Dear Everyone,
Regarding Harmony's email on the possibility of a curated exhibition. I'm sure that my viewpoint may be unpopular, but let me just throw this out there: is it really necessary to still be doing these kinds of "queer" exhibitions? Isn't this conference meant to examine the problematics of the concept of queer artmaking at this particular moment? To my mind, juried shows of any kind are passe at this point in time, and even if it is a curated, themed show of sorts, the queer artist problem doesn't just go away. I don't think that these kinds of shows serve anyone, and certainly not the artists involved. I am sure that many of you disagree with me, and I would like to hear why. In my view, we need a completely new paradigm.
Best,
Jenni
*************************
From: Gary Walters
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Queer Caucus for Art Discussion List
Subject: [queerart] RE: queer caucus exhibition
This is interesting if unclear, at least to me. Why are juried shows passe? Does anyone have anything to say about the past curated show and its effectiveness as opposed to all those previous which were not curated? I agree that being "selected" moves it all up a notch and perhaps in the wrong direction. I also agree that making "queer" art is not the same thing as making art even for queers. And, finally, yes, an actual discussion by some of the makers. Thanks Jenni.
Gary Walters
***********************************
FROM: David Duckworth duckdiva@yahoo.com
DATE: Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:47 pm
Dear Caucus,
I am outside the membership of your group, but appreciative of the fact that I have recently been able to receive messages from the listserve. I would like to be a part of the caucus and will take the steps to make that happen.
This message is sent in reaction to Jenni's meaningful challenge to the relevancy or legitimacy of queer-identified or -themed (read L/G/B/T for me) exhibitions in today's world. I will only offer anecdotal evidence that they do matter. I am co-curating "Queer Packaging/Body Commodities" for WORKS/San Jose, representing the Northeast U.S. The exhibition opens June 10th (www.workssanjose.org). I have only received positive response from artists who have contacted me directly about the show. We have received enough submission material to fill the gallery, with most of it directly engaged with the statement we circulated regarding the theme of the exhibition. Artists have contacted me expressing the conviction that L/G/B/T art should have a place in the exhibition world, leading me to believe there is not enough out there appealing to them through the lens of identity. I am sure that we haven't attracted artists who wish to not participate in a show that works within these parameters. There are individuals I have contacted through networking that seem indifferent to the show altogether.
It may be that through this process I am in contact with a different community. Many of the artists are younger, some in their early twenties (I am 50). They do not represent a unified vision when one looks at the art itself, although there are commonalities running throughout because of the show's theme.
I would suggest that there is room enough for identity-based exploration. That this type of exploration could benefit from alliances with other artists when addressing gender and race. Or that challenges assumptions about society, power, and representation.
Sincerely,
David Duckworth
***************************
FROM: pphelan pphelan@stanford.edu
DATE: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:32 pm
These issues are really interesting -- and often too tricky for email. I
wonder if we might have a discussion called something like:
"Thoughts on Exhibiting and Writing 'in the name of queer': a roundtable"
at CAA next year?
I don't mean to forestall the conversation here; in fact, i mean to take it
seriously.
Best,
Peggy Phelan
************************
FROM & DATE: Garth Amundson Garth.Amundson@wwu.edu 04/13/04 07:48PM
Dearest Queer Colleagues,
I haven't been a very active member of this listserv, but the "Queer Exhibition" topic caught my attention. I'm curious if the recently mediated representation of Gay culture has clouded notions of true equality? Having worked in a variety of academic institutions I am constantly reminding students of how Queer Art has been subject to historical discrimination/theoretical bias. They must be made aware that Queer Art, in all its forms, has repeatedly been written-out of art history, curated-out of exhibitions, and ignored in publications. This might be a little preachy, but I feel that its my job as a revisionist thinker/artist/teacher to expose them to as much difference as possible! In terms of my own work, I never think of it as being reduced exclusively to any one category, but, like any breeder-straight work, it can exist within the context of several complex thematic exhibitions and still retain its integrity.
