole Mill, Aston Hall , Museum of the Jewellery Quarter, Blakesley Hall, Weoley Castle and the Museum Collection Centre.

Support from the Heritage Lottery Fund 'Skills for the Future' programme and Natural Sciences Collections Association (NatSCA) has created opportunities for four individuals to train in curatorial skills with a partnership of regional museums and heritage sites. These traineeships are available to anyone who might not have qualifications in the subject area, or are not from museum background, or who want a career change. The partnership offers a twelve month training programme commencing in May 2013 until April 2014.

Purpose of the traineeship:

To give the trainee experience and understanding of all aspects of curatorial work involved in delivering the museum service.
To develop a range of skills required to work with art collections and diverse audiences.
To gain experience of developing and delivering specific projects as part of the Birmingham Museum Trust (BMT) exhibitions and events programme.
To develop specialist knowledge relating to collection and subject areas as appropriate.

We are inviting applications for the following opportunities:
- One Natural History traineeship based at The Manchester Museum The University of Manchester
- One Natural History traineeship based at Leeds Museum Discovery Centre
- One Art traineeship based at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
- One Social History traineeship based at The Herbert Art Gallery & Museum, Coventry

Trainees will be based in one of the host museums and will receive training in the specialist field and in a range of skills common to entry level curatorial posts.

The traineeships will comprise of:
- Short placements at a specialist institution
- Enrolment on the Museums Association (MA) AMA professional qualification
- Detailed training programme
- An allocated mentor during traineeship

Possible project areas:

- Assist with the development and delivery of gallery redisplays including object selection and rotation, conservation, photography, interpretation and installation
- Maintain gallery displays to meet BMT interpretation standards
- Participate in BMT public programmes of activities and events, e.g. delivering gallery talks, tours, print room events, Spotlight monthly opinions service
- Assist with BMT curatorial enquiries service
- Facilitate individual and group visits to the print room
- Assist with collection management and object movement including documentation using the collection management system
- Support the delivery of regional exhibitions and loans programmes
- Assist in the promotion of BMT exhibitions and events including the use of social media:
- Work on the collection – including documentation, storage upgrade, digitisation, research, evaluation for disposal and producing content for digital and social media.
- Gallery evaluation - designing, conducting, collating and producing a report with recommendations

Trainee Specification


- Passionate and enthusiastic about a career in museums
- Enthusiasm for art and working with a variety of art collections
- Self-motivated
- Motivated to complete detailed and repetitive tasks to a high standard
- Capable of carrying out investigation/research on a specific subject
- Familiar with a range of Applied Arts
- IT literate
- A qualification to NVQ level 3 (e.g. A levels or equivalent) is essential
- Can travel independently and attend at placement sites as well as trainee base


- Experience of working with the public
- Capable of working with a wide range of people
- Experience of working as part of a team
- Commitment to widening access to the specialist area of fine art and to museums


Trainee will be supervised primarily by the Curator of Fine Art and other colleagues within the curatorial team and will work with individuals and teams across the museum service and with external partners.

Training Bursary: £13,480
Length of Traineeship: 12 months (fixed term)
Responsible to: Zelina Garland, Curator, Applied Art, Birmingham Museums Trust
Hours: Full time 37 hours per week- generally Monday to Friday

Applicants can apply for one traineeship only.
Applicants must make it clear which opportunity they are applying for in the 'Post applied for' box in the application form.

Please return application forms to the team at [email protected]
Or by post to
Human Resources,
Birmingham Museums,
Millennium Point,
Curzon St, B4 7XG

Closing date is: 14 March 2013 at 10.00 AM
Proposed date for interviews: W/c 8 April 2013

For further information: Details and Application forms at

Defined tags for this entry: birmingham, , , , trainee

Opportunity: Curatorial Residency, Flux Factory

Posted by Sofia Landström • Friday, March 8. 2013 • Category: Jobs & Opportunities

The application date for this opportunity has passed.

Curatorial Residency, Flux Factory
Deadline: 15 March, 2013

Flux Factory is a non-profit art organization that supports and promotes emerging artists through exhibitions, commissions, residencies, and collaborative opportunities. Flux Factory is guided by its passion to nurture the creative process, and knows that this process does not happen in a vacuum but rather through a network of peers and through resource-sharing. Flux Factory functions as an incubation and laboratory space for the creation of artworks that are in dialogue with the physical, social, and cultural spheres of New York City (though collaborations may start in New York and stretch far beyond

Flux Factory is expanding their "Flux Artist-in-Residence" program to include two six-month residencies per year for emerging curators who are based in the United States, during which the participants will work side-by-side with resident artists in an immersive environment to create new work collectively. Each residency will culminate in a public exhibition at the Flux Factory gallery, as well as related programming, which may include panel discussions, artist talks, screenings, or publications. Resident curators will also have the opportunity to work with Flux Factory to develop and produce their collective exhibitions and educational programming during their stay and beyond.

The two exhibitions and related educational programming will be generously supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Residents are responsible for the cost of the studio for this residency, approximately $750 each month.

1st residency:
May 1st, 2013 – November 1st, 2013
Culminating exhibition – mid-October

2nd residency
November 1st, 2013 – May 1st, 2014
Culminating exhibition – mid-April

To apply, please send a multi-page .pdf (10mb or less) that includes:

- Proposal for an exhibition concept and related programming in 500 words or less, focusing on the idea behind the show. Proposals should make use of our expansive network and resources, and should reflect Flux Factory’s commitment to collaboration, risk-taking, and social engagement while expanding the horizons of our 19-year legacy.
- Working list of artists (URLs & illustrative images) for consideration, though they do not have to have been contacted or confirmed.
- Current CV.
- Up to 2 examples of curatorial statements, essays, press releases or other relevant written material for your previous projects.
- Letter of interest that speaks to our participatory organizational model and that addresses the criteria of permanent residency in the US.

