Logbook #22

Posted on April 2nd, 2015 by Cleo Smits

Observations: Instutional Constraints + Visitor’s Responses

On the second day the exhibition was open, a guest of the music program, here with for a conference was informed that he could not enter without an NYU ID. He was rather obstinate and would not move from the door for a while, peering in and gesturing towards me when speaking to the staff member outside. I decided to go talk to him to try and explain further. When it was explained that this was not our decision, that this was a student project and this rule was one we had to follow, he wanted to know who’s decision it was and why there was such a decision. He then mentioned he was with the music program and I offered to explain to his hosts who they could contact about this decision (Judith Miller). He mentioned that he had seen posters around campus and had found them misleading, as it was not advertised as private on the advertising for the event. It was in moments like these that I saw the benefit of having a staff member outside to enforce the rule set it place- I felt very uncomfortable having to turn people away, and it was easier to have someone ask for IDs for me.

Visitors would sometimes ask me why there was there was a table set up outside, and why the restrictions with IDs; these protective mechanisms put in place by the institution were themselves very performative. Justin Stearns, told me that he was quite disappointed about the institutions’ reactions, explaining that he would have brought his guest lecturer whose topic was in fact very related to issue of including Gulf Labor. In a conversation with him about navigating the topic of labor and the display of 52 Weeks in my exhibition and the decision to restrict entry to the space, Justin Stearns phrased it well, saying that “the exclusion itself becomes a performance.” Both he and Bryan Waterman separately suggested that I organize some sort of talk-back or Q&A session.

I considered this seriously, especially because earlier on I had been mentioning that I wanted the audience to feel they had agency and a voice/a way to respond to the Gulf Labor in which we are so implicated. An idea Hanan Sayed Worrell, a Guggenheim senior representative in Abu Dhabi and my mentor through the Women’s Mentorship Program, gave to me when I shared with her the updates about administration’s concerns was to host a panel to discuss Gulf Labor’s work. This would be a way to promote discourse about the work and make it clear that putting their work up on the walls does not mean that the institution is in support of the work, but rather that it is valuable to stimulate discussions. The more I thought about it, however, a panel or talk-back/ Q&A that was directly related to the labor issue would end up doing what I had been trying to avoid from the start; it would make the exhibition all about labor. By highlighting or focusing on the issue, visitors would end up losing sight of the larger theme of my exhibition. After speaking about this with my mentors, I decided to do a curatorial walkthrough- this way people could answer any questions, and the framework of the entire exhibition would be the focus. Throughout the week, I had been giving informal ones, but going through a more official walkthrough felt very different. There were only five people, but still I was terribly nervous, and having one of my mentors there certainly added the pressure. I understand now why so many artists are bad at talking about their own work. It was very hard to speak about my curatorial work, it is quite a vulnerable position.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook #21

Posted on April 1st, 2015 by Cleo Smits

Observations: Number of Visitors + Time Spent

When trying to keep a tally of how many people visited the exhibition in total, I was careful to not count repeat visitors when I would recognize them. Another benefit of sitting through the exhibition every hour that is was open, was being able to collect this information. Over the six days the exhibition was open, a total of about 140-150 people came to see the exhibition. This number includes an estimation of about 40-60 people at the opening (I was unable to count, but created this estimation after consulting with Johnny Farrow, Julie Stopper, and David Darts, all of whom had to stay for the whole time. From Monday to Friday that week, the number of people visiting in one day ranged from 15-25 people. Visitors would come in a more or less steady stream throughout the 6 hours and about half would come with someone and the other half would come alone.

I was pleasantly surprised with how much time people would give to the exhibition, and I consider this to be one of the ways to determine a certain level of success. People stayed for a range of about 10 minutes up to- and in rare cases- even past 30 minutes, with the average visitor spending about 20 minutes in the room. In order to read all the wall texts, look at and read each work, and watch the videos, more than 30 minutes was needed. I had two conversations with students lasting more than 15 minutes so that they stayed for 45 minutes.