Cheers!
Garth Amundson MS 9068
Western Washington University
Associate Professor of Art
Fine Arts Complex 116
515 High Street
Bellingham, WA 98225-9068
H 360-527-1114/ W 360-650-3436
FAX 360-650-6878
Garth.Amundson@wwu.edu OR gaamundson@hotmail.com
*******************************
FROM: Jenni Sorkin jmsorkin@hotmail.com
DATE: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:18 pm
Dear All,
I have to say I am quite pleased that there has been such an active and on-going number of responses to my original posting. I love Peggy Phelan's idea to actually do a roundtable or open discussionon the subject at the next CAA: it is possible that we have long missed CAA's notoriously early deadlines for this sort of thing, but I will look into it and see what Jim and I can come up with.
Just to respond to those of you who wrote me directly, and questioned whether or not I actually was queer, let me set the record straight: yes, I am lesbian. I find it personally and professionally distressing that there are those who, based on my opinions about exhibition practice, may question whether or not I might really be queer. Such an accusation is insulting, and ignorant. There are plenty of Log Cabin Republicans, do you question whether or not they are actually gay men? Again, I am not bringing up these issues to highlight discrimination, rather, genuine intellectual debate. The issue of discrimination seems to have come up again and again in a number of the responses. Of course queer people are discrimnated against in the larger continental U.S. and of course it bothers me that my partner and I might never be able to get married, and yes, of course, there is still art world di! scrimination against sexually explicit work---but of any kind, queer or straight--look at all the bruhaha over Jock Sturges! And there is always going to be mianstream distaste for identity politics, agitprop, or politics of any sort in artwork, except for a brief moment in the early 1990s, and that moment is, thankfully, over. That doesn't mean I don't like that work, it just means that too much of it gets to be overkill. Might I just add, also, that there are a disproportionate number of gay men in positions of power in the art world. Is it discrimination that Matthew Marks does not show a single queer artist who photographs the male nude (Peter Hujar excepted)? Is it discrimination that Larry Rinder hasn't done another "In A Different Light" at the Whitney? Let's face it, queers are disproportionately represented in the art world.
Just to resond more thoroughly, and in hopes of continuing the dialogue:
1) Why do I think juried shows are passe? Because unless you are in a very rural or underserved art community, they scream amateur. The time for cooperatives has, by and large, passed. Anyone can do a good do-it-yourself apartment show--why should anyone send twrenty bucks and three slides to a no-name gallery who pays a well-known artist or curator $2000 to go through all the slides and narrow down the lot? Those are the worst of them, I know. I don't have a problem with non-charging "call for entries," per say, but those shows too create a group of people who make work either for a themed exhibition, or idenitify overtly with a particular issue or idea, whether that theme is "spirituality" or "the autobiographical impulse". In our case, the theme is "queer". It's no different than an exhibition based on race, ethnicity, or geopgraphy. If artists want to self-identify with any of those groups, I have no probl! em with that. But don't expect me to look past the label on the box. Once you are there, it's a very narrow place without a lot of wiggle room.
All my best,
Jenni
***************************
FROM: Erica Rand erand@abacus.bates.edu
DATE: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:02 am
Two short notes:
1. "unless you are in a very rural or underserved art community." Writing from the rural state of Maine: I do not want to comment or venture one solution to what people in such areas need--not the least because "rural" and "underserved" can encompass a lot of variety and speaking for rather than with doesn't seem like our best move. But I do want to note that many of our members, and many people who might be our members, do live in those areas, and may sometimes especially benefit from QCA support/advocacy/opportunity. So strategizing exhibitions, panels, membership might well take that into account.
2. Writing from my fading ex-co-chair memory: the lunchtime panels that caucuses get run on a different deadline system and the information need to be delivered to CAA in early summer. So if the people working on panels want to pose that for the lunchtime one, there's still time.
******************************
FROM: Honor Conklin HCONKLIN@mail.nysed.gov
DATE: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:58 am
Queer, breeder, race.... passe.
Honor
*******************************
FROM: Garth Amundson Garth.Amundson@wwu.edu
DATE: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:32 pm
"Why do I think juried shows are passe? Because unless you are in a very rural or underserved art community, they scream amateur." -Jenni Sorkin
"Queer, breeder, race.... passe." -Honor Conklin
Hmmmmm....
Having just finished another grueling day of teaching at my little regional university tucked a way in the most incredible part of the world, I'm just so happy to respond to your delightful commentary!
Maybe its just my naive backwoods-hillbilly idealism that allows me to hang on to the notion that neither region nor prestigious space can truly define work. Just for the record. I have endured some of worst "amateurish" shows in mainstream commercial blue chip Chelsea galleries, in non-profit spaces, in highly respected museums, and in noteworthy vanity galleries in NYC, SF, LA, Germany, Italy, France... The address/location doesn't always equal an interesting show! Isn't it self evident that BRANDING alone does not lend credibility to work, curatorial or otherwise.
Contrarily, having recently moved back to the "rural" NW, I have been blown away by pockets of curious thinking and hard working "garage band" visual artists who continue to push boundaries and produce incredible exhibitions. All in the middle of fucking no where! Its always so exciting to see amazing art in some hipster cooperative space in Bellingham. Its much more painfully disappointing to be repeatedly treated to the incestuous and often derivative nonsense of Williamsburg.
Regarding the necessity of Juried Shows: They are, and should be a sampling of a juror(s) impressions. For example, next week Joyce Neimanas will be visiting from Chicago to jury a student show. Its a great opportunity for her to see a lot of work and benefits the students enormously.
By the way according to the language style forecast, using the term passe, is just so antiquated!
Cheers!
Garth
************************
FROM: Robtsum@aol.com
DATE: Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:30 am
An Open Letter to Jenni Sorkin; Or, 1,2,3 … Snap!
First, and I thought that over a decade of critical(ly) queer theory already taught us what I am about to say, but, then again, I guess many of us, especially Jenni Sorkin, have forgotten what Butler, De Lauretis, Sedgwick, and other feminist and queer theorists articulated in the early 90s, namely, lesbian and gay are not isomorphic with queer. Queer, as far as I understand it, is not an identity, and queer certainly can’t be … a thing, an object, a being, an essence, etc.; thus, a “queer exhibition” – or, better yet, a queering exhibition – could have straight folks, gay and lesbian folks, bisexual and transgender folks, and, of course, queer (as) folk, but, I don’t think the ones on Showtime, but maybe. In other words *queer is not a what but a when, or, more to the point, a how* (dP). Also, why not have LGBT exhibtions -- even juried ones, which is what you, Sorkin, do all the time when you conduct your research ... you jury it! I could not think of a better thing to do and have in this day and age, in this time of a growing backlash, in this era that is beginning to look a lot like the 1950s!
Second, I am sad that neo-liberalism (or is it neo-conservativism? I always get them mixed up!), and your statements are examples par excellence of neo-liberal rhetoric, has finally reached the Queer Caucus of the CAA. But, as Peggy Phelan has stated, maybe much of the issues that have surface since your polemical e-mail (which at first I took as a ridiculous sophomoric joke, but now I realize it wasn’t, and it wasn’t funny in the first place) should be fleshed out, theorized, and debated during a panel at the upcoming CAA in Atlanta. Indeed, it would be great to have an energized and provocative panel – one that would invigorate a lot of the members. On that note (is this still point number 2?), I get a sense that we are in a “second-wave” queer theory moment, which is contradictory and competing, and which has been instigated by the wonderful work of many queers of color and (ironically?) the commercialization of lesbian and gay lives – all white, middle class, and on *must see TV* mind you. I think that would be another timely topic at the CAA Conference in Atlanta, and i believe that this *second wave* queer theory moment dovetails with the issues raised over the past several days.
Third, as on of my favorite drag queens used to say to the young fags and dykes who thought that they were the shit because they felt they came so far and had more power than they ever thought they would when they were baby fags and dykes … *If you shoot an arrow in the sky, and it goes real high … good for you.* In other words, Sorkin, just because you are the co-chair of the Queer Caucus, an _Art Journal_ award winner, and a curator at MoCA, doesn’t mean you have to deploy a Bush-style manner of conducting business, and, anyway, you still aren’t anyone special, sister – not more special or more endowed with insight and knowledge of what is passé or progressive for the LGBTQ art communities. So, let’s not be proscriptive in our politics; let’s understand that this is a big country, and gay and lesbian – just like queer – is relational, situational, and cultural. What you think is a good idea, what you think is worth one’s time of day, what you think is best, may be not so – and it isn’t so if you read and pay attention to the e-mails that have been generated – for a good many gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer people.
Snap!
Robert Summers
*************************
FROM: Saslowj@aol.com
DATE: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:12 am
Dear All,
It's been very instructive to read the vigorous back-and-forth about exhibition policy and its relation to the current state of queer politics/identity -- though I hope we can keep it at an intellectual, not a personal, level. Personally, I'm more on the side of those who feel that queer-identified cultural events will be passe when anti-queer discrimination is itself passe -- not something I've noticed yet, even in hip ol' NYC. But clearly everyone feels that this is a topic we should examine at the next CAA, and if the subject has generated so much discussion and passion already, that seems right.
We still have time to submit a proposal to CAA 2005 (Atlanta) for a lunchtime session (1-1/2 hours), which is due in mid-June. Is there anyone who'd like to draft a statement of purpose/theme for this panel, and perhaps a call for participation? As soon as I get home (I'm still commuting to Northampton, MA most weeks, which is why I've been out of touch recently -- but that's ending in May), I'll sent out the specifics from CAA of what needs to be written and when, so all can see what's involved (not much, really). Jenni and I as cochairs could write it up, but perhaps someone else, with an artist or curatorial background, would like to frame the issues for us all, and recruit a balanced panel to debate them....? These shorter panels do not have to go through the formal "open call for papers" process, though we might want to do that among ourselves anyway, just to see how many folks are willing, and what their viewpoints are, before deciding who to use. We should probably aim at representing both sides of the question, as well as having speakers from large urban art communities, smaller and more rural places, etc.
Best,
Jim
***************************
FROM: Robert Rindler rindler@cooper.edu
DATE: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:14 am
Dear brothers and sisters...
I would like to throw my hat in the ring in support of the idea of a panel on these issues at the next CAA conference. This is not to curtail the messages being shared between us...this should, must go on... but from the rhetoric being cast about, it seems clear that a discussion of this kind, face to face, and especially within our current political climate, is crucial. It does not seem wise to me for the debate to degenerate into our belittling each other for our varied thoughts and searching questions. This in fact is how divergent philosophical/pedagogical/political/etc.etc perspectives can divide rather than strengthen the environment of a community. Caucus is in our title, after all. Since we are connected through our academic and cultural affiliations, it seems that a substantive, organized, and well balanced panel discussion/debate will enable us all to reflect in partnership in a highly charged, incredibly important, and supportive intellectual exploration.
Let's do it.
Robert Rindler, Dean
The Cooper Union School of Art
***********************
FROM: Wayne Snellen wsnellen@earthlink.net
DATE: Saturday, April 17, 2004 1:15 am
I have been following with great interest the comments about Jenni Sorkins proposal that queer art exhibitions may not be a viable route any longer.
Although I don't agree with her, Jenni has done a great service because she has gotten people to respond to an important issue in a somewhat heated discussion.
Some of the comments are great -- others not so -- this should not become a personal attack issue. Genuine ideas are at work and if a new route comes out of this I will be pleased.
