Cultural Capital: Curators, or my childhood was stolen from me and judged harshly

CARRIE MILLER: In my romantic mind, curators were always one of two types: cerebral women in their 30s and 40s, dressed in black, avant-garde clothing, a slash of red lipstick; or a man in his 50s or 60s, slightly dishevelled, probably hung-over, and hostile to the more radical ideas about art. I don’t think people always consider the fact that artists are sometimes also curators. In order to exhibit their work early in their careers, the most ambitious and interesting artists often run artist-run spaces, curating individual and group exhibitions. I remember one of these artists, frustrated by a distinct lack of interest in him by the art world, decided to curate a group show at his local McDonalds. When no one was looking, he hung works on the walls next to the kitschy prints. The exhibition was cut tragically short (after half an hour I believe) when customer service staff told him to take it down.

ANDREW FROST: I did a straw poll survey on Facebook about whether it’s okay for artist/curators to put their own work in shows they’re curating. The consensus was that it’s okay for artists just starting out to curate themselves and their friends in an artist- run space, but beyond that there’s a widely held view that there are major ethical considerations when doing so. The minority opinion was that curators are unnecessary gatekeepers between artists and success. So both opinions seem consistent over the years.

CM: So what are some of the ethical considerations around the artist/curator role? I think most people think the main one is that it can be a vehicle for self-promotion, or at least the promotion of your friends. I guess exhibitions that involve this sort of self-promotion and nepotism could help the careers of certain artists over others, because collectors and other interested people don’t consider the process by which artists are chosen for exhibitions. This could potentially confer legitimacy to practices of artists who don’t ‘deserve’ it. Of course, this implies that the art world is meritocratic and we all know that’s true. Not.

AF: The question that’s particularly relevant to collectors is whether certain curators are indicative of the quality of art that is selected for an exhibition.

CM: I wouldn’t think the connection would be that explicit but, as you know, curators with a tight budget and a finite amount of energy to spend wrangling artists and who need bums on seats will be tempted to take their cues from other curators. That’s why people are always whingeing that certain artists get all the breaks. It would make sense that these artists become a safer bet for collectors.

AF: That’s probably true in the short term. I once heard a rumour that a well-known curator selected work for their shows by flipping through international art magazines. That didn’t seem like such a bad thing. How else are you going to find out about art? In the long term there has been complete changeovers in the artists shown in curated museum and public gallery shows. There’s probably only a few artists whose work is curator-proof. And really, who cares about old contemporary art? We want it fresh, thanks.

CM: I don’t know, new and fresh can be pretty confusing. I’d have to ask my artist friends what it all means. And that’s the reason why artists can make great curators. They are plugged into the art world at a different frequency to arts professionals. They work with each other at artist-run spaces, they edit little independent magazines together, they get drunk together and have long philosophical discussions about what it means to be an artist, and, of course, they sleep with each other. All of this gives them unique access to whose practice has the right stuff.