Curating / The Curatorial
If curating is an action that involves labor (both physical and cognitive) in producing the end result as exhibition or curation, curatorial is an extended field that enables one to think about curating beyond Capitalist production.
By Multiple authors
Multiple authors • 9/15/25
-
Curating is everywhere and everyone has some sense of what it is, yet the language of curating is less obvious, more malleable, open to interpretation and discovery. The Lexicon is an ongoing project begun by the international Curatorial Studies Workshop, which is part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN). The initial idea was to locate each member’s definition of key terms often taken for granted in the curatorial field—such as curating, curatorial, exhibition, exhibitionary, representation, and so forth. We quickly discovered that as fundamental as these terms are, they didn’t carry the same meaning for each of us. The Lexicon stimulated a process of mutual understanding while forming a common ground for a cumulative, multi-perspective dialogue. It was an exercise focused not on finding the “most valid” argument, but on the cumulative—and, in a lot of ways, curatorial—juxtaposition built on the collective reflection and dialogue. For The Curatorial, we will continue to build on what we started, adding new definitions/propositions for terms over time to continue a dialogue that we hope will be beneficial and provocative for all those interested in the field and who appreciate the plasticity of meaning and experience so essential to the work we do. The Lexicon is, therefore, not intended to suggest or offer a clear and single definition for the terms proposed. Instead, it aims to generate a productive dialogue between definitions that can help map the variety of curatorial approaches, aesthetic imaginaries, and forms of practice. The Lexicon will stage this dialogue with monthly contributions from curators, artists, organizers, activists, academics, and critical thinkers.—Carolina Rito, Lexicon section editor
-
Steven Henry Madoff
The platforms for curating have vastly expanded with late capitalism and advancements in technology. The techniques, histories, technological implements, considerations of space, budgets, internal institutional politics and external politics, and publics as receptors and transmitters, as participatory and juridical parties, all weigh on the task of the curator. Some who take on this role prefer the term “organizer” to that of “curator,” and in that inflection emphasize the practical aspects of selecting, gathering, arranging, and displaying those objects that hold a vibrancy of being in their interrelations as brought into visibility by the organizer, curator, or assembler. All of these nominations indicate acts of curatorial labor, a facet of curating implicit in the German name for the one who performs these manual and conceptual tasks: Ausstellungsmacher. The exhibition-maker today must be considered a laborer whose energy, resources, remuneration, and rights, along with all the pressures brought to bear on this laborer, are only now being more frontally considered. Curating is at once an instrument of institutional rootedness and of fugitive being.
Nina Liebenberg
Curating involves careful consideration of the following aspects: sensory material (a collection), concepts (an intention), context (both original and evolving), displacement (across time and geography), and visual and sensory strategies (metaphor, visual suggestion, analogy, and juxtaposition, to name a few). Through the format of exhibition-making, curating explores—especially—how the visual can be made to speak and celebrates the many ways in which it does. In an interdisciplinary sense, it creates a dynamic tension with knowledge production in other disciplines, where outcomes are primarily conveyed through verbal and textual means.
Hongjohn Lin
Curating encompasses the process of exhibition-making, functioning both as a professional practice and as a form of intellectual engagement. It requires managing the venue and infrastructure, communicating with artists, negotiating with institutions, selecting and classifying artworks, fostering knowledge production in art history and theory, and sometimes, securing funding. Curating is not tied to a fixed definition, as its practice adapts to the complexity of topics, media, and sociohistorical contexts, as well as the variability of participating authors and artists.
Henk Slager
At first glance, curating is seen as a scenographic activity, i.e., building a spatial constellation for encounters. But curating can also be understood as a way of thinking in terms of connections: linking objects, images, processes, people, and discourses. See Maria Lind, “The Curatorial” in Selected Maria Lind Writing (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2010). And thus curating, as an entanglement of actors, is deeply involved in the politics of display, the politics of site, the politics of transfer, translation, and regimes of visibility.
Vipash Purichanont
Curating encompasses various acts within a single action. It involves selecting, assembling, listing, and displaying. My reference to “curating” does not strictly adhere to the contemporary art domain from which it may have originated, but rather to its broader application and understanding in everyday contexts since the 2010s. When I conducted research on the use of the term “curating” a decade ago, it was a glamorous term that content creators preferred to justify their selection, which, in return, framed them as connoisseurs. It was employed to differentiate and justify the outcome or a list of certain topics. If a list created by a blogger or YouTuber was “curated,” it would imply that a degree of research underpinned the selection—this is quite ironic, considering the art world always insisted that curating ought to be critical. Fast forward to today, the “curation” of Spotify playlists is conducted through algorithms, which, it seems, has historically been the product of thorough research as well. Global capitalism is pouring capital into training artificial intelligence so that it can curate content and information on our behalf (as our assistants?). Curating, as a human activity, too, is going to be replaced if it continues to be cognitive labor. Gone are the days that we need to make a list every time we go grocery shopping.
Mick Wilson
“Curating” enjoys extensive and diverse use. Nora Sternfeld and Luisa Ziaja, “What Comes After the Show? On Post- Representational Curating,” in From the World of Art Archive, ed. Saša Nabergoj and Dorothee Richter, Issue 14 (Zurich: On Curating, n.d.), 21–24.] The primary historical layers in the meaning of the term are the caring for a collection or an apparatus, the making of a public show or exhibition, and the mediation of cultural works. The Royal Society had a role in the 17th and 18th centuries for a “curator of experiments” who oversaw the safe-keeping of various apparatuses and also staged public demonstrations with these. Today, curating is used typically to indicate a broad spectrum of professional practices such as conceiving, selecting, producing, orchestrating, mediating, and actualizing occasions of artistic or other cultural works being made public. This “making public” includes many different possible formats such as publishing, exhibiting, and programming all manner of events, residencies, and platforms. “Knowledge tradition” is used here to indicate a transmission of know-how or other practical forms of knowledge that is not reducible to the model of an academic discipline, e.g., professional competencies such as the practice of law, medicine, therapy; craft practices such as weaving, fishing, hunting, cooking; and body techniques such as midwifery, martial arts, meditation.