Send applications to [email protected]. Please include Curatorial Residency and your last name in the subject line.

Further information:

Defined tags for this entry: , , , ,

Opportunity: Young Curator Program, Canadian Centre for Architecture

Posted by Sofia Landström • Wednesday, March 6. 2013 • Category: Jobs & Opportunities

The application date for this opportunity has passed.

Young Curator Program, Canadian Centre for Architecture
Deadline: 15 April, 2013

The Young Curator Program, with the generous support of Power Corporation of Canada, offers the opportunity to propose and curate a project related to the contemporary debate in architecture, urbanism, and landscape design. In order to sustain the development of the selected project the CCA offers a period of residency of 3 months in Montreal. The CCA encourages a wide range of proposals, like for example a physical or virtual exhibition, an editorial project, seminars and research colloquiums, or a series of public events, workshops and more. Projects based around the CCA Collection are welcome. Interdisciplinary and collaborative practices are encouraged. Proposals must introduce an innovative curatorial approach that would constitute a contribution to the contemporary discourse on architecture. The selected candidate will implement his / her curatorial direction, become acquainted with the

CCA’s institutional knowledge and vision, explore the institution’s resources, library and collection holdings, to develop the proposed project. CCA will provide assistance and support to the realization of the selected project, according to the curatorial guidelines of the institution. The residency will take place between September 2013 and May 2014. It could be divided in several sessions. The project should be launched by Fall 2014.

Eligibility and Terms
All architects, journalists, designers, critics, historians and others, who were born on or after 1 January, 1978 are eligible for this program, regardless of citizenship and place of residence. The recipient will receive a maximum of $10,000 CAD covering travel, housing, and living expenses for a period of up to 3 months in Montréal (subject to the income tax laws of Canada and Québec). The scope of the project and specific timing of
the residency will be determined in consultation with the CCA. No more than one project per applicant will be accepted. Collective or collaborative projects are welcome, however only one person will be eligible for the residency to realize the project on behalf of the group. The languages in use at CCA are English and French. All submissions must be new projects, never published or realized before. The selected project will be realized by the CCA in accordance to the institutional calendar and priorities. The budget allocated for its realization will be fixed at the discretion of the CCA and in accordance with the scope of the proposed project.

Application requirements
Each application should be submitted online (only applications submitted through the CCA online application portal will be accepted) and comprise the following documents in English or in French, in three PDF files of up to 5 MB maximum:
1. A curatorial statement (1,500 to 2,000 words, with around 10 images), which must include a description of your project, and of your strategic rationale. The document must also include a work schedule;
2. A curriculum vitae detailing education, research and professional experience, working languages, and any other relevant information;
3. A representative selection of a few realized projects that convey an impression of your distinctive approach;
4. Contact information of 2 academics or professionals who are familiar with you and your work.

The CCA will select a project according to the following criteria: originality of the curatorial statement, relevance to architectural thinking and practice, expertise and trajectory of the candidate, feasibility and relevance with the curatorial direction and vision of the CCA. The CCA will notify all applicants in May 2013. The agreement will be effective only after the applicant has obtained all the authorizations and papers from the immigration authorities of both Québec and Canada that are required in order to be legally entitled to conduct the project in Canada.

Apply online by Monday, 15 April 2013 at:

Further information:

Defined tags for this entry: , , curator program,

REVIEW: Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media

Posted by Katerina Gkoutziouli • Sunday, February 10. 2013 • Category: Reviews & Resources

Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook. Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media. Cambridge, MA, London, England: The MIT Press, 2010.

by Katerina Gkoutziouli

“Rethinking Curating. Art After New Media” by Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook has been a much-awaited book for those working in the field of new media and curating. In 2000, the authors launched CRUMB [Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss], an ongoing online resource and mailing list for curating new media art, which operates as a place for research, networking and discussions on the subject. This book is a consequence of all those years of research and work in the field by the authors, coupled with the input from the CRUMB community.

Acknowledging the fact that new media art is a contested term on its own, the authors make clear from the very beginning that they seek to define new media art as a ‘set of behaviours’. Thus, they prefer to call it “Art after New Media”. Besides, their primary focus is on the behaviours/characteristics of the artworks and then later on the various media used for production, distribution and presentation. By doing so, they address the possibilities of discussing new media art in the broadest context of contemporary art as seen through previous moments in art history and through a strong illustration and analysis of projects, exhibitions and practitioners’ views on the subject. As Steve Dietz puts it in the introduction “it's not a book about new media, it is a book about art; it’s not a book about curating new media, it's about rethinking curating” [p. xiv].

The first part of the book is concerned with putting new media art in context by illuminating its characteristics and by reviewing the convergence points between older and newer art forms and methods. To understand what new media art is and how it behaves, one first needs to relate it to a broad set of theories and histories that not only respond to an art context but also to technological histories and other cultural forms. This book is not about the debate between Turing Land vs Duchamp Land as Lev Manovich has put it, but it is about finding and looking at the correlations between these two lands.

The concept of ‘The Art Formerly Known as “New Media”’, challenges the very notion of the new, almost provocatively questioning curators who are seduced by the novelty and not by the context that the artwork seeks to generate. Can new media art be interpreted by its behaviors and be explored through computability, connectivity and interactivity?

