engage Summer School 2012: Barbara Dougan workshop session
Building a pedestrian bridge
This session discussed the changing role of contemporary art institutions and of the curator. The concept of curating is relatively new, and has moved on from the idea of keeper, someone with academic knowledge, engaged in research and a custodian who is responsible for the care and presentation of artefacts.
Since the 1960s there have been a range of descriptors and views about the role of curator, leading towards the autonomous and powerful figure that has developed since the nineties. This shift parallels art and institutional practice is more creative and pro-active, and plays a part in the production of art itself. We now see the establishment of the artist as curator, the large-scale curated exhibition as the new autonomous artwork, and the rise of the celebrity curator.
My stance on curating has more in common with Anne D’Harnoncourt (Director,
Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1982-2008), who described the curator as a
‘pedestrian bridge’ – someone who makes connections between art and the public.
The workshop started with an introduction about the role of curator, based on two publications:
Rugg, J., Sedgwick, M. Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance
(2009) Intellect: Bristol & Chicago
Ulrich Obrist, H. A Brief History of Curating (2008) JRP Ringier
This introduction led into a discussion about the concept of a pedestrian bridge, the respective roles of curator and educator, and the skills and attributes needed for each. Three case studies were then presented from my practice, followed by a discussion about how institutions can build a pedestrian bridge, and the contribution made to the building team by different players and professional identities.
………………
The range of understandings of the role of the institution and the curator was briefly summed up by Walter Zanini (Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art and of the Biennale in Sao Paulo), when he pointed out that the museum must decide whether is a forum or a temple.
During the 60s and 70s – in keeping with art and society of the time – the idea grew of the museum as laboratory. This was promoted by, among others, Jean
Leering (Director of the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven from 1964 to 1973). He

also believed that human interests should always be at the centre of your policy as a museum director, that the job of a director is to interest people in art. The director should consider the correspondences between people’s interests and art and then to use these interests as a starting point for an artistic programme. He compared this role with that of libraries.
This is notable, given how little mention there is of public or audience in either publication. Anne D’Harnencourt, Director of Philadelphia Museum of Art (1982 –
2008) described her work graphically as being a pedestrian bridge between art and public.
And Pontius Halten (Director of the Moderna Museet in Stockholm, 1958-1973, and then the Pompidou) said ‘A museum director’s first talk is to create a public – not just to do great shows, but to create an audience that trusts the institution.’ I believe that this is fundamental to developing an artistic programme, introducing new and challenging ideas and both creating and maintaining an audience.
In the last twenty years or so, the emphasis seems to have shifted from public to professional with the emergence of the curator, accompanied by an affirming debate and theoretical discourse encompassing:
ritualising the experience of art through exhibitions, which have
-
-
become the main way that people encounter art the rise of the biennale culture the expansion of the artist as a meta-curator the move of critics into curating and the importance of catalogue texts
and the large scale curated exhibition as the new autonomous artwork
Paul O’Neill (curator, artist and writer)
I would add to this list, the cult of the celebrity curator at an international level.
Others, including Liz Wells, propose that curation is essentially a research process, involving investigation, discovery and critical reflection.
Accompanying this ‘turn towards curating’ has been the emergence of anthologies. Beginning in the 19902, these tended to come out in international meetings between curators, and placed an emphasis on individual practice, the first-person narrative and the curator self-positioning.
From another perspective, JJ Charlesworth (writer, associate editor ArtReview ) considers that art has been bureaucratised over the last decade, creating a new art managerial class. This means that the artist has been displaced by the claims of the curator as the core legitimising role in the institutions of art.
The curatorial ego evident in these views and that accompanies much curating

runs contrary to advice from James Lingwood (Co-Director Artangel ) that curators should ‘understand their position in the food chain.’ He is quoted by
Catherine Elwes (artist and Professor at University of the Arts London:
Camberwell), who argues that ‘the visibility of art should be the goal of curating, not the aggrandisement of what is, in essence, a service trade’.
(This brought back memories and into the discussion the analysis by Mick Wilson at the engage Conference 2011 of a service economy and the reputational economy within which artists, and curators, work)
In Thoughts on Curating , Richard Hylton (curator and art critic) explores the nature of curating at a time when art, at least in Britain, enjoys an unprecedented visibility and popularity. He assesses how changes in public funding, coupled with concerns about conceptual access and inclusion have influenced the notion of critical or interventionalist practice.
He questions whether the significance attached to the role of curator is misleading. The professionalisation of curating and the growth of new spaces for the display of contemporary art may expand access in one way, but merely supports an increasingly regulated terrain – a terrain that is beholden to market
(private) and government (public) agendas.