Since the 1990s, with the expansion of the international art system(s), the term curating has come to be associated also with a discursive openness and eclecticism that draws on many different knowledge traditions, disciplines, and practices. Already three decades ago, curating began to be associated with co-productive and relational models of cultural practice that diverge to a greater or lesser degree from the image of the lone artist or the self-sufficient artwork as the privileged locus of meaning or value. The artist and commentator Liam Gillick noted already twenty years ago that curating increasingly provides discursive resources for contemporary art to some extent displacing traditional art criticism. Gillick in conversation with Saskia Bos, indicated that criticism “has become either a thing of record, or a thing of speculation whereas the curatorial voice has become the parallel critical voice to the artist that contributes a parallel discourse.” [Saskia Bos “Towards a Scenario: Debate with Liam Gillick” in Bos et al (eds.), Modernity Today: Contributions to a topical artistic discourse, De Appel Reader, No. 1. (Amsterdam: De Appel, 2004): 74].
For the non-specialist, curating is, however, very strongly correlated with the idea of choice or selection for attention, connecting it to the image of “gatekeeping.” This is curating understood as the brokering of opportunity and validation. For specialists, the activities of curating have long since decentered—if not fully detached—from the caring for collections, the making of exhibitions, and the mediation of cultural materials.
Carolina Rito
Curating is the professional practice of organizing, planning, devising, and delivering an exhibition or a cultural program involving artifacts, artworks, conversations, talks, workshops, commissions, publications, screenings, and performances, among other cultural formats. Typically, the activity of curating entails the selection, conceptualization, and presentation of what is made public to an audience. The relationship between the display, its interpretation, reception, and communication is also an integral part of curating. This activity can be learned and improved. This definition was written as complementary to my definition of “the curatorial” in the Lexicon published on The Curatorial.
-
Steven Henry Madoff
The curatorial can be described conceptually as a formative process of assembly. What is being assembled, and what prejudices of knowledge and ideology are involved, will shape the construction steps, pathways, formation, and reception of the material construct (the curatorial project). Of course, to denote the curatorial suggests a single thing, the one way in which this framework exists, while the actual proposal is of an endless, though particular, capaciousness of ideas, influences, epistemologies, and so forth that frame an individual approach in its specific situation. The curatorial is implicitly and inevitably a political condition as it cannot be formulated without its edges being shaped by the influence of external forces such as governmental policies, economics, the market, the mood of the polis, and intellectual, artistic, and curatorial fashions. These forces shape the assemblages, often in reciprocal tension among constituent elements. Ideology becomes a form of opticality. This world-picture of confluent and contested behaviors inevitably becomes the basis of selection and comprises a curatorial assembly.
Nina Liebenberg
The curatorial refers to an expanded approach to curating. Irit Rogoff and Beatrice von Bismarck call it an "event of knowledge” [Irit Rogoff and Beatrice von Bismarck, “Curating/Curatorial: A Conversation Between Irit Rogoff and Beatrice Von Bismarck,” in Cultures of the Curatorial, ed. Beatrice von Bismarck, Jörn Schafaff, and Thomas Weski (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2012), 23]—a process of bringing together individuals, artifacts, and ideas with diverse points of reference within a “physical and conceptual arena” [James Voorhies, Postsensual Aesthetics: On the Logic of the Curatorial (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2023),107]. It fosters generosity and curiosity, especially in a university environment, through rendering the familiar strange and the strange accessible. In this space, varied knowledges interact, generating outcomes that transcend any singular perspective.
Hongjohn Lin
The curatorial calls for a democratic situation within an exhibition setting, akin to Jacques Rancière’s notion of meta-politics, where emancipated spectatorship unfolds alongside autonomous aesthetic experiences. The concern here is the politics of art—distinct from political art or the instrumentalization of aesthetic practices. Active spectators and beholders are essential, forming the demos of art exhibitions and resisting passive consumption.
The politics of the curatorial should recognize these active spectators, who, through exhibitions, can generate moments of an epistemological shift. Such shifts always involve cognitive activity, bringing objects and relations into new forms of consideration. If an exhibition constitutes an event of knowledge, it is neither a straightforward depiction nor a logical inference. The unconventionality of the curatorial often appears self-negating, enacting a kind of self-critique that aligns with what might be called the “degree zero” of curating. To reveal the deeper structures that continually recede, the curatorial tends to employ deconstructive strategies in exhibitions rather than presenting art at face value.
I would extend the definition of the curatorial to Martin Heidegger’s notion of care, which moves beyond personal subjectivity into intersubjective networks. In this sense, care is not merely about individual existence but about living-together. Alongside Sorge— which is translated into English generally as “care,” but can also suggest anxiousness in the concern for oneself and the world across time—Heidegger identifies two specific forms of care: Besorgen, which refers to the practical handling of things, and Fürsorge, which entails actively caring for another in need and for collective well-being. Ultimately, in exhibition-making, the curatorial not only structures intersubjective relations but also shapes the exhibition as form, much like the Roman goddess Cura, who bestows form itself.
Henk Slager
The curatorial refers to the fact that curating is actively involved in the production of meaning: it puts forward ideas about subjectivity, community, culture, identity, gender, class, and race. The modes of address in which these questions are articulated is propositional. The field of the curatorial activates epistemic capacities that speculate about a different way of imagining the world and how these imaginaries are made public.
Vipash Purichanont
I perceive “the curatorial” as an expanded notion of “curating.” If curating is an action that involves labor (both physical and cognitive) in producing the end result as exhibition or curation, curatorial is an extended field that enables one to think about curating beyond Capitalist production. While curating and curation have been adopted by content creators within the creative industries, curatorial is kept away from labor. I envision the curatorial as a creative practice that needs to be refined and redefined over time. It may encompass the same acts that constitute curating, but liberation from the constraints of productivity may allow it to nurture the foundational elements of care and cultivation. Kohei Saito's reinterpretation of Marx's The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 argues that the relationship between labor and land has been overlooked by Western Marxism. They argue that to better understand the function of capital in the Anthropocene, it is imperative to reexamine the interplay between human labor and natural resources. I have been contemplating the relationship between the curatorial and the cultivation; it is relentless sowing that enriches the soil.
Mick Wilson
“The curatorial” is first and foremost a discursive gambit proposed by several key protagonists within the contemporary art field (such as Maria Lind, Irit Rogoff, and Beatrice von Bismarck) to mark a contrast, not a dichotomy, between curating and a variously constructed “other scene” of curating. Typically, the curatorial is posited not in radical contrast to “curating” but as integrally related, though differentiated, moments of a curating practice, with a particular emphasis on curating as a matter of knowledge work, providing epistemic possibilities that are different from traditional university knowledge formations. For example, von Bismarck understands the curatorial as a cultural practice that goes well beyond the organizing of exhibitions and has “its own procedure for generating, mediating for, and reflecting on experience and knowledge.” [Irit Rogoff and Beatrice von Bismarck, “Curating/Curatorial: A Conversation Between Irit Rogoff and Beatrice Von Bismarck,” in Cultures of the Curatorial, ed. Beatrice von Bismarck, Jörn Schafaff, and Thomas Weski (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2012), 21–30.]
For most commentators the curatorial overcomes the logic of representation and seeks to move beyond subject-object relations. Emphasizing the relational dimensions of presenting art transforms exhibitions into spaces where things are 'taking place' rather than “being shown'“or thematized. [Nora Sternfeld and Luisa Ziaja, “What Comes After the Show? On Post- Representational Curating,” in From the World of Art Archive, ed. Saša Nabergoj and Dorothee Richter, Issue 14 (Zurich: On Curating, n.d.), 21–24.] For those who propose this analogy, the curatorial refers to the disruptive knowledge potentials of curating. The curatorial is not a claim for the curator’s capacity, but rather for the disruptive potential that curating sets in play via the coming together of many different agencies. It is a heavily contested term. For some, talk of the curatorial is the quest for curating’s critical and intellectual leavening. For others, it is about the potential for exceeding the given horizons of established culture and knowledge.
Carolina Rito
The curatorial is, somehow, a departure from its origins—that is, curating as exhibition-making. However, it is “only” a tangential one. What I mean is that it is as if the curatorial is like a dependent person leaving home but finding refuge in the shelter of the home’s garden and coming in for meals and showers, as if the conversation about leaving had never happened. It is, nevertheless, a departure—one that enables distance (a critical one, not disdain) and growth, in all possible senses. (Would the shelter take over the house?)
At a linguistic level, the departure is quite radical, as it moves from the confines of the noun “curating” and its derivative adjective, “curatorial,” to claiming its own cluster of relations as a new substantive, i.e., the curatorial. And, because of the departure, despite the undeniable etymological affiliation, the curatorial no longer serves to classify curating-related activities. The curatorial is a hub of connectivity that emerges out of the diversification of curating practices, moving from being a professional practice of exhibition-making in the contemporary art field to a mode of inquiry into contemporary societal and material issues.
This concept has been introduced through the work of Irit Rogoff (2006, 2013), Maria Lind (2010), and Beatrice von Bismarck (2012). Curators and theorists recognized that there was something more to the act of making things public, juxtaposing seemingly unrelated materials and stimulating the discussion of speculative ideas through proximity between things. In other words, the traditional model of exhibition-making was giving way to a more complex series of cultural exchanges involving different actors, fields, disciplines, and formats. Curating, as a term to capture this complexity, fell short, and that is how the curatorial served to open the space for new approaches.
-
Steven Henry Madoff is the founding chair of the MA Curatorial Practice program at the School of Visual Arts in New York and editor in chief of The Curatorial. Previously, he served as senior critic at Yale University’s School of Art. He lectures internationally on such subjects as the history of interdisciplinary art, contemporary art, curatorial practice, and art pedagogy. He has served as executive editor of ARTnews magazine and as president and editorial director of AltaCultura, a project of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. His books include Thoughts on Curating from Sternberg Press (series editor); Turning Points: Responsive Pedagogies in Studio Art Education (contributor) from Teachers College Press; Learning by Curating: Current Trajectories in Critical Curatorial Education (contributor) from Vector; Fabricating Publics (contributor) from Open Humanities Press; What about Activism? (editor) from Sternberg Press; Handbook for Artistic Research Education (contributor) from SHARE; Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century) (editor) from MIT Press; Pop Art: A Critical History (editor) from University of California Press; Christopher Wilmarth: Light and Gravity from Princeton University; To Seminar (contributor) from Metropolis M Books; and After the Educational Turn: Critical Art Pedagogies and Decolonialism (contributor) from Black Dog Press. His new book, Unseparate: Modernism, Interdisciplinary Art, and Network Aesthetics is forthcoming from Stanford University Press. Essays concerning pedagogy and philosophy have appeared in volumes associated with conferences at art academies in Beijing, Paris, Utrecht, and Gothenburg. He has written monographic essays on various artists, such as Marina Abramović, Georg Baselitz, Ann Hamilton, Rebecca Horn, Y. Z. Kami, Shirin Neshat, and Kimsooja, for museums and art institutions around the world. His criticism and journalism have been translated into many languages and appeared regularly in such publications as the New York Times, Time magazine, Artforum, Art in America, Tate Etc., as well as in ARTnews and Modern Painters, where he has also served as a contributing editor. He has curated exhibitions internationally over the last 35 years in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. Most recently, Y.Z. Kami: In a Silent Way at MUSAC, León, Spain, June 2022-January 2023. Madoff is the recipient of numerous awards, including from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Academy of American Poets. He is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Nina Liebenberg is a South African curator, currently conducting her post-doctoral research at the University of the Arts, Helsinki. Before moving to Finland, Liebenberg spent the last ten years working at the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Curating the Archive, convening a selection of courses for its curatorial program. She uses curation as methodology to explore various overlaps and connections between diverse university departments, drawing on their disciplinary objects collections to curate exhibitions that surface uncanny cross-disciplinary connections and extend the meaning of how these materials are understood in their host departments. She is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Henk Slager’s focus has been on research and visual art for the last twenty years. He was a Lecturer at De Appel Curatorial Program (1995-2020), Visiting Professor of Artistic Research (Uniarts Helsinki 2010-2015, 2024-), and Dean of MaHKU Utrecht Graduate School of Visual Art and Design (HKU Utrecht 2003-2018). He is currently working for the same school on the development of a practice-based doctoral program. Slager co-initiated the European Artistic Research Network (EARN), a network investigating the consequences of artistic research for current art education through symposia, expert meetings, and presentations. Departing from a similar focus on artistic research he published The Pleasure of Research, an overview of curatorial research projects (a.o. Shanghai Biennale, 2008; Tbilisi Triennial, 2012; Aesthetic Jam Taipei Biennial, 2014; 5th Guangzhou Triennial, 2015; Research Pavilion Venice, 2015-2019; and 9th Bucharest Biennale, 2020). A follow-up publication will be presented in 2025. Slager is currently co-convening the 6th Asia Triennial Manchester (2025).
Vipash Purichanont is a lecturer in the Department of Art History on the faculty of Archeology at Silpakorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. He holds a PhD in Curatorial/Knowledge from the Department of Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research lies at the intersection of curatorial practice, objects, archives, economics, and Southeast Asia. Purichanont was an assistant curator for the first Thailand Biennale (Krabi, 2018), a curator of Singapore Biennale 2019 (Singapore, 2019), and a co-curator of the second Thailand Biennale (Korat, 2021). He is also a co-founder of Waiting You Curator Lab, a curatorial workshop that aims to initiate alternative infrastructures in Thailand and beyond. He is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Mick Wilson is Professor of Art, Director of Doctoral Studies, at HDK-Valand, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and co-chair of the Centre for Art and Political Imaginary (2024-2028). He is a co-researcher on The Museum of the Commons (EACEA 2023-2027) and The Foutain: An art-technological-social drama (FORMAS 2020-2024). Recent edited volumes include: with Gerrie van Noord & Paul O'Neill (eds.) Kathrin Böhm: Art on the Scale of Life, Sternberg / MIT Press (2023); with Henk Slager (eds.) Expo-Facto: Into the Algorithm of Exhibition, EARN (2022); with Cătălin Gheorghe (eds.) Exhibitionary Acts of Political Imagination (Editura Artes/ArtMonitor, 2021); with Nick Aikens et al. (eds.) On the Question of Exhibition 1, 2, & 3 (PARSE, 2021). He is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Carolina Rito is Professor of Creative Practice Research at the Research Centre for Arts, Memory, and Communities, Coventry University, UK. She is a researcher and curator whose work is situated at the intersection of knowledge production, the curatorial, and contested historical narratives. Rito is an Executive Board Member of the Midlands Higher Education & Culture Forum and a Research Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary History (IHC), Universidade Nova de Lisboa. She has served as the Executive Editor of The Contemporary Journal and has published in international journals such as King’s Review, Mousse Magazine, Wrong Wrong, and The Curatorial. From 2017 to 2019, Rito was Head of Public Programs and Research at Nottingham Contemporary, leading the partnership with Nottingham Trent University and the University of Nottingham. She holds a PhD in Curatorial/Knowledge from Goldsmiths, University of London, where she also taught from 2014 to 2016. She lectures internationally—in Europe, South America, and the Middle East—on her research and curatorial studies. She is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Exhibition / Exhibitionary
Exhibitions have changed their approach and function over time. They have not only reacted against the idea of a prescribed political or natural order of display, but they also have questioned their space as a privileged site of capitalist forms of representation.
By Multiple authors
Multiple authors • 7/1/25
-
The Lexicon is an ongoing project begun by the international Curatorial Studies Workshop, which is part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN). The initial idea was to locate each member’s take on key terms often taken for granted in the curatorial field—such as curating, curatorial, exhibition, exhibitionary, representation, and so forth. We quickly discovered that as fundamental as these terms are, they didn’t carry the same meaning for each of us. The Lexicon stimulated a process of mutual understanding while forming a common ground for a cumulative, multi-perspective dialogue. It was an exercise focused not on finding the “most valid” argument, but on the cumulative—and, in a lot of ways, curatorial—juxtaposition built on the collective reflection and dialogue. For The Curatorial, we will continue to build on what we started, adding new definitions/propositions for terms over time to continue a dialogue that we hope will be beneficial and provocative for all those interested in the field and who appreciate the plasticity of meaning and experience so essential to the work we do. The Lexicon is, therefore, not intended to suggest or offer a clear and single definition for the terms proposed. Instead, it aims to generate a productive dialogue between definitions that can help map the variety of curatorial approaches, aesthetic imaginaries, and forms of practice. The Lexicon will stage this dialogue with monthly contributions from curators, artists, organizers, activists, academics, and critical thinkers.—Carolina Rito, Lexicon section editor
-
Nina Liebenberg
We can define “exhibition” as an event varying in duration that is curated for an audience and includes the display of objects, text, audio-visual elements, and performances. As a format, it can function as a tool to facilitate inter/trans/cross-disciplinary engagements that promote multiple interpretations of single objects (loosening the taxonomic framework to which disciplinary objects and images are usually subjected).
In his catalogue essay for the exhibition Away from Home, held at the Wexner Center for the Arts (2003), the curator Jeffrey Kipnis calls an exhibition a “roundtrip,” positing that its basic form—home (a), away (b), back (a’)—finds its most fertile incarnation in the sonata of classical music. In a sonata, the exposition (a) introduces themes in the home key before departing. In the development (b), these themes undergo transformations across various keys, creating a sense of adventure. Key changes, or chromatic shifts, add color and render the material unfamiliar or strange. Finally, the recapitulation (a’) brings the themes back to the home key, altered yet familiar. An exhibition functions similarly. [See Jeffrey Kipnis, “Away from Home,” in Away from Home, ed. Annetta Massie (Columbus, OH: Wexner Center for the Arts, 2003), 40–41.]
Vipash Purichanont
An exhibition is a series of objects on display. It manifests a set of relations woven together with images, signs, discourse, and power. It is something brought forth to be looked at, to be walked into, to be experienced immersively. Unlike other display technologies, such as cinema (which requires the viewer to remain still while the images move), an exhibition requires the subject to move through a series of relations. It need not be housed in a confined space, as an exhibition possesses an internal quality that draws viewers in, acts on them, and participates in shaping perception and subjectivity.
It is also temporal. Even a museum’s “permanent exhibition” must eventually be rehung or rearranged. As a form of display, an exhibition rearranges its viewers as well as its objects; the process of viewing can initiate subjectivation, potentially altering one’s worldview.
Exhibitions are physical. Yet the rise of virtual reality and the metaverse has made exhibitions in virtual space possible. A third-person view, where the user sees their own avatar from an external perspective, exemplifies an exhibition’s power: it enables both observation and the control of a subject undergoing transformation.
Bige Örer
The definition of what constitutes an exhibition and what is contained within it is evolving, with many now seen as dynamic, participatory spaces where art, knowledge, and experience are shared and produced. While traditionally curated by a small group of experts, or a single curator, recent practices have shifted toward a more inclusive, audience-centered approach driven by collaboration, community engagement ,and social participation. Typically showcased in a gallery, museum, or a similar venue, exhibitions are increasingly occupying public and digital spaces, extending their global reach. Exhibitions have the potential to enrich public life by making culture, history, and creativity accessible to everyone, addressing pressing societal issues, fostering critical reflection, and inspiring new ideas.
Henk Slager
Until recently, the exhibition was primarily a dispositive, a unitary system of unambiguous “expression” or completed display, reflecting in its fixity the imagined self-sufficiency of the autonomous work of art that the exhibition is supposed to mediate. Over the past decade, a paradigm shift has taken place: exhibitions are now understood much more as platforms for knowledge-in-the-making than as static forms of dissemination. The exhibition has the potential to be a mode of research action.