Having these characteristics in mind, the authors seek to unfold the particularities of two main issues for art, namely space and time. They discuss the analogy between the dematerialization of the artwork in the 60s and 70s (something that was then framed under the terms “conceptual art” and “systems based art”) and the immateriality of today’s art within networks and virtual spaces. The art space itself has extended and so has curatorial practice. Which brings us to the question of what the role of the curator is in a distributed networking condition? And how have the variable manifestations of space redefined curatorial decisions? The authors set out to explore not only how significant the space is for art but also how art can be transmitted and communicated in different contexts. “When the work is immaterial – framed and understood only through participation in the system itself- then the network of its distribution is highlighted”. [p.60]

On the other hand, space and material, of course, do exist in new media but we can trace the differences, for example, between real-time projects, the immateriality of code and algorithm on a computer screen and virtual reality projects. It becomes apparent then that the challenge for curators remains in bridging the gap between virtual and physical spaces.

In new media art, it is difficult to differentiate between time and space, as both seem to converge in the behaviours of the media such as liveness, connectivity and computability. The distinction between “real-time”, “time-based” and “live” is useful in order to comprehend the concept of time. For example, the concept of real-time is different in video art from other forms of new media art. As the writers put it: “Real-time for video means instant feedback…while… real-time for computers concerns instantaneity of processing and manipulation of data” [p.97]. Curators need to constantly reinvent methods in order to respond to the needs of an artwork and correspond to the ways that the institution, the audience and the exhibition itself interpret time.

The authors move on to an investigation of participative systems taking into consideration the interactive, participative and collaborative behaviours of new media art and they ask the question “Who is involved in the systems, and how?” [p.111] An analysis of new media art projects, such as Rafael Lozano Hemmer’s “Body Movies, Relational Architecture No.6” (2001) and Harrell Fletcher’s and Miranda July’s “Learning to love you More” (2002-) leads the discussion to the varying dynamics triggered by the use of different media. Participation is a tricky behaviour, as it might be prompted by the art, the media used, the institution, the gallery, the curator and most importantly by the audience. However, there are still various factors at play that keep redefining the levels of participation, a fact that turns curatorial activity itself into a hybrid practice.

The second part of the book looks into the practice of curating in terms of contexts, practices and processes. Starting with an account of the different working realities of a curator, such as working in a museum, working on both a freelance basis, and as part of an institution, the authors consider the varying ‘responsibilities’ of a curator. The work of a curator usually aims at creating a structure or a process. However, especially when it comes to new media, curating can be identified as having several experimental modes and exhibition models, which the authors seek to unravel in the following chapters.

The analysis that they put forward highlights not only the theoretical aspects of curating but also challenges the ways that curators and institutions work. They look at how new media art is perceived in terms of interpretation by the institution and the audience when it comes to the method of display. Providing an extensive list of examples, ranging from online platforms such as Tate Media and exhibitions such as 010101 at SFMOMA (2001), the authors discuss the challenges of new media when it is archived and presented online as interpretation material and when it is accompanied by interpretive material in physical spaces. The ways that new media art enters the museum are examined, as it is often through educational departments. Questions regarding audience reception and interpretation of new media art are also explored relating to themes of curatorial practice, such as how you build an audience for such practices and who your audience is when it comes to curating in online spaces.

Looking at theoretical issues (such as how a curator’s decision might be influenced by the art museum) as well as at practical issues (such as the technology required for a new media exhibition along with marketing, sponsorship, archiving and collecting) the authors explore the ways that new media art behaves in such contexts. The call for curators to acquire a crossover approach on the subject in order to incorporate this type of work in a museum framework is increasingly becoming urgent.

For this reason, other modes of curating are explored in the book, such as the festival, publishing, the public space and the lab among others. With well-documented case studies such as New Media Scotland, the V2_ Lab, Rotterdam, and independent art projects like Kate Rich’s “Feral Trade”, the authors attempt to investigate the experiments and the boundaries between art, research and technology. These strategies lead to questions such as how different audiences perceive art and how the curator operates within hybrid art contexts.

Furthermore, collaboration cannot be absent when we talk about new media art and it is a subject discussed in relation to other ways of curating, outside of the institutional context. In this light, artist-run organizations and alternative spaces that focus on working methods of learning and sharing serve as examples to highlight the collective processes undertaken between artists, curators and audience. Exploring the interplay between roles that range from ‘the artist as curator’, ‘the audience as curator’ to ‘no curator at all’, the authors seek to address the particularities of new media art, including interconnectedness and networking, that allow for these experimental structures.

Given the fact that new media art tends to commonly be described or categorized by its medium, this book sheds new light on the various approaches a curator might take, as well as on the methodologies of historicizing and creating contexts for such work to be explored, analyzed and reviewed.

Ultimately, the best reason to read this book is because it puts new media art in context. It serves as an insightful compilation of projects, exhibitions, and theories on new media that might have otherwise gone uncontextualized. “Rethinking Curating” does not aim to serve as a media-specific book since new media art is an unstable field in constant evolution, but as a curatorial handbook that provides a comprehensive analysis of curatorial practice while creating a semantic bridge between older and newer art forms.

Defined tags for this entry: , , ,

Review: Esse arts + opinions: Be Nice to Your Curator

Posted by Katerina Gkoutziouli • Thursday, February 23. 2012 • Category: Reviews & Resources

Esse arts + opinions Magazine: Be Nice to Your Curator, No 72 - Curators - Spring/Summer 2011

Contributions by curators Sylvette Babin, Sophia Krzys Acord, Paul Ardenne, Jean-Philippe Uzel, Louise Déry, Nathalie Desmet, Michèle Thériault, Marie-Eve Beaupré.