However, please don't insult my intelligence by saying we (LGBT peoples) are on an equal footing with the majority. WE ARE NOT AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE. That is alright. And that is why I feel it may not be so bad to be thought of as separate. I have always felt that we have a special place and purpose to serve in the world and that trying to be like everyone else only dilutes our power and creativity.
I don't mind being a gay artist -- I'm rather proud of it. So why should I not promote it. I am a figurative painter and no gallery in its right mind would accept me because of its overy sexual content. They would exhibit my much older abstract work though...but that's not what I'm about.
So I remain a gay artist who makes gay art.
So what. I think my themes are just as universal and honest as any straight artists.
Let it be...
Additionally, I'm not sure I would want to hear your thoughts about my place of worship either -- The Leslie-Lohman Gay Art Foundation -- because we certainly put on gay art shows.
Wayne Snellen
Director
The Leslie-Lohman Gay Art Foundation
**********************
FROM: Gary Walters gary.walters@sympatico.ca
DATE: Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:29 pm
It's hard to see what the issues are at this point. In fact maybe someone
would try to sum up.
I can't see why someone impatient with labels and ducking her curatorial
responsability to look would just plain not look. I can't see how labels can
be avoided only changed.
I can't see why that same person wants to co-chair a Queer Caucus.
What could be new?
Getting rid of themes
Replacing old poohbahs
Getting rid of bad art at caucus shows - how? What is bad? Curatorial
intervention is no guarantee. Art history isn't either
Is the Queer Caucus a support organization or not?
I can see and have experienced the dead end of trying to preach, didactify,
utterly expose or illuminate my "queer" reality. Others depending where they
are at will quite simply be in a different place and have different needs
all of which the Queer Caucus should try to address.
And this is a good way to start.
Gary Walters
rooral queer artist showing in three weeks in that dynamite town of
Warkworth Ontario work that is for the first time in years not deliberately
queer themed and, you know, it's a relief - not that Workworth would mind.
Au contraire
************************
FROM & DATE: Deborah Bright debobright@rcn.com 04/19/04 12:43PM
Dear colleagues,
This debate brings to mind of a line from a Robert Storr essay I read awhile back. To paraphrase, loosely: It's not a matter of [your art] telling me who you are, but of showing me how you see.
I hope someone is archiving this online discussion for the record.
Could be a very interesting snapshot of our present moment.
Deborah Bright
*************************
FROM: Honor Conklin HCONKLIN@mail.nysed.gov
DATE: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:57 pm
I am not familiar with most of the people responding, but I wonder if there might not be the traditional conflict between artist and academic -- between creating and analyzing -- between happening and trying to find a reason for why it happened (when there might not be a reason).
Given the hostility I read in some of the posts, I am rather thankful for my previous unfamiliarity.
Honor
************************
FROM: LaLanera@aol.com
DATE: Saturday, May 1, 2004 3:32 pm
Sorry to be so slow to respond to the recent flurry of emails regarding the value of queer art exhibitions, but I thought I might give a little background for those who have not been present at the annual Queer Caucus meetings. For the last several years (since 2000?), those present have discussed the need for more ambitious queer exhibitions organized and/or curated by caucus members or others in established venues (museums, university galleries or museums, commercial galleries, not-for-profit art spaces) that can, but certainly need not be, held during the annual CAA meeting. These exhibitions could be historical, contemporary, thematic, or survey a particular time or place, iconography, attitude, etc… It was felt that the QCaucus as an organization and QCaucus members individually, should take a leadership role in this direction.
Since the mid-90s, the QCaucus (see chronology on the website) has tried to sponsor an exhibition in conjunction with the annual CAA meeting. Some have been more successful than others. They have run the curatorial continuum ranging from open exhibitions; open exhibitions “enhanced” with invitations to local Q artists in the town where the conference was held (such as “Queer in the Year 2000”) ,to curated exhibitions (such as “AIDS Communities/Arts Communities”, “Troubling Customs”, “Queer Video at VOID”, and this year”s “Neoqueer” at CoCA. Given the difficulties of organizing long distance, some years there was nothing.
