I'm as baffled as J. T. Kirkland and Lenny Campello over the WPA\Corcoran's decision to fire Philip Barlow from his position as curator of the Options 2005 Biennial for comments he made to the Washington Post. Short story: Barlow said that he would not consider for the biennial any artists who participated in either the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities' Party Animals or Pandamania projects. Annie Adjchavanich, the executive director of the WPA\C program, issued a press release that did not clarify matters for me.
(That's the most hyperlinked paragraph I've ever written. I swear, with these Macs, you don't get the little hyperlink button, so that took like half an hour.)
I met Ms. Adjchanvanich a while back and I think she's a competent director, so it is with respect that I say that she seems to be mystifying the curatorial process by some degree to suggest that art is somehow graded in a vacuum. I'm not entirely sure how she envisions curation but it sounds mealymouthed. She wrote of Barlow that "[i]t is inappropriate to base curatorial decisions upon the political, social or intellectual opinions an artist may hold," it would be unimaginable to evaluate art without assessing its political, social, or intellectual offerings, and art that does none of these things—e.g., these goofy pandas—well, that's not art. Curating is discriminating and a good place to begin discriminating is with the art that isn't art.
Barlow's mistake was to speak too bluntly ("They made a bad choice, and there are consequences to bad choices") and maximally. Obviously had Maggie Michael decided to pour some latex on a ceramic donkey for the city because she really needed the cash, that wouldn't be reason to disqualify her—she's a great artist, people compromise for complicated reasons, art already features enough class-oriented conflicts, etc. So I'd listen to a prostrate panda painter, but should I seek one out?
Barlow's litmus sounds to me to be wrong as a concrete rule, right as a general trend, and indispensable as a curatorial right.
Posted by Kriston at October 20, 2004 1:13 AMI agree that curating is discriminating. And that's where I believe Mr. Barlow made his mistake. He "indiscriminately" refused to consider any work created by artists who participated in the Party Animals or Pandamania projects. The participant's other art was not even given a chance to be graded, in or out of a vacuum. By "other art" I mean pieces created by the artists other than the animals. Whether these statues are art is a different argument all together. Mr. Barlow abused these artists to make a political statement.
Perhaps one would not seek out a ppp, but Mr. Barlow even refused to consider their work.
Posted by: Joseph Barbaccia at October 20, 2004 7:49 AMKriston,
I think you are misinterpreting the WPA/C statement. They are not suggesting that curatorial decisions should not be made based on the "political, social, or intellectual offerings" of the artwork. In fact, they are trying to redirect decisionmaking back to the artwork itself. As I read their statement, they are simply saying that the "political, social, or intellectuals opinions" of the artist should not be considered when such opinions are not otherwise part of the artwork.
For instance, you likely would not be able to tell from my artwork what my political leanings are. The WPA/C is saying that if you, as a curator, were to discover that I am a Republican, you should not base your curatorial decisions to include or exclude me from a show based on my political affiliation.
What's so wrong with that?
Posted by: Scott at October 20, 2004 9:25 AM"Curating is discriminating and a good place to begin discriminating is with the art that isn't art."
Drat. I wish I'd thought of that line.
Posted by: Tyler Green at October 20, 2004 2:29 PMOK, for agument's sake, let's pretend that the Animals aren't art. I ask anyone: How would Mr. Barlow be able to discriminate/curate my other work, (not the Animals), if he refuses to look at it? He can't. He cannot do his job without looking at my other work. He can only Blacklist me because he doesn't like the Animals as art.
Posted by: Joseph Barbaccia at October 20, 2004 4:07 PM