One of them, an Emirati and Syrian student asked me how many other Emirati students had seen the exhibition (I think total 3-4 Emirati students saw the exhibition), saying when she left that she was going to tell her friends to stop by. We spoke about how the topic of labor is one that is often avoided, which she felt was a shame, saying that it saddens her how easily labor issues and labor itself becomes invisible.

Some visitors came back after having come to the opening to be able to read through things they didn’t have time for the first time. And other visitors came throughout the week and would leave saying they wanted to come back later when they had more time. The most intriguing of these second-time visitors was a professor who came back a day or two after visiting, walked directly up to Serkan Ozkaya’s Broadway Boogie Woogie as if to check something or to re-read the label, and then left.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook #20

Posted on March 30th, 2015 by Cleo Smits

Observing Visitors

Sitting where I was every day allowed me to collect observations about how the visitors would walkthrough the exhibition. While it felt very uncomfortable to be watching people look at my own work, I was able to see if my intended order to the show was actually followed. The visitor would usually begin with the rather long introductory text on the wall with vinyl lettering. They would often then move on to the enormous timeline taking up most of the wall full of examples and explanations to read through- all before even seeing the work.

Placing this timeline at the beginning did mean that I was asking the visitor to read a lot of information before beginning to look at the artworks. But ultimately, the timeline served to set the framework through which to situate the work in the show. The exhibition was reading-heavy overall, with two of the three examples as mostly text-based works. The placement of the timeline meant that it was also the last thing a visitor would see in the exhibition. On their way out, visitors would revisit the timeline after having seen the contemporary examples and read in more detail about how they relate to the history of institutional critique in the catalog essay in their hands.

In general, most people followed the intended order, but it was interesting to watch when some visitors walked through the exhibition in a different order. Sometimes they would go straight from Serkan Ozkaya’s letters to the Gulf Labor work, seeing Babak Golkar’s sculptural installations on their way back to the door. I determined that this was most likely because of the bench placed in front of Babak Golkar’s work- it created a sort of barrier for some from naturally crossing the room in a diagonal to look at Golkar’s works second and instead created a path that kept them on the left side, leading them to turn into the Gulf Labor room.

I hadn’t realized how tricky bench placement would be. I still remember learning about the importance of benches or seating in exhibition spaces as well as carpeting or different floor textures as devices to slow people down in Philippe de Montebello’s J-Term class my freshman year. I knew I wanted to have benches in this exhibition, but I didn’t try to decide on their placement until I was in the space. Still, I didn’t think it would be so hard to make them work in the room. One of the benches was going to be in front of the longer video, however it had to be placed far from the monitor to get no longer see the glare coming from the room’s lighting- so far back, in fact, that the headphone cords would not reach. So we decided that people would have to stand in this this room.

Placing a bench in the middle room, while perhaps complicating the path for some, allowed for a central resting place and I believe that it encouraged visitors to take their time and stay longer. It also became a nice place for me to sit with people and discuss the exhibition- I could stay near the sculptures and have a great conversation with for example, Judy Miller, about my experiences with the capstone process. There was also a bench in the first room, in front of the timeline- this bench was not used for sitting very much since it was near an entrance (although some visitors used it to sit and read some of the catalog essay). Because it was in front of the timeline wall, which really could only be read from standing, this particular bench adopted a practical use I had not anticipated- people would instinctively use it to leave their backpacks and larger bags. By dropping off heavy bags, visitors looked less like they were on their way somewhere, and more like they could take their time with the exhibition.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook #19

Posted on March 24th, 2015 by Cleo Smits

Installation

I had about 4 days for installation which ended up being quite hectic because I had a lot of elements to finish before opening. Step one was advertising- through banners and posters. 

I had to get glass and backboard mounting cut to size at the framer’s for Serkan Ozkaya’s Dear Sir or Madam series and print the works onto high quality paper.

