Curatorial Concioussness – level up! ⬆️

The statement

Approaching ‘every project’ as an ecology one could hardly still call it ‘a project’. By breaking with common aspects of the project, such as its temporality and its input-outcome relationship, my practice produces forms that are more open and comfortable towards complexity and confusion but are at the same time more compatible with the many ways in which we learn, think and play. My process balances tactics like getting into a flow and getting lost, as I see them as each other’s productive counterpart.

I am an artist with a curatorial practice, adopting the role of the curator to directly fall from it, which gives my practice a crossover characteristic. I am committed to creating horizontal structures that facilitate collaborative spheres for cross-disciplinary learning. Spheres, in which I focus on ties and bounds, information and resources, to make my practice inherently sustainable rather than concentrated on its intrinsic logic.

Informed by an interest in learning innovations, grounded in the experience of being educated within an innovative curriculum that formed my awareness about the act of learning itself, I employ pedagogical tactics and theories within my process. This usually results in long-term investments in certain ideas and subjects resulting in a doubled practice where learning is both the producing and that which is produced. To communicate this doubled outcome, I develop ways, materials and tools that feed into new investments. As such, I appropriate methods coming from social design, but having them informed by non-linear structures we encounter around us, like digital networks, chaotic processes to form playful tactics. The array of forms resulting from this approach, deploy action-based, discursive and performative techniques that support and sustain this ecological process.

Version: 2018.05.01

Nanopolitics Handbook (2013)

A new readinglist 📚🦑

(under construction)

    • de Certeau, M. Practice of everyday life. (1992 ) at least: ‘General Introduction’ and ‘Making Do: Uses and Tactics’
    • Sloterdijk, Bubbels (1998)
    • Nanopolotics Handbook (2013)
    • Lather, P. Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts Toward a Double(d) Science (2007)
    • Castenedra, Teachings of Don Juan
    • Maitland, S. A Book of Silence
    • Jacques Rancière, “The Aesthetic Revolution”, in The Aesthetic Unconscious, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009)
    • Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed.), Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies. 
    • Barthes, R. How to live together
    • Foucault, M. The order of discourse
    • Heidegger, M. Discourse of Thinking

Buddha at the Apocalypse

Radical Pedagogies – Ana S. Gonzalez Rueda

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.

Continue reading “Radical Pedagogies – Ana S. Gonzalez Rueda”

Sarah Pierce – University of Glasgow (History of Art Research Seminar)

Attended: Wednesday 8th of November

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.”

Text from her website


My reaction to Sarah Pierce’s Lecture:
Continue reading “Sarah Pierce – University of Glasgow (History of Art Research Seminar)”