Cracking the Curator's Code
-.. .-- ..- .-. --- ...
By Maureen Murphy
"[We]curators had some questions about the jury system," said MFA Art and Technology student Yurchiro Nishizawa's when asked how the exhibition Code came about. Code, which took place March 29 through April 14, at the1926 Exhibition Studies Space, was as much about the approach to curatorial practice as it was about the artwork it featured.
Curators Joseph Kohnke, also an MFA student in the Art and Technology department, Sarah Attwood, a graduating BFA candidate, and Nishizawa challenged the system of how artwork is chosen for a gallery. Nishizawa explained, "Some people have doubts about how they choose work, meaning if you know somebody on the committee you might have more of a chance [to have your work selected]."
As a reaction to the way institutions like SAIC handle events and exhibitions, the three curators arbitrarily selected the artworks for the show by flipping a coin. The process was "... devoid of personal taste," explained by Nishizawa. Although some pieces were accepted and others rejected, all the pieces were included in the show as long as the artists were available to install their work at a certain time.
The curators notated this process by stamping "accepted" or "rejected" in bold red letters over the nameplates of the pieces during the show's opening. The artists were notified in a mass email whether their pieces were "accepted" or "rejected" beforehand. Nishizawa commented, "Some people had problems with that. They questioned our role as curators ... [But] it turned out the way we wanted."
The pieces featured explored themes such as mathematical code, computer code, and social code. In her triptych of prints entitled "He Gave Me Her Eyes, She Gave Me His Mouth ..." Jennifer Bastian addresses genetic code. In a piece that takes on a performative quality, Ben Skinner gives "The Quick Reference Guide on How Not to Act at an Art Opening." The reference guide was printed on business card size paper and multiple copies were available to take. On one side of the paper rules such as "never touch the art, look at the art, or talk about the art" are listed and on the opposite side rules about how to act at an art opening are provided: "make small talk with big words (use catchy 'PoMo' terms, i.e., didactic)."
The media of the show was quite diverse. Yurchiro Nishizawa's piece, "Untitled," used fruits, wood and electronics to provide gallery-goers a refreshing citrusy smell. (Although Nishizawa co-curated the show, his piece was given a "rejected" stamp) In a very elaborate piece that resembled a giant player piano, Joseph Kohnke explored sounds through telephone bells, shirt buttons, a conveyer belt, aluminum, solenoids and motors. Kohnke's piece titled "Farewell Father," was esoteric but the name provided a hint of sentimentality.
Chris Molinski's "Crossword Puzzle No. 1" urged viewers to fill in blank squares on the giant grid painted on the wall. Markers were provided for this purpose. A digital media "Mona Lisa" interacted with the audience as well. Created by Shawn Lawson and Waffa Bilal, the piece responded to motion via a camera installed above the wall. Depending on the movement of the audience, Leonardo's "Mona Lisa" would morph into a model wearing the same clothes as in the painting and flip her middle finger, wipe her nose, or turn her back to the viewer.
The curators succeeded in the goal described by Nishizawa of bringing attention to the aspect of who is accepted or rejected for an exhibition, even without any available statement about the process at the show. But some aspects of the curating process ask to be more deliberately explored. What artist or type of piece gets prime viewing area in a gallery? What piece gets to be on the promotional flier?
| 