I also printed Gulf Labor’s 52 Weeks onto high-quality A3 paper, but they were all varying sizes depending on image quality and had to be cut to size.

I finished the catalog essay and send it to the printers as well as pick it up.

Darya also finished the timeline graphic, which I printed in very large format to fill the entire first wall.

Then there was the editing of the wall text, sending the introductory wall text to the vinyl printers, getting it delivered and putting it on the walls, as well as printing and mounting the other wall text and labels at the framers.

Babak Golkar’s The Return Project sculptures were delivered and needed to be installed by Sam Faix (Head of Installation at the NYUAD Art Gallery) and Laura Latman (NYUAD Art Gallery Registrar).

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #18

Posted on March 20th, 2015 by Cleo Smits

The question of whether the exhibition can be public or private has been resolved. The decision was to keep the exhibition private- open to purple NYU ID holders only, to remove the names of the artists from the banner or any advertising, visitors could not take or upload any photos, and there would be a staff member set up outside to check IDs.

Additionally, there was one artwork from Gulf Labor’s  52 Weeks that I was asked not to include, because it implied violence and it approached the dangerous boundary of being interpreted as criticizing the government, which is illegal. In order to be able to still display the full 52 Weeks, my mentors and I decided that I could include a blank poster with the label of the work that would have been there along with the phrase ‘Artwork not on display- culturally sensitive’. So while I didn’t include the poster, I still managed to include the work in making it’s absence obvious. By including the label as I would have had the poster been on the wall, I was not obscuring what the work was. Visitors could easily find the work on Gulf Labor’s website as all of the works from 52 Weeks are open source, and some did.

The work that we did not display but was still included through the use of a blank page:

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #17

Posted on March 16th, 2015 by Cleo Smits

The opening is less than 2 weeks away, so things are really quite hectic. First, though, to catch up on what I have been up to:

Production meeting with Jonny Farrow- this was extremely helpful and I was able to really get started on some logistical points. We spoke about the possibility of actually making parabolic speakers- Jonny kindly looked into this, but in the end we found that stores here didn’t carry the right equipment, so I am going to resort back to the original plan to have speakers for the videos (from 52 Weeks)

Budget and catering meeting with Fidan- she helped me get the Arts Center to cover catering for the opening (as the other capstones are having catering at their openings). That way, I have a bit of leeway with my budget, which is certainly comforting.

Loan conditions meeting with Maya and Laura L.- we had a few conversations and follow-up detail questions to Laura M. at The Third Line in order for Laura L. to feel that we will have done everything we could to ensure the safety of the 2 Babak Golkar sculptures that will be shipped here through Hasenkampf (now confirmed for arrival March 24th). One of the main concerns was around the piece Deranged (concrete, plastic flowers and ceramic vase + stand) because it has the interactive element that one can add coins to it- it functions like a coin collector you might have at home. A concern was if this needed to be indicated, and if it had to be returned with the same (or more) coins as when it arrived.

Another concern was that Laura M. indicated was that the work is intended to be installed near the entrance of the space (again so it can function as a coin collector). At first I was worried this was going to throw off the layout and the development of the exhibition, but Maya made me realize that with the movable walls, and the opening space to the exhibition functioning more as a lobby, it can still be placed at the entrance to where the work begins, and the first image will still be the upside-down Mona Lisa. A question still under consideration for both of the sculptures is whether we will need to use stanchions to make sure they are safe.

Title- choosing a title has been really hard and took a long time with a lot of very helpful input from anyone I could ask, really. In the end, I decided to stick to: PROBE: an investigation of contemporary institutional critique (even though I changed my mind and was hesitating for a while between that and Object (n./v.) ). ‘Probe’ has the connotation of scrutinizing (‘a thorough investigation into a matter’), and even the first definition listed (‘a blunt-ended surgical instrument used for exploring a wound or part of the body’) relates to the idea of this art as a tool (a tool to explore, to expose/make us aware, to apply pressure, etc.). I prefer the idea of ‘probing’ as investigating the term ‘institutional critique’, different practices, and as even having the possibility to respond to, to probe, the work in the exhibition.

