Friday, 22 May 2009

Answers... (1)

...from Anouk Kruithof.
1. The exhibition can (certainly in Berlin) be judged as any other exhibition of contemporary art, so not exclusively as an alternative way of making an exhibition. Here and there, similar experiments have been taking place in Berlin. There is just too much to be said against contemporary norms and uses. There are so many curators or artists who call themselves independent curator and who make one group show after the other (again, certainly in Berlin). On the one hand, young artists feel the pressure to show their work in as many places as possible; but on the other hand, this seldom offers a challenge or a learning process. Here, it is different. Temporary City shows no consistency between the different works, but it is a consistent exhibition, because the architecture is the form where the exhibition is 'attached to'.
2. For some works of art, the architecture is certainly too dominant, and the wooden structure 'roars down' their work. Some artists make their own space and get round the structure. For myself, it is a totally logical reaction to work with the existing situation and make new work by reacting to it. I would not like to have existing works close to the structure. What I have made now was a natural solution and at the same time a challenge, because I have never made anything this fast and I have never really decided upon the way of presenting the work in an exhibition.
3. I think there was a lot of talk and the discussions were very good for the development and the experience of the artists themselves. And I think this process has also yielded an exiting exhibition. The proces itself might not really be visible inside of the exhibition, but it is certainly part of the history of the project.
1. The artists did not see themselves as curators. A group of artists could make an exhibition around a theme, provided that the group would be related to each other and to the theme. Of course, making a work about a fixed theme, is not possible, because art is autonomous, certainly in an exhibition context. In that case, it would be like art on commission, but that is something else, something between autonomous and applied art.
2. The architect in Temporary City was almost chosen like a saint. His structure and his order to transform it, almost became the theme of the exhibition. The architecture almost became the leading work of art on which everyone has parasitized. It was interesting to see the structure, because of the struggle with it. I would not preference this kind of exhibition architecture. I can understand the phenomenon, when the architecture shows the space and is modest enough to give a surplus value to the works of art. But in this case I wondered whether this architect did not see himself as one of the artists.
3. It sounds nice, but I think it is impossible to start making 'artist's exhibitions'. I think our group was exceptional. Beautifully loyal and flexible and understanding people! Somethimes it almost felt like magic how everyone dealt with each other and tried to listen. I don't know if the bigger part of them are fan of the Dalai Lama, but I will not easily forget this experience. And just because the proces was positive and constructive, the result is good enough. In other cases, to many egocentric people involved might clash. I don't think there is a new exhibition genre coming up, but I do believe there is a promising future ahead for Temporary City.

No comments: