Curating
Immateriality: The Work of the Curator
in the Age of Network Systems
by Joasia
Krysa, Editor
Autonomedia (Databrowser 03), np, 2006
288 pp. Paper, £15.00
ISBN: 1-57027-173-9.
Reviewed by Jonathan
Zilberg
Independent Scholar
jonathanzilberg@gmail.com
Curating Immateriality will prove
interesting for museum professionals concerned
with curatorial processes in an expanded
digital field in which the art museum
no longer has any walls, never mind material
objects. In short, the digital environment
presents qualitatively new challenges
for curators - especially for those who
would prefer to reduce the traditional
role of the curator to a network manager.
Through investigating the immaterial nexus
of culture and technology, the contributors
to this volume take up on the standard
questions in curatorial studies about
the nature of power relations and control,
in short - on curatorial politics. The
key assumption here is that distributed
network systems (DNS), and software,
require new forms of curatorship. The
following types of questions are posed:
Are we witnessing the emergence of qualitatively
new democratic potentialities or new forms
of totalitarian control? What are the
implications raised for curating immateriality
in future cybernetic environments? And
finally, how open are these so-called
"open systems"?
Though Joasia Krysas introduction
is a utopian expression of anti- authoritarianism,
many of the contributors express a pronounced
ambivalence about the democratic potential
of DNS curatorship in which curatorial
power is imagined as radically curtailed.
Deeply inspired by a political agenda
and the cybernetic transformation of cultural
production, Curating Immateriality
explores the centripetal tendencies of
elitist control versus participatory freedom
that exist in this rapidly expanding art
world.
The central issue here is this: If the
traditional curator operates as a gatekeeper
in a centralized network, how should curators
operate in a distributed network? Accordingly,
the contributors examine how curators
have experimented with exhibiting art
in this context and how such new media
can be theorized. Using diverse populist
neo-Gramscian and post-Fordist positions,
and bringing together a useful compendium
of experience, they examine the new curatorial
models which have emerged and consider
how these new systems have been integrated
into curatorial practices. Of all the
contributions, Christiane Pauls
"open source" model, in her
chapter "Flexible Contexts, Democratic
Filtering and Computer-Aided Curating:
Models for Online Curatorial Practice"
will be especially useful for museum professionals
looking for practical guidance in tackling
the gatekeeper versus network manager
dilemma.
Beyond such practical issues, this is
a surprisingly fertile book intellectually
speaking, that is for those aestheticians
with a Marxist bent. For example, Tiziana
Terranovas chapter, "Of Sense
and Sensibility: Immaterial Labour in
an Open System," is particularly
interesting in its treatment of the notion
of "general intellects" and
how value has been reassigned from the
product to the process and from the material
to the symbolic. In terms of art and democracy,
per se, Terranovas chapter is fundamentally
important as a problematic rejoinder as
she so eloquently reviews how subjectivity
is always plural and never determined
by a universal instance. In addition,
she reiterates how diverse psychic investments
are continually being rethought in a world
that is not reducible to a dualist clash
of production oscillating between freedom
and control. Furthering a fascinating
collection of discussions on power and
technology, on digital as opposed to mechanical
reproduction, Terranova provides a sobering
assessment of idealist democratic potentiality
by arguing that these new cybernetic systems
are relentlessly controlled and compressed.
This notion that a new form of totalitarianism
has emerged, contrary to the introductions
liberation aesthetic, is decisively advanced
by Mateo Pasquinelli in the Orwellian
concluding chapter "Cultural Labour
and Immaterial Machines".
In assessing how such digital collectives
have sought to promote social change through
creating communicative environments which
de-center the curator and destabilize
hierarchy, Trebor Sholzs chapter
on the nature and dynamics of extreme
sharing in networks is, especially, interesting
as are the other chapters which theorize
notions of dematerialization and immateriality.
In all this, there is, in my view, a problem
about the assumed democratic nature of
this new networked method for curating
the immaterial. Can a democratic, read
collaborative community, effectively curate
through partly automated self- generative
digital filter-feeding? Is it not inherently
problematic to argue that these largely
amateur curators are democratic information
managers while professional curators are
authoritarian gate-keepers? Is the issue
of curatorship really ultimately reducible
to control versus freedom?
Few museum professionals today would argue
against the idea that curatorship should
be open to creative collaboration and
contestation. Yet at the end of the day,
a curator must curate. Their task is to
make informed decisions and today, whatever
they do, controversy is inevitable. In
fact, this dissent is the true measure
of the 20th Century democratization
of art.
In the final analysis, despite the books
apparently emancipatory aim, it is debatable
whether democratically minded digital
filter-feeders differ fundamentally from
their traditional predecessors working
in formal institutions. Why? All curators
have to describe, classify and re-contextualize
artistic object (and processes) whether
they are material or immaterial. All curators
remain managers of symbolic information.
Worse still, in these networked systems,
in performing "filtering" functions
and "highlighting" "best
works", are not these small teams
of like-minded curators not merely recapitulating
the much maligned role of the traditional
curator? Moreover, though "open"
communicative platforms surely promote
greater participation and information
sharing, especially in terms of blogging
and reduced curatorial control, contrary
to the ideals expressed here, they remain
unable to affect real social and institutional
change - never mind over-ride the curatorial
conceit that they are less guilty of authoritarian
judgment by having somehow arrived at
a collective democratic decision as to
what constitutes the "best work".
Curators are damned if they do and damned
if they dont. They must operate
according to the St Peter Principle, making
informed though ultimately subjective
decisions. Should such professional curators
be replaced by filter feeding protocols
and democratically managed machines? I
think not. To parasitize one creative
idea in this book, that is, the semantic
linkages between the words curate, cure
and curare, curating like curare, if modified
and applied in the right dose and distributive
contexts, can either educate or irritate.
But someone is going to have to make the
unpleasant decision as to what is "good"
and who is in and what is "bad"
and who is out - unless the new digital
democrats throw out the filter.