Design meeting(s) with Dasha- Darya Soroko is doing all the visual design for the exhibition, which is so great- she is very creative, makes beautiful designs, and is really helpful to keep the process moving. We began by planning the timeline/genealogical chart for the exhibition and discussed the brochure, the catalog essay, and the book that will be made after the exhibition as documentation. We then had to focus on the banner/flyer/invite design, as these would be the first to be printed and I wanted to get them up before the start of Spring Break so that people see the information. Then, once we had a design for these, the same visual ‘identity’ will be applied to the other components. Just yesterday morning, we printed out 3 final banners at the library, and I had 2 printed as roll-up banners at Emirates Express (which I picked up today). The design goes off of the scientific imagery of the word ‘probe’. There is an interactive element- a hanging physical magnifying loop that the viewer has to hold up to the middle of the banner to read the subtitle ‘an investigation of contemporary institutional critique’.

Just this morning, I went and bought magnifying glasses, chain from which to hang them, and frames from IKEA for the Serkan Ozkaya Dear Sir or Madam works- he indicated that he had used simple IKEA frames and then just used the glass. I also completed the translations for Ozkaya’s work this weekend, and also got the versions he has used in the past for reference.

Right now, there are conversations happening with leadership and arts faculty about the danger that including the Gulf Labor puts this exhibition into a grey area in terms of legality- the way it is presented (how it is framed within the exhibition) and how private it will be are in discussions. There are a few works from the project that I won’t be showing as they will most easily be thought of as criticizing the government (the issue legality in question with this work). For the rest of the project, it seems that I will be able to show it, but how this will be done is the main question. So, the banners that I printed (which list the artists’ names) at least for now cannot be put up yet. I may have to remove their names to show them around campus.

It has been amazing to feel all the support from my mentors and faculty as these important conversations are taking place. Because they are so late in the game, there is certainly added pressure, but I have to manage to balance this and not let it stop me from getting things done and figured out- I just have to keep going and get the answers as they are finalized. If anything, it is pushing me to finish my wall text even sooner- although this is hard to do while continuing to finish editing my catalog essay, doing midterms/midterm assignments, and write a rough-draft of my reflection essay for the capstone seminar.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #16

Posted on February 22nd, 2015 by Cleo Smits

This past week I really hit a low point. I agreed to get a draft to my mentors by February 15th, and even though I spent hours trying to work on multiple days, I was barely productive. It became not even an issue of procrastination, but of feeling paralyzed when I would sit down to write. I didn’t end up sending the draft until 3 days later, and even then the writing was still separated out into two documents because I couldn’t figure out how to combine them in a structure that worked. I did get them a complete draft by February 20th, but the hope had been for this to be a final draft, and I still have a lot changes to make.

My mentors gave me helpful advice to just sit with the work and describe it- to start with in-depth description and thinking of the details of the work- medium, format, etc.

I’m not entirely sure why it is so difficult for me to write this catalog essay- somehow claiming that I have the authority to analyze and write about this work has begun to feel false- I guess I am losing confidence in this capstone in that I no longer feel like I really know what I’m saying anymore- or even why. BUT this really isn’t the time to be missing deadlines. I still have a lot to organize- especially in terms of logistics, and I need to just buckle-down and get these things, and this writing done. So hopefully I can move past this bad week and really be productive.

My mentors have also reminded me to keep in mind how I will want my project represented during the capstone festival. The good news this week is that I have a student signed on as a designer for the exhibition! Senior Darya Soroka is going to help me with design for the brochure, banner, flyer, and overall visual design elements in the exhibition-timeline, title, wall text, etc (I want to use a consistent style). We have already met to discuss what I needed for this project and will be meeting again this week to begin actually designing, as I need to have all the material done at least a week before spring break, and a banner and flyer ideally a week before that even.

I also will be working for Senior Brooks Fowler for lighting- they have experience with theater and gallery shows- and have confirmed that they will be here during spring break.

I am meeting with the art GAF Julie to talk through some logistics, and with Jonny Farrow on Wednesday to have a ‘production meeting’ and discuss what I will need to have in the project space for the exhibition.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #15

Posted on February 11th, 2015 by Cleo Smits

This week has also been a series of productive meetings, but that has meant that I have not gotten enough writing done. First off, during my meeting with my mentors last Wednesday, we had a helpful conversation about the logistical details that still need to be sorted out (and quickly!). One such detail was to ask Greg Bruno about his thoughts on if the exhibition could be open to the public. We have yet to hear back from him. Salwa and I decided that I should have my final draft of my catalog essay by February 20th. I have to also decide on details such as how many copies to print, how to place the images- whether they will be full-page or not, etc.

An idea that came up was to look up any documentary-like videos about institutional critique and see if there might be one that I would want to include in the timeline/history section. We also discussed that as I begin to prepare the wall text and think of the layout (now that I have an almost finalized checklist), I need to think about how didactic I want to be in the presentation. Maya said that studies have shown that visitors read up to the first 50 words of a text and usually then move on. I agreed that using questions is a good way to direct the experience but leave room for interpretation- to open up the exhibition for the viewer and not close it off.

I met with the GAF for our Capstone Seminar, Lauren Seaman, who read my first draft of the catalog essay and is kindly going to help me edit it. I am working on getting her a second draft (by this weekend) so that we can meet about it early next week. Lauren is also the person I working with for my reflection essay- I made a Prezi outline for it because I have a lot of different types of reflection I could use in this paper and I don’t know yet which way to go with it.

I also had a meeting with Goffredo Pucetti to discuss the design elements that I need someone to help me with- he directed me towards the design collective and suggested that I work with a sophomore. He also pointed out that I can use the Design Innovation Lab (for 3-D printing, for example) and that Rock, the senior I am paired with in the Seminar class, is very involved in the lab and can help me in that way.

Lastly, I spoke to the junior Isabelle Galet-Lalande about the Gulf Labor group because she was very involved with them in NY and has worked for Walid Raad. She was attending the protests in the Guggenheim and has worked closely with Andrew Ross. She also has access to their group online conversations.

I want to work on a layout this week (as well as my writing, recruiting someone for the design, etc.).

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #14

Posted on February 3rd, 2015 by Cleo Smits

Re-Cap of J-term + update on work done + what’s to come

Now that the Spring semester has officially begun it is a good time to get back into logging the work I have been doing as part of the process of curating this exhibition. J-term sped by without me getting to work much on my capstone unfortunately. I was taking my last core class, What is a Religion, taught by Anthony Appiah, and I underestimated the intensive nature of J-term classes; the amount of reading and writing and the hours of class took up all my productive hours.

I did, however have a deadline of January 26th to send my mentors a first draft of my exhibition catalog essay. As soon as my J-term class was over, I have an intensive few days to get this done, and then was able to meet with Salwa on the 28th to go over main structural edits. We also looked over the latest version of my checklist.

I also had a capstone seminar class on the 27th, when we talked about how we will be writing our 10-page reflection essays. The more we talked about them and I thought about it the following days, I realized that instead of only writing my catalog essay (at first this was going to replace the mandatory 10-page capstone reflection paper) it would make sense to also write a separate reflection essay. This way, my catalog essay can present my academic argument in the exhibition by going through the art historical background and setting it up as a framework through which I analyze the three contemporary examples of institutional critique (Serkan Ozkaya, Babak Golkar, and the Gulf Labor). A reflection essay will be a space for me to explain and analyze my process throughout this project- and to reflect on the reception of the exhibition (the reflection essay is due April 30th). It will also be a way for me to show the curatorial research I did as a part of this capstone, and my confusion/questions about where I lie (or want to lie) within the different theories of curatorial theory and practice.

I also met with Deb and Ruben since the beginning of the semester. I spoke to Deb about my idea to design a timeline (which will be at the beginning of the exhibition). Instead of simply providing a table with books/ readings on historical institutional critique- a proposal I had made last semester- a timeline will allow me to pick and choose the historical examples that best relate to the exhibition and presents the viewer with the framework I want them to be able to view the exhibition through. I have basically already created this framework in the beginning of my catalog essay so I have the material to work with and will now need to be very specific and streamline. Deb suggested that I reach out to Craig Proezl to ask him about this web application that would help design such a timeline. I would print in on the large banner paper from the library for the exhibition. (Having the web format will act as an appendix to my research and materials for the show, which I will not be able to easily present in documentation).

My meeting with Ruben brought up a number of questions I need to explore with my mentors. We were meeting about the Gulf Labor group and whether or not including their project 52 Weeks would be too contentious (Ruben ultimately decides if a capstone is to be public or private in scope). Ultimately, I was able to talk about the work, why I want to include it, etc. Ruben and I talked about different curatorial voices (which belong to different theories of curation)- one which attempts to present the work neutrally (or at least appear to do so). This is in contrast to the approach of taking a clear stance and expressing, openly sharing one’s opinion. There is a way in which when work is presented neutrally, the curator is automatically implied to be supporting/promoting it.

In terms of the Gulf Labor, from the beginning I have been clear that I don’t 100% agree with their tactics and/or tone in some of their works (even within 52 Weeks). So how, still trying to present this exhibition with a neutral tone, focusing on the art historical argument, can I not have the audience assuming that I am including their work because I am supporting it? It would seem that the only way to avoid this assumption is to be overt with the audience about my opinion in regards to their work. Yet when I last met with Salwa, we spoke about the importance of neutrality in leaving room for discussion and interpretation- how a curator voicing their opinion can silence dialogue or other views. So, is there a way for me to show my stance and provide some critiques in a way that actually prompts further dialogue? Ultimately, Ruben said that my mentors will need to give a recommendation about the public/private status of the exhibition.

I also just had another capstone seminar class today in which we began drafting our introductions for our reflection papers. I found this actually incredibly hard- I don’t know how to start, and I realized through discussions with the GAF, Lauren Seaman, that there are many different topics/themes from my project that I could reflect on in this paper. I realized that I think I have been focusing too much on the Gulf Labor and how to include them because I have been imagining potential controversy, which has been slowing me down. In reality, the connection to NYUAD is only through their writings about their work, on their website- the work itself does not directly, but rather indirectly critiques NYUAD and the instance of poor labor practices during the construction of this campus. So I need to be clear about how (and if) simply including the Gulf Labor in the exhibition with 52 Weeks is a critical action towards the university. More importantly, this question has been my focus the past few days, and I feel that I need to put is aside while I return to the main point- an art historical framework for understanding contemporary institutional critique (is this the main point?).

I also met with Maya about my budget, which I had to submit for approval. This meeting brought up the following questions/things to determine:

• Serkan Ozkaya- how exactly am I exhibiting the pages? Mounted? –> get quote from EXP and Silver Rocks
• Wall text- vinyl lettering or mounted on foamcore? Labels to be mounted–> check again for quotes
• Gulf Labor- plan is to print the posters and pin them directly to the wall–> print in the library with thicker paper
• Babak Golkar- spoke with Laura Latman (registrar) about the process of loaning works from The Third Line- fine arts shipping (which company?)-do I need to get a security guard? 24/7 surveillance (I will be able to take some of the hours as well as friends helping out those 2 weeks- install + exhibition)- do the sculptures need extra protection? pedestal + vitrine

I asked Laura Metzler (representing Babak at The Third Line) the following questions:

What are the insurance values?

