UPDATE: this title keep making me think of Susan Powter. And further, a curator is like an editor. Dismissing that role is ridiculous and self-defeating. Who doesn't need a good editor? Much as I chafe, it is helpful.
And opt into sheer boredom? A self-referential advert? Narcolepsy? I attempted to live tweet this snoozefest, but like Virgil descending, my twitter was rendered mute as escalator upon escalator brought me ever-deeper into the bowels of the Hyatt, home to this year’s College Art Association conference which, according to the website, is “the world's largest international forum for professionals in the visual arts.” Yes I believe it likely is, if the mixing and mingling, jing-jing-jingling happening in the front lobby is any indication. My only experience with this type of event being AWP, the Association of Writers and Writing Programs, of which I have attended two? One? I can’t remember. Anyway, also via tweet: “It’s like AWP but more gay.” Which probably means it’s more fun, but the particular panel I trudged downtown to see (thanks to those heady budget cuts, waiting almost a half hour for the bus) most certainly was not.
In theory I think the panel was supposed to address the other options one has as an artist to engage in the art-world, be it as gallerist, critic, or curator. A worthwhile topic, and one that has a certain resonance with me as I have taken up all three at one point or another. Michelle Grabner, SAIC painting professor and coordinator in chief behind The Suburban and The Poor Farm, started out the festivities by discussing her projects and doing a job on the act, some say art, of curation and the role of the curator in general. Apparently curators are not much valued by Ms. Grabner, which is unfortunate given that hodgepodge, thoughtless, and frankly shite curation has ruined more than one show I’ve been to recently. Not to mention that utter inability of any artist statement to make the slightest bit of sense, it’s often nice to have someone else write the thing up and tie the thing together. But yes, Ms. Grabner managed to totally invalidate those who followed her before they could even take the stage.
Gosia Koscielak followed up, but about all I remember is the puddle of drool that slowly collected my collar and the phrase, “Gallery as spaceship, artist as spaceship.” Which is pretty cool, but seemed to have little to do with the talk as far as I could tell. I think it meant embracing the internet as a means of exhibition. But I’m really not sure.
I pretty much came for the Bad at Sports guys, who closed out the proceedings, and they were equally disappointing. First they played a FIVE MINUTE audio clip of snappy banter and Public Enemy samples, the type of shit that proceeds every Bad at Sports podcast and what I automatically skip through while listening in the comfort of my home. Next was a somewhat interesting talk, with much banter thrown in, about the project’s genesis and how it has shifted from a general “review” show to something like an art project in its own right. None of this totally sucked, but I fail to see how it was much relevant to the topic aside from saying to the audience, find a buddy you can rap with and put it on the internet, maybe people will listen and it might help you get some shows yourself. Indeed, it was personalized into irrelevance and self-referenced into oblivion.
All that said, it may not have been the panelists fault; whoever put this thing together did a piss-poor job of curation, coordination and criticism. Hmmm… maybe they should have watched the panel, but no, I guess that wouldn't have helped much.
