Storr, Kipnis and Schaffner

First and foremost I’d like to admit my shameful underestimation of curators and what they do. After reading the first text,  “Show and Tell” by Rob Storr, the realization hit me hard.  Storr’s meticulous break down of the curator’s or exhibition-makers role was an eye opener. Admittedly, my closest experience with a curator was through a juried student show in which I gave my art to a student/assistant along with instructions on how to orientate my work. But on the contrary my participation in student shows allowed me to be in an environment where artists were actively and freely involved in coordinating the space how ever they wanted. It would seem as if Storr would despise the very idea expect in certain contexts. He states a tremendous amount of decisions like lighting, labeling, brochures and more should be finalized  by the exhibition-makers only. He goes on to affirm that  “On their own, exhibitions makers have diverse degrees in exposure to and command of these areas and at some point or another all will need to rely on the expertise of specialists for technical advice, as well as for imaginative solutions to specific problems.” (Storr,15). I was a bit miffed at the fact that he wanted to whole heartedly deter artists away from being involved with the exhibition making process. But in retrospect it does make sense. If an individual is well gifted in cooking a delicious steak that does not give them the right to tell the butcher how prepare it. That is not their field of expertise-at least that’s my take on the  dynamics between curator and artist.

Another interesting aspect about all three of the articles is their mutual distaste towards any device, catalogue, or description that give information away on the art work. Storr mentions how the sound device can influence the viewer to look at specific parts of piece rather than the whole entity. While Jeffery Kipnis negative (also hilarious) perspective towards exhibitions educating their audience and leading them to “get it” ruins the experience between the artwork and viewer. And lastly, Ingrid Schaffner describes instances where labels are purposely removed.  Their angst (mostly Storr and Kipnis) reminds me of my encounter with Adam Ball’s large squared intricately cut pieces of paper last week at the Goss Michael Foundation. As I closely observed the mixtures and layers of black, gray and white squiggly lines my eyes automatically searched for a label or description. What only remained were the white walls of the exhibition behind the art . I did find the descriptions much later but in that moment I was left to my own devices as a viewer to seriously interpret what the artist was trying to convey. To deconstruct the art and actually work for its meaning. It makes me wonder though, would artists prefer limiting the amount of information about their work? Will that indeed help the overall experience regardless of what a curator, not all, may think?

Adam Ball,   2014

"Genus"

  235 X 285

Charcoal on handcut paper