Are the c-prints already framed or glazed/glass-covered? (Would I need to frame anything?)

Are these works all limited edition/edition of 1?

Can you provide me with details for installation (any specifications, etc.)?

Laura Latman was suggesting that the safest way to exhibit Deranged would be on a pedestal covered by a vitrine. Do you have any objections to this?

Also with safety of the work in mind, is Ambidextrous Apparatuses secured to the table element (the sculpture made of the removed sections of Batopeng)?

What to do

• revised draft of catalog essay
• checklist for Ruben- with all images + links (to videos, other mediums, etc)
• confirm details with TTL and Serkan
• outline (Prezi) for reflection paper

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;

Logbook Entry #13

Posted on December 16th, 2014 by Cleo Smits

After receiving Monira’s email, I was unsure about how best to respond- I wanted to make sure my intentions had been clear and that I was not ‘burning any bridges’ so to speak.  As she wrote in her email about Myth Busters, it questions how cultural landscapes are formed and how they are shaped by conflict- I had taken this question as one that then implies the question “why are these museums here in this region?” In her essay about this work she asks:

“Why did Gulf governments suddenly feel the need to advertise their cultural production to western audiences? What was the underlying aim?… The Visibility Museums came to life because the survival of Gulf regimes became intertwined with the foreign policies of western governments and – more importantly – their populace’s image of these states. The new museums strove to advertise the beauty of Islam, local culture and contemporary art practices so as to create the facade of a ‘benevolent government’, which had become integral to maintaining successful defense policies.”

I saw Monira’s questions about why these museums are here as a type of critique. Maya’s response to my email asking how best to respond to Monira was helpful to understanding why she might have thought I had misread her work. Maya wrote that Monira’s challenge of my reading of her work: “goes to the heart of the issue with your capstone, which is that you are indirectly expanding and complicating the usual understanding of “institutional critique” — and you will have to decide consciously now whether that is what you are doing and what that means…It is an interesting position to take, that essentially, when institutions become so entwined with national-identity-building, what does it mean to ‘critique’ the institution? — where does one stop and the next start?”

I had been reading the GCC’s work and Monira’s series as untraditional types of institutional critique and trying to explain how they might be considered as such- but in this reading I had actually been stretching the definition of institutional critique. Is this my goal? Regardless of the stance I take on this, Maya wrote that I need to be sure to clarify my terms and my understanding of institutional critique in relation to the works in the exhibition for my audience. Both Maya and Salwa stressed what I can learn about curating and about the concept for my exhibition through this experience- and that it is something I should write about in my essay or reflection.

My next biggest concern was how exactly to talk with the Gulf Labor group about being in the exhibition.  In her email, Monira wrote that she feared the Gulf Labor “will use this [exhibition] to create yet another “scandal” rather than really utilizing it as a real opportunity to discuss the issues in a meaningful way.” I met with Deb about this latest big shift in my capstone and we spoke about my uncertainty about how to move forward and how to interact with the Gulf Labor group. Deb reiterated to me that since I simply want to show work from the website- the 52 Weeks project (I am not instigating new work), and the works in this project are all open-source, that is available publicly to download, etc., I actually don’t need to go through them as the artist in order to show this work. She had made this point to me before, but for some reason I felt like there was something not fully ethical in using this work without at least informing the artists.

I still don’t really know where my reluctance towards this approach comes from. Really what I am doing with the 52 Weeks project by exhibiting it here at NYUAD is to place their work in a new and not neutral but actually rather charged context; charged because we are one of the institutions they are critiquing in this very work. So my plan is to reach out to Doris Bitar (to whom I had sent questions about the Gulf Labor’s work and her experience with is) and explain to her my concept for the exhibition, how I plan to use this work and why.

| Posted in Curatorial Process No Comments;