Last year’s spring/summer issue of ESSE magazine was entirely devoted to curatorial practice. What does it mean to be a curator nowadays? How does curatorial practice evolve in different settings and structures? How valid are the criticisms against the role of the curator? Esse’s issue Be Nice to Your Curator presents an array of insightful essays written by curators and prompts the reader to reflect upon the enduring role of the curator. However, since curatorial practice is not confined to exhibitions, for this special issue Marie-Eve Beaupré has been invited to intervene through comments you can find in red ink between the texts. Besides the linguistic ambiguities that the word “curator” might pose across different languages, for example, curator in English, commissaire in French, the role of the curator seems to appeal to a larger set of criticisms and speculations.

Sophia Krzys Acord in her text “Guest Curating in the museum: Lost in Translation?” explores the risks of guest curating highlighting the different ends of museum curatorial practice versus independent curating. Acord unravels the limitations of such collaboration, which might lead to conventional outcomes with respect to audience engagement and the art itself. Looking at curating from a sociological perspective, Acord investigates the process of the production of knowledge within institutional settings and in relation to independent curating.

Paul Ardenne in his text “Curating Exhibitions: An Evolving and Ambiguous Function” takes a more radical stance on curators by exposing the levels of credibility of popular star-curators, who have more or less shaped a debatable but a rock-hard landscape to act in. Seeking to map the crisis experienced in curating nowadays, Ardenne further elaborates on the current institutional imperative for curated shows by artists and provides a critique for what makes a great exhibition in a chaotic art system led by dynamics other than of the art itself.

Jean-Philippe Uzel’s “The Author-Curator and His Critics” starts off with the well-known and persistent criticism against curators for having replaced the artists. Through an interesting history of curatorial criticism, from Daniel Buren in the sixties to Paul Ardenne and artist Anton Vidokle in 2010, Uzel draws a coherent parallel between the criticisms of contemporary art itself and the practice of curating.

Louise Déry elaborates on the concept of the “love exposed” curator in a more romantic fashion analysing diligently the responsibilities of the curator in her text “Curator, Your Love’s on Display”. Déry discusses the tensions and conflicts among institutions, curators and collectors seeking to reflect on the quality of the artistic practice as well as the significance of communicating art through exhibitions that foreground knowledge and thought.

Nathalie Desmet in her “Institutional Recognition and New Curatorial Practices” explores the strategies used by institutions and curators with the purpose of constructing a new self for institutions. Desmet reports on the concept of the “New Institutionalism” and discusses its problematics by identifying the new trends in both institutional and curatorial practices and by providing critical examples.

Last but not least, Michèle Thériault’s “The ephemeral as an agent of reflexive inquiry” examines the potential of the ephemeral in the production of critical and reflective environments. Thériault reviews her curatorial practice within an academic setting, that of the university art gallery and presents three case studies where the ephemeral allows for experimental shifts in the role of artists, curators and institutions.

On the whole Be Nice to Your Curator gives readers an insider view of international curatorial practice and reconsiders the status of the curator today. There are many examples of exhibitions with supportive visual material of artworks and methods of display that are valuable for anyone interested in curating.

The magazine is available in both French and English. You can get a sneak preview here and you can purchase it here

Defined tags for this entry: commissaire, , ,

Curating in a new media age

Posted by Katerina Gkoutziouli • Monday, January 2. 2012 • Category: Musings

Despite the fact that new media art might be still treated as a new and recent phenomenon of art practice, the story of new media can be traced back as early as the sixties. Artists such as John Cage, Allan Kaprow, Roy Ascott, E.A.T. have been preoccupied with themes including interaction, multimedia, electronics, kineticism, cybernetics and technology, and so have curators and theorists such as Marshall McLuhan, Jasia Reichardt, Lucy Lippard and Jack Burnham, among others. The context for artists, theorists and curators alike has been changing since that time, when this type of work formed a new territory for exploration in the arts. There was not only a change in creative language, but also a change in aesthetics and attitudes that would effect the ways we perceive artworks, exhibitions and cultural production in general.

One of the landmark exhibitions was €œLes Immateriaux€ curated by Jean-Francois Lyotard at the Centre Pompidou, Paris in 1985. Lyotard had already written his seminal book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979) in which he examined the changes in human condition effected by technological developments in communications, mass media and computer science. The exhibition sought to present the repercussions of such a restructure of society and culture and also to construct an emergent space filled with emergent concepts. Nathalie Heinich explains €œPaintings and sculptures were still present, of course, but became part of a much larger set of information made up of signs, words, sounds and technical artefacts€ in a labyrinth-like exhibition space. Additionally, the notion of “immateriality” was introduced at a point when computers and interfaces were not user-friendly, a fact that also highlighted the latent problematic aspects of technology in art making and curating.∗ Curating here may have functioned as a philosophical quest authored by Lyotard, which in spite of its drawbacks has opened the door to a new era of exhibition making.

Moving forward to the mid-nineties, we can see the next wave of artists and curators engaging with new media under a new set of conditions again. Since the term “new media” is a very loose one, I would like at this point to refer to Olia Lialina’s description of new media: “a field of study that has developed around cultural practices with the computer playing a central role as the medium for production, storage and distribution”. However, it still seems that new media art cannot be contextualized under a certain canon because of its hybrid forms, and there is still a need for new media art practitioners - be they artists, curators, theorists- to provide a contextual umbrella for new media practices to be discussed.

From a curatorial perspective, new media art has brought new challenges to contemporary curating with its immaterial nature, its interactive qualities, its computer-based character and its constant developments. Anyone working with or keeping track of the shifts in new media will have noticed that new media art can be “web-based projects, sound events, virtual reality installations, mobile cellular, or PDA projects, and practices- conceptual art practices, networked-based practices, software coding or sampling” as Sarah Cook has outlined.∗∗ It is hard to permit the flexible and dynamic character of new media art to fully articulate in an exhibition space since most new media artworks tend to defy physicality. The need for new curatorial expressions to embrace the concepts of new media is becoming more and more apparent in the variety of exhibition formats.

