According to Maria Lind: ‘the better curatorial programs help students acquire a discourse with which to talk about curating and a good network which at best becomes a peer group, however no program has the resources or facilities to help form a method, which is the most essential part of this applied form of articulation’, that is curatorial practice.
In creating a personal methodology for my wish to work comfortably within complexity, I looked into curricular development in primary education. While some academics advocate the introduction of experiential learning to post-secondary education and even doctoral research, this type of learning is, not unsurprisingly, best developed and described for the early stages of education. Based on ‘van de Akker’s Web’ for innovating curricular development, I created a similar web translated to fit the conditions of a curatorial or artistic practice. Within the context of the ‘sandbox studio’ research project, I subject this diagram as a temporary structure to tests by my peers and cross-disciplinary proffesionals. The diagram intends to step away from linear project-based development, as learning and creative practice do not reflect this linearity. Although many questions in the diagram may be familiar and may occur in several parts of conventional project development, the diagram visualises how these questions hang together, how they are interdependent on each other. In this way the diagram allows one to start from unforeseen angles while remaining able to assess the process.
Using the diagram:
The diagramconsists of two different elements – the heart (vision) and the radials (aspects). The ‘vision’ for a mapped project is determined by the user of the diagram, this can be any more or less defined ideology, concept, feeling or intention to guide a project. The different radials of the web represent a gradual scale to map ‘focus’ in the direction of one of the named aspects. The related questions (shown in one version of the map) help to thinkabouthow to outline the ‘focus’ of a project or an activity onto the different radials of the web. The aspects opposite each other in the diagram are oppositions or are interdependent. The aspects in approximation to each other are related.
Once filled out, the shape created is that of a ‘bubble’, (filled with the breath of its creator). Asin nature, the most sustainable bubble is perfectly spherical and thus directs the shape a project should strive for. Any humps and dents in the non-spherical shape can now be acted upon. Mapping activities on the diagram, instead of setting a project out beforehand, slowly results in the collection of these activities adding up to a project.
This text has been cited, edited, reprinted, cut and translated in many different contexts. Its earliest version took form as a talk at the conference called by the Southern Female Rights Union in 1970, later it has been written down and often published without permission. Out of respect for Jo’s intellectual property, I will not copy her text onto my blog but offer you a window to her website which I will use for something I would call reverse-referencing. Rather most than sometimes things we read do not have a connection to just one single line of thought. In fact, to see thought as a line or a linear structure can in fact already be problematic for some types of knowledge. Referencing and footnoting might for that reason be among my favourite types of (academic) output. The ways these texts flow through the written output are hardly visible but for the writer, let’s try that in reverse for this text.
On the 23th of November Chapter Thirteen hosted a lecture by Nancy Adajania and Ranjit Hoskote. Benjamin Fallon, part of Chapter Thirteen, introduces the intention of inviting these speakers to Glasgow with an explanation on why Chapter Thirteen was founded in the first place, to counter the perfunctory institutional methods and to include new voices in this process. Nancy Adajania and Ranjit Hoskote research exactly these processes in what they call the nth field, the non-static complex transcultural exchange.
On the 28th of October, I attended a workshop by Ana S. Gonzalez Rueda titled: ‘Unknowing and other ways of learning with art’. The workshop brought the material of her PhD thesis (Radical Pedagogies and Curating) to a practical environment in the form of a workshop at the CCA. Gonzalez’s main focus was on how the pedagogical is inherent in the exhibition space rather than something imposed on it. The aim Gonzalez defined for her PhD was to supply the tools from ‘the educational’ for people operating in the exhibition space (curators and artists), functioning as the mediator between pedagogical theory and the theory and praxis of exhibition making. This process is specifically interesting to approach within the CCA (Glasgow), as this institution doesn’t have an ‘educational department’ (or another organ with a different name but similar mediating activities). Gonzalez’s approach to the outline of this research, by using the workshop-form, gave way to others in the process of defining and testing the line of thinking which is daring for a PhD research but an inseparable practice when researching the educational.
The ‘Word/Mouth body’ was formed for the event; this attracted curiosity and opened up the dialogue to interested wider audiences. The body consisted of the group, the artist and our methods of communication. The group communicated about our process and ideas through our network. The identity was also followed through on Instagram as a platform as our main social platform. The instagram functioned as a way to test and share ideas or references that did not have feature in the publication and as a way to visualise how these ideas were flowing between the members of the group.
Sarah Pierce (b. 1968) Lives and works in Dublin. Since 2003, Sarah Pierce has used the term The Metropolitan Complex to describe her art. Despite its institutional resonance, this title does not signify an organisation. Instead, it demonstrates Pierce’s broad understanding of cultural work, articulated through methods that open up to the personal and incidental. Characterised as a way to play with a shared neuroses of finding one’s place (read complex in the Freudian sense), whether a specific locality or a wider set of circumstances that frame interaction, her art considers forms of gathering, both historical examples and those she initiates. (…) The processes of research and presentation that Pierce undertakes highlight a continual renegotiation of the terms for making art: the potential for dissent and self-determination, the slippages between individual work and institution, and the proximity of past artworks. (…) Pierce has described her work as part of a feminist legacy, “deeply committed to a radical turn away from the cult of the artist and individual achievements towards the signs and symbols of a system of art making.”