Cătălin Gheorghe
An exhibition is commonly understood as a medium, a setting for artworks, or a statement. It is a display of artifacts, structures, ideas, and gestures in an organized way. The production and presentation of an exhibition are co-dependent on an institutional capacity or self-organized initiative, presented in a given space (i.e., museum, white cube, black box, public space, landscape), and to be received by different audiences.
Exhibitions have changed in approach and function over time. They have not only reacted against the idea of a prescribed political or natural order of display but also have questioned their space as a privileged site of capitalist forms of representation. In these conditions, the understanding of “exhibition” as predominantly a medium for displaying evocative manifestations of power would compromise the chances of seeing the exhibition as a process based on imaginative instances of criticism.
A radical use of the exhibition would be the transposition (as a trans[ex]position) of the actual political space and historical time of its event modeling, in Michel Foucault’s words, a relational heterotopia but also manifestations of heterocronia. The trans[ex]position of time and space would have the quality to intervene in multiple specific contexts creating different perspectives and unexpected situations. There would be different kinds of trans[ex]positions, from interventions based on hacking, to complex installations based on research. Opening new reflections on the potentiality of an exhibition, the trans[ex]position would make use of xeno-practices, redefining spaces of perception as xeno-spaces (as non-familiar spaces of thought and counteraction).
Hongjohn Lin
For any exhibition, we are always searching for something novel, original, or better yet, unprecedented. It is true that there is a plethora of exhibitions across diverse settings—museums, galleries, art fairs, community interventions, and biennials. Moreover, the expanding field of exhibitions is increasingly shifting from the physical to the virtual. Both spectators and art communities eagerly await the next event, just as social media feverishly fabricates fleeting memories of the latest spectacle—fifteen minutes of web fame, all too soon forgotten. We live in an era of hyper-metabolism of memory, where everything must go viral and fade rapidly, even faster than fashion trends. The more exhibitions proliferate, the less spectators seem able to recall what they have seen. This phenomenon promotes “exhibition amnesia,” an ideology that emphasizes the new while neglecting the past. Every new opening closes a door to what came before. The white cube, a dominant mode of exhibition display, symbolically ‘whitewashes’ memory, replacing it with interior installations surrounded by sterile drywalls. Exhibition spectatorship is driven by the demand for the novel, the immediate, and the up-to-the-minute, while past exhibitions serve only as references, easily becoming obsolete and forgotten. The genealogy of exhibitions reflects this shift, intertwined with the rise of modern museums in the 18th century and the development of capitalism, where the burgeoning bourgeoisie played a significant role in shaping museums as “public” spaces. As museums became more accessible, they began to reflect and reinforce the values and ideologies of emerging capitalist society, positioning exhibitions not only as new standardized displays but also as expressions of social relations mediated by capital.
Carolina Rito
An exhibition is a selected and curated presentation of objects in an institution of display or in an off-site where the display of artifacts is identified as an exhibition. It is typically curated by someone or a group of people and who are likely identified in the credits of the show as its curators.
-
Nina Liebenberg
The exhibitionary relates to the power structures (mostly unseen) that accompany the making of and running of an exhibition or institution with an exhibition program. The “exhibitionary complex,” first introduced by Tony Bennett [“The Exhibitionary Complex,” New Formations, no. 4 (Spring 1988), 73–102], was revealed in practice through the work of artist-curators (such as Daniel Buren, Marcel Broodthaers, Hans Haacke, Andrea Fraser, and Fred Wilson) practicing institutional critique from the 1960s onward. Students in the curatorial program at the University of Cape Town, in which I taught for many years, engage with the exhibitionary by interrogating how the apartheid ideology influenced the categorization, storage, and display of the collections housed in the city’s museums and institutions. They are then asked to consider the task of local curators in relation to justice and restoration, latent collections and absence, as well as public vs. private space, along with ownership and agency.
The term “exhibitionary” refers to a system of protocols, institutions, and frameworks that shape how exhibitions are conceived, presented, and experienced. It highlights the often-unseen mechanisms behind these presentations, unfolding power relations, historical narratives, and institutional forces that determine what gets exhibited and how. In this sense, the exhibitionary is an invisible but pervasive structure that extends beyond institutional spaces, influencing everyday life, affecting how people understand and engage with the world around them. By challenging traditional power dynamics, the exhibitionary fosters collaboration and co-creation while questioning established norms. It reflects and shapes cultural practices in an ongoing cycle of reinterpretation and critique.
Henk Slager
In the current paradigm, new forms of interaction (collaboration, co-production, current visual technologies), and transgressive practices (crossovers between the different topologies of visual and performative art, oscillations between various epistemic registers) are taking place. Such modes of meaning-making require more dynamic and expanded exhibition formats, such as archives, community-based projects, concept exhibitions, meeting spaces, and interventions in the public space. See, for example, Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics (London: Routledge, 1995).
Cătălin Gheorghe
The exhibitionary apparatus generates certain perceptions of its intentions that often obscure its actual political privileges. It seeks to influence beliefs, reasons, and behaviors; and its rationale and modus operandi are ordering discourses that mask its power structure. These are consequences of its paradoxical presence, acting from a political distance but speaking in full proximity to the audience. In this way, its dominant normative views are mediated through direct concrete displays that, in effect, regulate its viewers’ perceptions. This only underscores the fact that its constitutive colonial derivation inflects it with a deeply negative political condition of hierarchical power.
Even if the exhibitionary moment seems to be not only ideological but also epistemologically compromised, there are substituent chances to overcome institutional conspiracies. Imagining a new, even radical, exhibitionary (social) design that would presuppose the use of present exhibition infrastructures to mediate reformations and reparations, or even revolutionary formulations against the reproduction of the exhibitionary’s underlying privileges.
Hongjohn Lin
In contrast to conventional exhibitions housed in the white cube, the "exhibitionary" moves beyond the gallery ideology, expanding into new forms of public engagement through screenings, performances, experiments, talks, and gatherings. These participatory actions reveal how the gallery ideology is constructed and how (art) histories are generated. The exhibitionary, in short, exposes the backstage mechanisms through which realities are shaped. By reconfiguring the dynamics between acting and enactment, the exhibitionary denaturalizes traditional exhibition formats. The conventional roles of artist, spectator, and curator are rewritten, disrupting the symbolic order to reveal how exhibitions construct reality. This approach aligns with various contemporary curatorial practices, including institutional critique, performativity, criticality, the educational turn, and the expanded field of exhibition-making.
Carolina Rito
The exhibitionary is the network of protocols and regimes (material, conceptual, epistemic, institutional, etc.) through which exhibitions are seen, conceptualized, and signified. Despite being mainly invisible, the exhibitionary is made manifest in very concrete forms. An exhibition’s arrangement of objects and discourse can be understood as the manifested artifact of the exhibitionary. In other words, and similar to Michel Foucault’s notion of “episteme,” the exhibitionary is a regime of intelligibility that pertains to displays as historical constructs. We can say that the defining frame of an exhibition is always a subset of the exhibitionary, which cannot be contained or even provide a totalizing view. Simply, the exhibitionary is the apparatus through which exhibitions surface or are made to surface. Instead, it is larger than the sum of its parts, in a cycle of constant evolution and transforming norms. As Keller Easterling has written about infrastructure, it can be said as well about the exhibitionary that it “is too big and not at one and the same place. It cannot be addressed through its shape or outline, but rather via its disposition—potentials unfolding in time and territory.” The exhibitionary depends on its activation in order to make sense.
-
Nina Liebenberg is a South African curator, currently conducting her post-doctoral research at the University of the Arts, Helsinki. Before moving to Finland, Liebenberg spent the last ten years working at the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Curating the Archive, convening a selection of courses for its curatorial program. She uses curation as methodology to explore various overlaps and connections between diverse university departments, drawing on their disciplinary objects collections to curate exhibitions that surface uncanny cross-disciplinary connections and extend the meaning of how these materials are understood in their host departments. She is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Henk Slager’s focus has been on research and visual art for the last twenty years. He was a Lecturer at De Appel Curatorial Program (1995-2020), Visiting Professor of Artistic Research (Uniarts Helsinki 2010-2015, 2024-), and Dean of MaHKU Utrecht Graduate School of Visual Art and Design (HKU Utrecht 2003-2018). He is currently working for the same school on the development of a practice-based doctoral program. Slager co-initiated the European Artistic Research Network (EARN), a network investigating the consequences of artistic research for current art education through symposia, expert meetings, and presentations. Departing from a similar focus on artistic research he published The Pleasure of Research, an overview of curatorial research projects (a.o. Shanghai Biennale, 2008; Tbilisi Triennial, 2012; Aesthetic Jam Taipei Biennial, 2014; 5th Guangzhou Triennial, 2015; Research Pavilion Venice, 2015-2019; and 9th Bucharest Biennale, 2020). A follow-up publication will be presented in 2025. Slager is currently co-convening the 6th Asia Triennial Manchester (2025).
Cătălin Gheorghe is a theoretician, curator, editor, and Professor of Curatorial Research and Practices at “George Enescu” National University of the Arts in Iași, Romania. He is the editor of Vector Publications, including the recent volumes Learning by curating. Current trajectories in critical curatorial research (2022) and Exhibitionary Acts of Political Imagination, co-edited with Mick Wilson (2021). He is also the curator of Vector Studio, a platform for critical research and art production based on the understanding of art as experimental journalism. He is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Hongjohn Lin is an artist, curator, and Professor at Taipei National University of the Arts, holding a PhD in Arts and Humanities from New York University. His notable exhibitions include the Taipei Biennial (2004, 2012), Asian Manchester Triennial (2008), and Guangzhou Triennial (2015). Lin curated the Taiwan Pavilion’s Atopia at the Venice Biennial (2007) and co-curated the Taipei Biennial with Tirdad Zolghadr (2010). He authored introductions for the Chinese editions of Art Power (Boris Groys) and Artificial Hells (Claire Bishop), and his publications include Poetics of Curating (2018). Lin is the founding editor of Curatography and is currently curating Asian Manchester Triennial 2025. He is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Carolina Rito is Professor of Creative Practice Research at the Research Centre for Arts, Memory, and Communities, Coventry University, UK. She is a researcher and curator whose work is situated at the intersection of knowledge production, the curatorial, and contested historical narratives. Rito is an Executive Board Member of the Midlands Higher Education & Culture Forum and a Research Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary History (IHC), Universidade Nova de Lisboa. She has served as the Executive Editor of The Contemporary Journal and has published in international journals such as King’s Review, Mousse Magazine, Wrong Wrong, and The Curatorial. From 2017 to 2019, Rito was Head of Public Programs and Research at Nottingham Contemporary, leading the partnership with Nottingham Trent University and the University of Nottingham. She holds a PhD in Curatorial/Knowledge from Goldsmiths, University of London, where she also taught from 2014 to 2016. She lectures internationally—in Europe, South America, and the Middle East—on her research and curatorial studies. She is a member of the Curatorial Studies Workshop, part of the Expanded Artistic Research Network (EARN).
Changing Concepts of Curatorial Enquiry: Care, Ethics, and Research
In today’s epistemic regime, we are no longer autonomous producers of knowledge but are forced to cede our sovereignty to processes of abstraction, quantification, and algorithmic regulation.
By Henk Slager
Henk Slager • 2/1/25
-
Critical Curating is The Curatorial’s section devoted to more theoretically oriented considerations of curatorial research and practice. While of a specialized nature, we seek essays for this section that are written for a broadly engaged intellectual audience interested in curating’s philosophical, historical, aesthetic, political, and social tenets, as well as a labor-based activity and its ramifications.
In this essay, the current debate about paradigm formation in artistic research is chosen as a starting point. The way in which artistic research operates as a convergence of creative practice, artistic thinking, and curatorial strategies shows strong similarities with the definition of care proposed by Maria Puig de la Bellacasa: a dynamic, triangulated interaction between labor, affect, and politics. This proposition will be briefly elaborated on the basis of three research projects. Starting from the statement “Research is another word for Care” (Marion von Osten), a further reflection on the significance of this perspective for the topical discussion about curatorial research will be developed.
Today, there is an encroaching sense that our relationship with the world is more and more disturbed. As a result of omnipresent technological acceleration, we are now running up against psychological, political, and planetary limits. This escalation manifests itself in topical forms of precarization (self-exhaustion), the crisis of democracy (politics that are no longer responsive to citizens), and the environmental crisis (treating nature only as a resource for extraction). It seems that we have lost the very pathways and rhythmic relationships to the world as such.1
This awareness is reinforced by the contemporary technological compulsion to transform everything into data. Through this new epistemic regime, we are no longer autonomous producers of knowledge but are forced, because of the imperative of transparency, to cede our sovereignty to processes of abstraction, quantification, digitization, calculation, and algorithmic regulation.
This whole constellation leads to alienation, which has affected many of us in various intensities as an inability to feel, sense, or hear ourselves. In addition, a large part of mankind has lost the common understanding of what a better society might look like. It even seems that our utopian energies are fully exhausted. Philosopher Boris Groys, for example, describes this current state of mind as follows: “Today no one has any idea what will happen in the future. The only hope people have is that the future doesn’t bring anything terrible. The hope is that everything remains as it is—that is the best hope that we can have.”2
Is it feasible to escape this rationalistic, instrumental, calculated, and disengaged relation to the world? Is it conceivable to overcome the current orientation toward the logic of unbridled growth and its cost to our humanity? In other words: Can we achieve a “way out” that resonates with the world and draws attention to other forms of knowledge, agency, solidarity, and community?3 Can we foster shifts in awareness that, as Marina Garces argues in her essay, “Conditio Posthuma,” could lead to a new revolution of “looking after ourselves”?4
In what follows, I’d like to put forward a series of artistic and/or curatorial propositions that might put us on the path to this transformation. For that purpose, the urgent question to be asked is what should be done to “maintain, continue, and repair our world so that we can live in it as well as possible.”5
Political scientist Joan Tronto introduces the concept of care as a tool to repair the connections between world, existence, and life. She does so by deploying this concept strategically: an understanding of care that goes beyond neoliberal capitalism’s calibration of individualist perspectives and preferences that emphasize self-care (a reductive appropriation of the ethical ideologies of care, focusing on lifestyle, fitness, and family). To free care from this hegemonic machine—or better to reclaim care—the concept will have to be recalibrated in its full complexity and ecology: “care shapes what we pay attention to, how we think about responsibility, what we do, how responsive we are to the world around us, and what we think of as important in life. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web.”6 From Tronto's perspective, care is not something an inherently isolated and selfish individual needs to be forced to engage in through considerations of self-interest or duty. On the contrary, it comes naturally to us because we are all involved in and dependent on the ecology of this life-sustaining web. And with that, care is also a critical practice and concept. Starting from collective and multivocal enactments, it stands for strategies of survival, resilience, and resistance in a more-than-human world that is characterized by global inequality, climate crisis, and loss of biodiversity.
Precisely this disruptive understanding of care resonates with the field of artistic research that has played a significant role in art discourse from the beginning of this century. This relatively new form of research is characterized by intertwining creative practice, critical epistemologies, and engaged strategies of dissemination. This specific mode of inquiry enables artistic research to rehearse topical issues concerning planetary urgencies—such as the ecological crisis and social injustice—in a completely different way, namely from the transformative potential to imagine, initiate, or negotiate other ways of living together.
A striking example of this modus operandi is Gustafsson & Haapoja’s research project, “Becoming. Manual for Earthly Living.”7 This project departs from how the capitalist dictate of chronopolitics—that is, using time as a tool for social control in every precinct of life from work, production, and school schedules to health care to transportation—affects our Earth’s ecosystems by asking: Is it possible to live as a human being in a world that is dominated by Western models of progress that are exhausting our planet?
To find a possible answer, Gustafsson & Haapoja conducted thirty-seven video interviews to identify ways of relating to ourselves, others, and the world. They contemplated phenomena that are budding at this very moment and that should be nurtured. In these video conversations, the specific question arises: How can art contribute to forms of subjecthood and citizenship that are no longer determined by anthropocentric frameworks that use the rhetoric of exclusivity or human exceptionalism? In this way, a future world could be built where care forms the basis of coexistence and communality; a world based on another biopolitics where the dominant perspective of the homo economicus is replaced by homo ecologicus, i.e. substituted with a perspective characterized by a polyphonic imaginary, a collective empowerment, a sustainable existence, and a more-than-human community.
Gustafsson & Haapoja, Becoming. Manual for Earthly Living, installation view of Farewell to Research, MNAC, Bucharest, 2021.
Ursula Biemann’s research offers us another excellent example of this approach. Her practice emphasizes the speedy course of climate change into unknown futures that is forcing us to fundamentally rethink the relationship between humans and the Earth. For instance, the video essay Subatlantic juxtaposes the science of geology and climatology with human history, proposing that the fully imaginary globe that has been constructed in the disciplinary field of humanities fails to resonate with the mighty planetary grammar.8 Therefore, if we think from the perspective of a posthuman future, it is extremely important to develop a mode of contemporary art that brings the Earth on stage, so to speak, so that we see it as it is: an unstable living environment reconnecting us to infinite, untameable forces that animate extra-historical dimensions. “Perhaps from there, we can envision a less divided future that can harbor a post-human way of being in the world.”9
Ursula Biemann, Subatlantic, installation view (right side), Re-Imagining Futures, OnCurating, Zurich, 2019.
A similar postcapitalist perspective is articulated in the research project “Stones Have Laws” by Lonnie van Brummelen & Siebren de Haan.10 The film portrays how the Western model of linear time has played an important role in processes of colonization and exploitation, as well as in the loss of self-determination for a wide range of cultures and creatures. “Stones Have Laws” attends to the current situation of the Maroon community in the interior of Surinam and to another aspect of capitalist chronopolitics: a process that exchanges ecological time for a growth-oriented, measurable time. As a consequence, a system came into being in which nature became commodified, i.e., understood as an object for consumption. Meanwhile—and this is central to Van Brummelen & De Haan’s research project—a social protest is developing in Latin America that demands another ecology of care: a living world that requires different ways of organizing knowledge, time, and ontology that trouble the traditional direction of progress and the speed of technoscientific, productionist, future-driven interventions.
Lonnie van Brummelen & Siebren de Haan, Stones Have Laws, installation view, Any
Speculation Whatever, Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de La Habana, 14th Havana
Biennale, 2022.
These projects emphasize that the urgencies of care ethics and the imagining of potential “ways out” are also high on the agenda of artistic research. María Puig de la Bellacasa's book, Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds resonates with this.11 She describes care as a dynamic triangulated relationship of labor, affect, and politics; and it should always have these three ontological dimensions actively present: the practical (work), the affective (engagement), and the ethico-political (involvement). Only then can care present itself as both a speculative and existential domain: open-ended, with room for possible reconfigurations.
With Puig de Bellacasa’s characterization of care, we see clear similarities with a possible definition of the practice of artistic research.12 This mode of inquiry can also be described as a dynamic triangulated relationship: between creative practice (experimentality, art-making, the potential of the sensible); artistic thinking (open-ended, speculative, associative, nonlinear, haunting, thinking differently); and dissemination strategies (curatorial formats, topical modes of political imagination, performative perspectives, transformational spaces for encounters), comprehending these different kinds of conceptual space in their mutually vibrant and coherent interrelationships.
From whatever conceptual space one departs, an artistic research practice should always signify a transversal constellation—as a creative proposition for thought in action. Yet, that mode of research should never be reduced to a method of one of the three constituents. Artistic research cannot be exactly equated with creative innovation or disciplinary knowledge production or political activism. Consequently, it seems urgent now to profoundly challenge and question the issue of how to articulate and present the condition of the intersection between creative practice, artistic thinking, and the ways they are made manifest.
What does this triangulated connectivity mean for thinking about the curatorial dimension? In the symposium, Going to the Limits of Your Longing, Research as Another Name for Care, organized by the Basel Academy in 2021 to honor the late curator and artist Marion von Osten, a constructive and inspiring perspective was presented.13 The point of departure for the symposium was Von Osten’s empathetic curatorial approach to the medium of exhibition-making. This revolved around artistic research devoted to collective issues and modes of meaning-making, putting forward ideas on community, access, agency, gender, and ecology. And here we see a topical interpretation of curatorial care and responsibility: to work against repression, exclusion, and marginalization. Or to put it differently, curatorial care requires attention to other modes of being and thinking that are sensitive to difference. In this way, the curatorial also shows its political potential, i.e., making an ethics of care public in a strategic manner based on an understanding of the politics of display: how care is disseminated, how care is performed, how care is propagated, and how care ultimately resists categorical modes of thinking.
Beatrice von Bismarck also describes how curating involves modifying and generating meaning in acts of assembling in public. It constitutes a coming-together for processes of negotiation, but also for proclamation, demonstration, or argumentation. In this approach, curatorial processes are essentially performative. Exhibits find themselves in new juxtapositions, entering into relations with altered spaces and social, economic, and discursive contexts. Attention focuses on the interplay of all factors, and in particular on “the transformative, but also self-transforming relational fabric of the curatorial situation, its conditions and preconditions, and the options for actions they offer.”14
In this moment of making things public, we notice a challenging task for both thinking and practicing curatorial care and artistic research. This includes investigating the disruptive potential, the triangulated condition, the topical role of speculation, the perspective of change vectors, and different modes of agency, focusing on other ways of living together as a performative exploration of possible ways out. All of this could lead to the mutual enrichment and reassessment of the concepts and ecologies of research and care, and consequently afford a more profound thinking about matters concerning all of us and imagining future scenarios.
NOTES
1. In his book Resonance, A Sociology of our Relationship to the World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018), Hartmut Rosa looks for possibilities to restore our relationship with the world. Can we recover the phenomenological condition that makes it possible again to resonate with the world and hear its polyphony?
2. Boris Groys, Philosophy of Care (London/New York: Verso, 2022). See also “Philosophy of Care: A Conversation.” https://www.e-flux.com/notes/499836/philosophy-of-care-a-conversation.
3. The curatorial project “The Way Out” (Steirischer Herbst, Graz 2021, curators: Ekaterina Degot, David Riff) contrasts the disappointment of self-regulatory markets with a different, confrontational model of care. https://2021.steirischerherbst.at/en/program/2293/the-way-out-of.
4. Marina Garces, “Conditio Posthumana,” in The Great Regression (Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons, 2017), 7.
5. Joan Tronto, Who Cares, How to Reshape a Democratic Politics, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015), 3.
6. Tronto, Who Cares, How to Reshape a Democratic Politics, 8.
7. Presentation of “How to Become Human” in the context of the 9th Bucharest Biennale publication MaHKUscript, Journal of Fine Art Research, 5, After the Research Turn, 2020. See also Terike Haapoja’s presentation “Vulnerability, Animality, Community,” EARN Conference, The Postresearch Condition, BAK, basis voor actuele kunst, Utrecht, 2021. MaHKUscript: https://mahkuscript.com/5/volume/4/issue/1. https://www.hku.nl/en/study-at-hku/creative-transformation/pre-phd-programme/the-postresearch-condition.
8. This work by Ursula Biemann was shown in the research presentation “Re-Imagining Futures,” OnCurating, Zurich, 2019. “Re-Imagining Futures,” https://oncurating-space.org/re-imagining-futures/.
9. Quote from Ursula Biemann, Subatlantic, 2015. https://vimeo.com/123399928.
10. The research project Stones Have Laws was part of the second iteration of Re-Imagining Futures, titled Any Speculation Whatever, Futuro Y Contemporaneidad, 14th Havana Biennial. Stones Have Laws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McQjpqbRjj0.
11. Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017).
12. First steps toward this paradigm formation were given in “Farewell to Research” (9th Bucharest Biennale, 2020-2021) and the publication The Postresearch Condition (Metropolis M Books: Utrecht, 2021). Farewell to Research: https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/410540/farewell-to-research/. Postresearch Condition: https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/410536/metropolis-m-books-publishes-the-postresearch-condition/.
13. Symposium Going to the Limits of Your Longing, Research as Another Name for Care. In Memory of Marion von Osten, Basel Academy of Art and Design FHNW, March 17-18, 2021. https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/381063/going-to-the-limits-of-your-longing-research-as-another-name-for-care-in-memory-of-marion-von-osten/.
14. Beatrice von Bismarck, The Curatorial Condition (London: Sternberg Press, 2022), 9. In her description of the curatorial, von Bismarck also uses the model of dynamic triangulated relationships, consisting of the following constituents: constellation, transposition, and hospitality. “The curatorial is characterized by transpositional processes generating constellations that are determined by curatoriality and that are situatively, temporally, and dynamically shaped on the basis of the dispositif of hospitality.”(28)
-
Henk Slager’s focus has been on research and visual art for the last twenty years. He was a Lecturer at De Appel Curatorial Program (1995-2020), Visiting Professor of Artistic Research (Uniarts Helsinki 2010-2015, 2024-), and Dean of MaHKU Utrecht Graduate School of Visual Art and Design (HKU Utrecht 2003-2018). He is currently working for the same school on the development of a practice-based doctoral program. Henk Slager co-initiated the European Artistic Research Network (EARN), a network investigating the consequences of artistic research for current art education through symposia, expert meetings, and presentations. Departing from a similar focus on artistic research he published The Pleasure of Research, an overview of curatorial research projects (a.o. Shanghai Biennale, 2008; Tbilisi Triennial, 2012; Aesthetic Jam Taipei Biennial, 2014; 5th Guangzhou Triennial, 2015; Research Pavilion Venice, 2015-2019; and 9th Bucharest Biennale, 2020). A follow-up publication will be presented in 2025. Henk Slager is currently co-convening the 6th Asia Triennial Manchester (2025).