Curating in online contexts has been a prevalent mode for web-based art projects. A rewind through the recent history of new media art will remind us that the dawn of the World Wide Web proved beneficial to web artists not only because of the new possibilities of the medium, but also because it allowed a certain degree of autonomy from institutions and curators altogether. An early example of such an exhibition was the project Desktop Is (1997) initiated by artist Alexei Shulgin for which he gathered desktop screenshots from 67 artists and hosted them online for public viewing. The developments the World Wide Web brought about at that time were equally important for curators. The novel notion of distribution and communication meant that not only artworks could be distributed but also curatorial practice. The “instantaneity in contemporary culture” (Charlie Gere, 2008)∗∗∗ was and still is evident and emergent in many distributed artworks and exhibitions on the web. For example, the exhibition Beyond Interface (1998) curated by Steve Dietz at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. On the archival website of the exhibition, one can find Steve Dietz'€™s quote, which reads: “This online exhibition presents a simple proposition. There is art that is created to "be" on the Net. After that, it gets more complex very quickly. Beyond Interface explores some of the complicating issues but does not attempt a comprehensive investigation… the main goals of Beyond Interface are to present outstanding examples of net-based artistic activity, and to try and begin to better understand and appreciate this art and its context.” Steve Dietz is very conscious about his early venture by pointing out the uncertainties of curating web-specific exhibitions. Nevertheless, that is mostly the case when something new is coming out. By laying emphasis on the art and its context, Dietz attempts to highlight the dynamic of web-based artworks, being fluid and hybrid and also the Web as a space for art production, curating and cultural interaction. However, while distributed curatorial practice on the web might fulfill the democratic and decentralised expectations of its medium, it also could ensure the work is easily confined to a specialist audience online.

Curating new media art in “offline” contexts is another main method of presenting such work. From the eighties onwards, many different spaces and structures have flourished to support new media art activities. New media centres such as ZKM in Germany, The Banff Centre in Canada and FACT in England; festivals, like Ars Electronica and Transmediale; galleries such as the Furtherfield Gallery in London; and labs such as the V2_ Institute for the Unstable Media in the Netherlands, among others. Contemporary art museums have been quite wary of new media art, with some exceptions such as SFMOMA, the Whitney Museum of American Art, and Baltic. Simply stated, the visibility of new media art exhibitions in museums is low compared to mainstream contemporary art shows. The exhibition Database Imaginary (The Banff Center, Alberta, Canada, 2004) curated by Sarah Cook, Steve Dietz and Anthony Kiendl included works from 1971 to 2004. The exhibition sought to explore the idea of the database as an evolving phenomenon in human culture, featuring works such as Hans Haacke’s “Visitors’ Profile” (1971), a questionnaire about contemporary events that was distributed to museum visitors to a group exhibition in Milwaukee and Graham/Mongrel’s “” (2004), a Perl software-code poem based on the 1792 poem London by William Blake. Database Imaginary attempts to establish connections between old and new art forms that share a common ground. Such exhibitions provide a space, firstly, to reflect on the continuum of ideas taking “shape” through a range of mediums and secondly, to discover the correlations that new media art shares with its precursors. The idea of creating narratives that are not fragmentary and follow the trail of art development also shows the dynamic of curatorial practice itself. If museums refrain from showing new media art by being skeptical about the qualities of such art in the course of art history, then exhibitions, such as Database Imaginary, provide for the art references that institutions may lack.

There is no doubt that there is not a singular practice or canon of curating new media art and that is primarily triggered by the hybridism of the art itself. Christiane Paul (2008) has argued that ‘Because new media art is more process-oriented than object-oriented, it is important to convey the underlying concept of this process to the audience’.∗∗∗∗ New media art curators need to be constantly resourceful in order to create evocative spaces and experiences. As new media art gradually enters the museum doors, curatorial strategies need not only communicate the art but also the fact that the exhibition itself is a process.

∗ See Nathalie Heinich (2009) “Les Immatériaux Revisited: Innovation in Innovations” and Sarah Cook (2008) “Immateriality and its discontents. An overview of main models and Issues for Curating New Media” in Christiane Paul (ed.), New Media in the White Cube and Beyond. Curatorial Models for Digital Art. University of California Press, pp 26 - 49

∗∗ Sarah Cook (2008), “Immateriality and Its Discontents. An Overview of Main Models and Issues for Curating New Media”, in Christiane Paul (ed.), New Media in the White Cube and Beyond. Curatorial Models for Digital Art. University of California Press, p. 27

∗∗∗ Charlie Gere (2008). “New media Art and the Gallery in the Digital Age” in Christiane Paul (ed.), New Media in the White Cube and Beyond. Curatorial Models for Digital Art. University of California Press, p. 23

∗∗∗∗ Christiane Paul (2008), “Challenges for a Ubiquitous Museum. From the White Cube to the Black Box and Beyond”, in Christiane Paul (ed.), New Media in the White Cube and Beyond. Curatorial Models for Digital Art. University of California Press, p. 65
Defined tags for this entry: ,