Showcasing art by caucus members to each other, and situating this work in the larger gay community, caucus-sponsored open exhibitions (often at the local gay & lesbian community center) have been extremely limited, as anyone could send anything, and that art that was submitted was limited by the small gallery spaces at these centers and the fact that the artists had to pay all shipping expenses. While there might have been a stated theme, few paid attention to it, and there was no curatorial vision. In the end, these well-intended, but unmemorable, exhibitions took an inordinate amount of time and energy of the one or two caucus members who volunteered to coordinate the exhibition.
To curate a good exhibition takes years of planning and work as does planning a conference. Id say 2 – 5 years. QCaucus members hoped for an exhibition to coincide with the Intersexions Conference happening this November in NY, So, with the conference in mind and a lead time of over a year and a half (which proved to not be long enough), I, as member of advisory board for the conference offered to curate an exhibition. I invited Ernesto Pujol, an artist based in NYC to co-curate with me. Like myself, he has a track record of curating interesting exhibitions. We made several proposals laying out various curatorial approaches intended to go beyond 80's-90's identity-based models of thinking and creating, to focus on the complexities of current queer artistic production. Taking cues from earlier queer and feminist exhibitions such as “In A Different Light” at U of CA, Berkeley and “Gloria” at White Columns, we proposed exhibitions that acknowledged a legacy of queer cultural production at the same time it took a look at work produced today.
The term and concept "neoqueer" is interesting. It might variously be translated to mean work by a new generation of queer-identified artists under the age of say 30, or any work created by queer artists since 2000 (artists of all ages and generations) . In either case, we did not presume that the work of queer artists would necessarily "look" or even "be" queer. Our proposals were intentionally open and our list of possible artists purposefully diverse. Indeed Ernesto and I are examples of artists whose main body of work is not overtly queer but who "always sometimes" make queer work in response to certain events, situations or experiences. My guess is that many artists fall in this category and that perhaps this is a reflection of the times.
After long conversations with a variety of established not-for-profit spaces, I was not able to secure a venue and support within this time frame. Some places wanted a list of artists in advance (which we refused to give until we looked at and selected specific works), some were booked solid until 2005 or 2006, and others barely disguised their homophobia in “post queer rhetoric”….
While I understand the need to question assumed formats and structures as well as what constitutes the category queer, or even the category itself…as I see it, the danger of the “post queer position” as articulated in some quarters of the art world is that it somehow never gets around to exploring or developing new paradigms. To categorically dismiss the value of all “queer exhibitions” ……… … presupposes a "post queer", "post feminist", "post colonial" society. It ignores the very real margins which do unfortunately still exist, posits queer identity as static, and queer art as a commodity, thereby feeding the market imperative to move beyond the visual articulation of identity politics in a way that erases very real social inequities and their cultural representation. My lived experience tells me something very different. Being an out artist and writer out west, what ever form the work takes, is still a territory I negotiate daily.
I too want work by queer artists to be included in "mainstream" exhibitions, and hope for a critical discussion of the work beyond its relation to sexual practice or choice, but not to the exclusion of exhibitions and publications based solely on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, or various geographies of time and place. I don't share the belief that they merely reinforce a colonial center and colonized margins. Indeed, it is precisely their position outside the "mainstream" (as it is usually defined) that suggests multiple centers, and their interface with that "mainstream" that offers a fluid, rich and powerful site for cultural productions reflective of the complexity of people's lives as lived. Until there is lasting radical social change and true integration, I stand firmly behind such projects.
For me, it’s a question of what kinds of exhibitions should we be encouraging? What kinds of exhibitions are appropriate today and tomorrow in different places, situations, contexts, geographies? I am not at all interested in organizing open exhibitions (and at this point in time, I don’t think this is where the QCaucus should be putting its energy), but I do support these shows. Yes, they are uneven at best - once in a while, but rarely, you discover interesting work by some young, newly out, or newly moved to town artist or just someone that you didn’t know. However, open exhibitions (and for that matter juried exhibitions) play an important role in communities out side of major urban areas. They make gay/queer lives and culture (and a voting public!) visible in that community.
I am not interested in organizing these exhibitions, but I am willing to contribute a work to the wall in the spirit of community. Of course a well curated exhibition, while not as fully inclusive, can do much of this as well, and more.
Curated or not, it is no longer enough to just have an exhibition of “queer work” or work by “queer identified artists” (just as we don’t have generic “queer conferences” any more). Interesting, substantial, and yes important, exhibitions will require a more specific themes, investigations, reevaluations, and visions. They will need a new lens for looking, need to ask new questions and pose new answers. What curatorial approaches go beyond 80’s-90’s identity-based models? What paradigms and projects might reflect the complexities of current queer artistic production?
I am not currently curating any exhibitions (for the QCaucus or otherwise). Its been extremely interesting to me how many people passionately responded to Jenni’s inquiry….Its an old but obviously ongoing conversation. I hope we will continue this discussion, but why wait until CAA? It seems to me that such a dialogue would be appropriate for the forthcoming Intersexions Conference, since it is not dictated by the limited structure and politics of CAA. We know we don’t all agree on this issue. Just as we know that many artists, writers, historians and curators still struggle with these issues…What matters is where do we go from here? And what role might the Queer Caucus play? Lets hear new ways of thinking about all of this, new kinds of exhibitions? New paradigms, strategies, structures? Other models? Jenni are you up for this? I hope so. It would be great if you’d moderate some sort of roundtable discussion.
Harmony Hammond
****************************
FROM: Robert Atkins robert@robertatkins.net
DATE: Saturday, May 1, 2004 6:07 pm
Curated or not, it is no longer enough to just have an exhibition of “queer work” or work by “queer identified artists” (just as we don’t have generic “queer conferences” any more). Interesting, substantial, and yes important, exhibitions will require a more specific themes, investigations, reevaluations, and visions. They will need a new lens for looking, need to ask new questions and pose new answers. What curatorial approaches go beyond 80’s-90’s identity-based models? What paradigms and projects might reflect the complexities of current queer artistic production?
Harmony, thank you for your typically down-to-earth and revealing assessment of the situation in its both theoretical and down-in-the-curatorial-trenches complexity. Perhaps your position might be extended: if “it is no longer enough to just have an exhibition of ‘queer work,’” perhaps it is no longer enough just to have an exhibition. Conceptual/visionary/theoretical proposals for exhibitions might ultimately be more satisfying than shows compromised by the quotidian exigencies of space, shipping, squabbling (inter-caucus) and homophobia. Architecture worked its way out of the modernist bind in part through paper architecture. Proposed exhibitions might encourage members to put their money where their mouths are (so to speak) and perhaps might be the basis of an activity that would involve the entire membership, artist and non. I’m thinking of a multi-part competition that might ultimately pay “finalists” very modest honoraria to produce illustrated proposals that might then be shown—perhaps (and perhaps preferably) online and off—making the work visible to a large audience, for a long period, to the credit of the entire caucus.
In solidarity,
Robert Atkins
*****************************
FROM: Laurie Toby Edison ltedison@candydarling.com
DATE: Monday, May 3, 2004 2:41 am
I've been following the discussion and just looked at Jenni's original email (4/8).
It seems to me that it would be helpful to discuss and hopefully reach some agreements before we have a panel.
Aside from the issues around "queer", the questions below seem relevant to me both in terms of clarity and new paradigms.
What do are we mean by curation and jurying?
What do we mean by "served" (re: Jenni's email of 4/8)
What do we think are the interests of the artists, the audiences, the
curators etc.
I know that the answers to these questions are multifaceted and complex, but I think this conversation would create a far more useful panel.
Best,
Laurie
Laurie Toby Edison
http://www.candydarling.com/lte