Where to From Here? The Professional Challenges of Emerging Curators

Posted by April Steele • Tuesday, October 4. 2011 • Category: Musings

The professional aspect of being a curator has been a popular discussion topic of late. As an emerging independent curator and a recent graduate myself, I find the discussion to be a crucial one, and the professional and developmental challenges faced by newcomers to the field are constant questions posed by myself and my peers. In discussion with my colleagues regarding the challenges faced by emerging curators, several themes appeared. At the forefront, unsurprisingly, were concerns regarding the lack of funding available. Meager funding and the limited budgets provided for exhibitions present challenges including the inability to access artists who can request higher artists’ fees; difficulties providing adequate fees for those artists willing to participate; and the problem of finding funding that doesn’t conflict with funding provided to artists. Often, the funding that is available is entirely out of reach for emerging curators at the beginning of their career. For example, the Canada Council for the Arts offers project grants and professional assistance to curators, though applicants must have already produced an independent body of work, have had at least three public presentations of work in a professional context over a three year period, have maintained an independent professional practice for at least three years, and have produced at least three exhibitions or publications. These stipulations are usually prohibitive and discouraging for curators fresh to the field without bankable experience – a situation emerging artists applying for grants will be familiar with.

Often working outside the framework and support of an institutional budget, emerging curators are faced with the difficulties of reconciling their curatorial direction with the realities imposed by insufficient funding. A lack of salaried work and over-dependence on project-by-project funding often forces emerging curators to take on ‘day jobs’, and the challenges of balancing a curatorial practice with other work are not inconsiderable. Of course, insufficient funding is not a problem faced only by curators (emerging or not) and obviously extends to the arts in general, which is a much larger issue that requires addressing.

Beyond funding, another problem is posed by the dearth of professional resources for young curators. Unfortunately, few resources exist for emerging curators, who are often caught in limbo between education and career, without institutional resources. Some excellent resources do exist: this site and IKT (though with IKT members must apply and have their applications supported by two existing members) are among the few highly accessible international resources for curators online. Another excellent resource is the Curatorial Toolkit for emerging curators assembled by Karen Love and 2010 Legacies Now in British Columbia, which provides an in-depth practical guide to curatorial practices, with topics including the role of the curator, researching a concept, securing a venue and funding, budgeting and fundraising, exhibition programming, media relations and audience development. Additionally, a number of publications in print address curatorial practice, though the majority focus on broader curatorial theory rather than specific, practical professional issues.

Despite these resources, gaps obviously exist in professional support available to emerging curators. In Canada, for example, the Canadian Artists Representation/le Front des Artistes Canadiens (CARFAC) provides legal assistance, health and safety advice and other professional development resources to professional artists, however an equivalent umbrella organization for curators still does not exist. Some advocacy and legal frameworks do exist: the LaSalle River Accord (1999-2000) and the Toronto Independent Curators Network Proposed Fee Schedule (1999) set recommended fee schedules for independent curators including writing fees. However, as Love notes, curatorial fees in Canada still amount to annual incomes that are well below the rates recommended by the Canadian Museums Association and salaries provided to curators by most institutions.

Of course, any discussion of the challenges faced by emerging curators must address the recent proliferation of curatorial programs at the university level. In an increasingly corporate world that prioritizes concrete skills and quantifiable qualifications, and where higher education supposedly provides some assurance of gainful employment, emerging curators are increasingly seeking validation through (often pricey) curatorial degrees. As a result, university programs in curatorial studies are flourishing internationally. A primary concern expressed by my peers is that university programs often do not offer the hands-on experience and direct involvement with artists that a self-directed curatorial education in the field may. While many students take it upon themselves to put forth their own projects and proposals outside of their curriculum, those who do not are often unprepared for the practical realities of a curatorial practice upon graduation. Many programs seem to be attempting to bridge this gap with mandatory internships and student placements in galleries or museums, however there are still the realities of proposing and mounting exhibitions on one’s own that must be learned. In the end the onus is on the student to fully participate in the curatorial field outside the classroom. Additionally, since university curatorial programs are relatively new and many established curators don’t necessarily have the same degrees, there sometimes exists a professional divide between the old guard and the new, and occasionally some doubt regarding the taught skills of new graduates (perhaps justifiably, given the aforementioned lack of practical experience in graduates). A new difficulty now perhaps lies in presenting a university degree from a curatorial program as an asset and not a liability.

Establishing oneself in any career certainly has its challenges, and as training programs blossom and numbers swell, curators, face some unique obstacles. However, the ways in which emerging curators are navigating these obstacles and presenting new alternatives is heartening. Hopefully, we will see a continued push for the development of new, accessible resources and a reassessment of the funding available for curators, to further the development of this profession and provide opportunities to present new and critical material. And hopefully, we will see a continuation of this discussion as new ideas are presented. We need better curatorial programs, more strategic funding opportunities earlier on in emerging curators’ careers, and more professional associations to guide us. Let’s work towards this together and make it a reality.

Defined tags for this entry: , ,

Review: What Makes A Great Exhibition?

Posted by Sophie Williamson • Tuesday, May 24. 2011 • Category: Reviews & Resources

What Makes A Great Exhibition?

Edited by Paula Marincola, Director of the Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative (PEI).

Essays by Glenn Adamson, Paola Antonelli, Carlos Basualdo, Iwona Blazwick, Lynne Cooke, Thelma Golden, Mary Jane Jacob, Jeffrey Kipnis, Paula Marincola, Detlef Mertins, Mark Nash, Ralph Rugoff, Ingrid Schaffner and Robert Storr.

Supposedly we don’t judge a book by its cover, and with this publication we should give its title the same respect. The Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative has continually challenged arts professionals to devise exhibitions of high artistic merit by posing them with this deceptively simple sounding question: What makes a great exhibition?

The dialogue surrounding exhibitions is invariably based on theme and content. Having recently evaluated MA curating courses, I was surprised to find that syllabi too usually focus on the conceptual development of exhibitions rather than the practical tools of creating them.

Seeking to provoke this reflection beyond their direct constituency, Marincola poses this question of ‘what makes a great exhibition’ to fourteen highly distinguished curators and leading professionals in the field in an attempt to uncover the instinctive considerations and processes that they have developed through experience. Marincola also seeks to illustrate how curatorial objectives collide with the reality of practicalities in exhibition making. Refreshingly, the editor realizes that as contemporary art exhibitions attract larger and more diverse audiences this is a debate that should be readily accessible. The book therefore allows a rare behind the scenes look at exhibition making for a readership that reaches beyond curating professionals.

Each contributor responds to the question from different perspectives and experiences. Ranging from past Documenta curators and Venice Biennale commissioners, to directors of some of the world’s most prestigious museums and influential galleries, the contributors have been responsible for an impressive canon of important exhibitions. Each of these exhibitions has been individually evaluated through official texts, publications, and events, as well as through the press and media. In this anthology however, Marincola asks the contributors to think about common denominators shared in the successes - or indeed failures - of these projects, how they are produced, and their concepts formed.

Marincola has outlined the expanded complexities of the publication title question in a series of leading sub questions. These relate to all elements of exhibition development and realisation, such as marrying exhibition concept with artist's intentions; placing of works in relation to each other as well as the architectural framework; formal presentation and supporting text; catalogue and legacy; and the varying roles of and relationships between curator, institution and artist within these processes of decision making.

Outlined on the cover, Marincola reveals an expanded list of questions that she had posed to the contributors. Printed also on an inserted bookmark, the reader is prompted to continually refer back to these points of interest. Despite the authority of the essays, this transparency in the guiding questions of the publication allows the reader to participate in the dialogue and encourages us to create our own responses.

The breadth of the subject matter creates a dilemma for those attempting responses; the contributors’ styles vary considerably. Some answer in theory only, without relating to examples. This could run the risk of vague statements, sounding more like an instruction manual, the ‘how-to’ of curating. However, for example, Robert Storr's thoroughness hits the nail on the head with each of his poignant statements, referring to issues that those working in the industry are all too familiar with. He highlights the curator's pivotal role in balancing the pressures from artists, institutions, gallerists, and so on, as well as practical limitations of budget, space and those things outside of our control, whilst staying true to the original curatorial concept of the exhibition.

Others use media-specific examples to illustrate their answers. Mark Nash's exploration of the difficulties of curating film and video (as opposed to programming), is in balanced contrast to Glenn Adamson’s discussion on craft, and Ingrid Schaffner composes an inspiringly in-depth investigation into the experiential impact of wall text and labeling.

Architectural space is an underlying issue throughout the anthology of essays. This is extended to place and locality as Iwona Blazwick reflects on a century of exhibitions at Whitechapel Gallery in London.

Balancing the influences of conflicting interests is another issue that surfaces throughout. Ralph Rugoff’s debate on group shows is particularly thought-provoking; posing the question of whether a group show of bad art can only be a bad show and whether it is possible to make a great show with only great art works. Carlos Basualdo’s criticism of the lack of critical context to influential biennials and megashows holds an interesting dialogue with Thelma Golden’s essay on the politics of ethnically specific exhibitions.

For me, the key highlights were the moments when the authors directly encapsulate their answer to the question - for example, Mark Nash's poetic summary that 'the notion of a series of emotional and intellectual encounters that are montaged to form an organised, thematic sequence is at the heart of every great exhibition and every great experience of an exhibition'.

The breadth of the publication title allows for practical as well as emotive and personal responses. The contributors’ texts are interesting insights into how they individually view their role in the creation of an exhibition, and act as introductions to much larger discussions. The further debate that it promises to lead to is enticing; no doubt Philadelphia Exhibitions Initiative will continue to thrash out these questions that underpin exhibition-making in future publications and events. I look forward to following their developments.

Defined tags for this entry: , , ,

For What and For Whom?

Posted by Michelle Kasprzak • Saturday, October 4. 2008 • Category: Musings

Increasingly open ways of participating in the selection and display of content are blossoming. Harnessing the ubiquity of internet access, the Brooklyn Museum are able to produce Click!, a "crowd-curated" photography exhibition. Weblogs, like FFFFOUND!, allow invited internet users to select pictures worthy of scrutiny from the tonnage of imagery available on the web. Taking the semi-randomness of allowing web users to filter content as a model, the Kemper Museum in Kansas City recently permitted museum visitors to choose items from the collection to be displayed in an exhibition entitled "Putting the U in Curator".

In each of these situations, the word curating is used to describe actions taken by members of the public who would not normally self-define as curators. This situation is similar to the one described by Clay Shirky in his recent book, Here Comes Everybody, about the definition of a journalist: "So long as publishing was expensive, journalists were rare." (p. 71) So long as there were relatively few museums and galleries, art curators were rare. On the surface, it appears that this rarity is eroding, not because of an explosion in curatorial jobs and projects, but because there is an explosion in the way the term is being used. "Curating" is increasingly being used to describe an expanding body of activity in terms of new platforms and materials, but remains focused on the act of the curator as editor or selector. This movement towards the application of the term curator to bloggers choosing images for their blogs, and to museum visitors who are invited to move a painting from the vault to the gallery wall, and to the person who votes on images in a web browser, expands the notion of a curator at the same time that it contracts it.

There are two distinct types of activity happening in this expanded area of definition. One is a singular act of temporary deputisation as a curator. This type of singular activity fits with the example of the Kemper Museum show, where one random museum visitor was selected to choose one piece from the collection, and then this same activity was repeated with a different museum visitor, until the walls were full. The other type of activity is a crowd-generated model, wherein group choices are tallied and a final result evolves from popularity of particular items, as in the Brooklyn Museum example. Both of these cases highlight the selection and editing processes that are part of a curatorial role.

Language is living and the meaning of words and expressions evolve over time and with use. There is no doubt that there is value to opening up and demystifying the editing and selection processes most typically known to be domain of the art curator. If this strategy is properly applied, it is possible to encourage anyone who is interested to develop a deeper aesthetic sense, to feel more closely linked to culture and heritage institutions, and to develop stronger ideas of what culture means to them. But if this is how the common use of the word curator is evolving, what is lost?

To speak very broadly, when looking at any collection of items, one can ask: "For what and for whom?" Why select, edit, and group things together? Collections and curated exhibitions are about creating links, developing narratives, and composing responses to perennial questions and ideas. These collections and groupings are then presented in ways so that they will effectively reach audiences. Often erroneously perceived as the skulduggery of the marketer, it is the work of curators and all cultural workers to perform extensive research on who is or could be the audience for a particular exhibit or collection, and what would constitute an effective display for this audience. Just as a priest isn't simply someone who says Mass and a doctor isn't simply someone who taps your knee with a hammer, a curator isn't just someone who selects images. The larger role of the curator encompasses the creation of links to other creative dialogues, writing and contextualising work, developing the physical (or virtual) exhibition sequencing and flow, and perhaps most important of all, nurturing a relationship with the practitioners who make the work and understanding the narrative inherent in their career trajectory. (Or, in the case of those who work with historical collections, having a scholarly background on the movements/time periods/artists represented in these collections). What can and will be lost in the reduction of the term curator to mean one who clicks on a thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon is that sense of for what and for whom.

Is it possible to build a notion of for what and for whom into the singular model and the crowd model, and is that an appropriate aim? Or do these models serve the very specific purpose of magnifying the intricacies of these selection processes? I would argue that building larger cultural narratives, and developing clear intentions towards an audience are functions too important to ignore. Behind each of these very important additional tasks of the curator is an understanding of intentions and a burden of responsibility towards the public, artists, and colleagues.

Perhaps the intentions of those working with either old models or new are too divergent to reconcile. In interviews about the Brooklyn Museum crowd-curated exhibition Click! on, a photoblogger describes traditional modes of curating as about "judgment and exclusion" and that it allows "only a certain group of people to have their work seen", whilst a professional curator working in an institution characterises the crowd mode of curating as allowing people to act "less as curators and more as participants" and another curator described how the the exhibition might undermine the educational aspect of a museum's mandate.

In a very direct statement on the matter, blogger Jason Kottke says of his FFFFOUND! project: "I would argue that these sites showcase a new form of art curating. The pace is faster, you don't need a physical gallery or museum, and you don't need to worry about crossing arbitrary boundaries of style or media. Nor do you need to concern yourself with questions like "is this person an artist or an outsider artist?" If a particular piece is good or compelling or noteworthy, in it goes." Were these thoughts to be developed a little further, Kottke might have found that the terms "good", "compelling", and "noteworthy" are problematic, and the use of those terms in a cavalier way indicates a lack of consideration for who both the audience and the users are, or could be. In "Here Comes Everybody" Shirky also notes that: "As with the printing press, the loss of professional control will be bad for many of society's core institutions, but it's happening anyway. The comparison with the printing press doesn't suggest we are entering a bright new future - for a hundred years after it started, the printing press broke more things than it fixed, plunging Europe into a period of intellectual and political chaos that ended only in the 1600s." (p. 73). Will the notion of flexibility espoused by evangelists such as Kottke break more things than it fixes? It will certainly stretch, if not completely break, the definitions of noteworthy, good, and compelling, as well as curating.

In these open forums for participation, the very arbitrariness and randomness that is held up a virtue also ensures that there will never be a common vision or consensus on direction and intention. While this doesn't undermine the value of online or offline filtering by the public as an educational or research vehicle, it is erroneous to imagine it could take the place of a specialist waking up every day and asking "for what and for whom?" (before putting the "u" in curator). Rather than muddying our terms, the way forward is to identify and clarify what the purpose of singular or collaborative methods of filtering are, and refine how to make these methods more useful and meaningful to the participants.
Reference links:
(1) Brooklyn Museum, Click! (Further information:
(2) FFFFOUND! Commentary:
(3) Kemper exhibition, Putting the U in Curator:
(4) Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody:
This essay was included in the latest issue of Vague Terrain, guest edited by the fine folks at CONT3XT.NET.
Defined tags for this entry: , , , , , ,

Open Source Curating

Posted by Michelle Kasprzak • Saturday, October 20. 2007 • Category: Musings

I've noted of late that the term "open source" gets bandied about quite a bit, not just in technology-related industries, but also increasingly in the art world. To be sure, some systems in the art world, including curatorial processes, are very open and transparent. Is it stretching it a bit, however, to relate this transparency and receptivity in the art world to the "open source" movement, a crusade mostly associated with software that you can download for free and possibly manipulate before sharing your evolution of the product with others?

Open source (appropriately, as defined by Wikipedia) " a set of principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge. The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration."

OK, so that's our basic definition. The Wikipedia article goes on to state: "The open source model of operation can be extended to open source culture in decision making, which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development [...] ." If we agree with this, that does seem to answer our question about the use of the term - it can be applied as a model to nearly anything. What, then, have been the interesting examples of late that cause me to go trawling on Wikipedia for definitions of open source? Let's look at them one by one:

Continue reading "Open Source Curating"

Defined tags for this entry: , , , ,