"When perusing the majority of mainstream museums, for instance, one must search more diligently for the women artists, artists of colour, and artists of non-Euro-American descent. Without question, the art world is not yet concerned with full assimilation of work by minority, postcolonial or any other voices into the larger discourse, except, of course, as ‘special’ (read separatist) exhibitions, e.g. Aboriginal art, Latin American art, Women artists, etc." (10)
I enjoyed that in this piece, Rielly makes it a point to add the note that marginalized identities are only allowed in these white, male spaces when they are made to be special or separatist. & by special, of course what she really means in a later breakdown is art that is easily digestible or understandable essentially to this greater group of white men in the art world and catering to them. I found this interesting specifically because it related to a personal experience I actually had with a professor here at NJCU, who I felt had really made a point to target me and another Latina student throughout the school year because we were closing to make art that was about our culture and the communities that we're apart of. I say this also because if I was a french male artists depicting lets say scenes of french culture, this non-french professor would likely find a way to relate or not ask to explain, and that's something essentially not granted to anybody unlike him, just because he can assume similarity. He seemed genuinely upset that the meanings or symbols we used were not well known or "easy to assume", as well as that you needed to have knowledge on the context of the content in my work.
"So, again, what can we do? Instead of being disheartened by the sad reality, it is perhaps more productive to be proactively antithetical: to misbehave, to talk back, while dedicating ourselves to disrupting the hegemonic discourse from within by showing the gaps in representation, ‘the blind spots, or the space-off, of its representations’.5 There are many curators worldwide committed to these ‘blind spots’:" (14)
I appreciate this quote as well, for the writer acknowledges that change is often going to come for the many from the few who sacrifice everything for it, and essentially those working to bring these dark spots to the light in ways that are unconventional and unaccepted by a society doing unacceptable things.
"Theirs is not Affirmative Action curating, it’s intelligent curating. It is a practice rooted in ethics and, as such, their exhibitions function as curatorial correctives to the exclusion of Other artists from either the master narratives of art history, or from the contemporary art scene itself".
I remember hearing something in a philosophy class I took, "equity before equality", which is an idea that essentially states that before we are able to truly and genuinely be equal, we must practice equity. Becoming an equitable society or institution requires this specific type of procedure of elevating and encouraging marginalized groups, in this case, artists as a way of truly finding balance. & while we see many much smaller institutions partaking in this, the MOMA's attempt at doing so seems in-genuine because of their lack of essentially taking white, male artists from the pedestal they've been on for so long. We all have pedestals now in a way, but this group is still significantly, significantly higher in many regards, and things don't suddenly become better just because we all get a pedestal now basically when we still arent all at eye level with one another as a society. It's sad also because a giant like MOMA waits for society to change, instead of being a part of the initiation of the change, that is ultimately inevitable, and charging full steam ahead as a research foundation for forgotten groups and artists.
"It demands that we resist masculinism and sexism, confront white privilege and Western-centrism, and challenge hetero-centrism and lesbo-homophobia. It insists that there is a moral emergency in the art world; indeed, there has been for a long time. While Other artists have made progress since the 1970s, the statistics remain quite grim. Overt discrimination needs addressing; and I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to tackle this problem. There is an urgent need for a re-evaluation of mainstream (non-activist) curatorial practice, in particular. Most curators today don’t seem concerned with equality in representation or a diversity of voices. Nor are they acknowledging that the contemporary art world is sexist, racist, oppressive, and that they are playing a critical role in this “centralized system of apartheid,” as Gerardo Mosquera rightly calls it."
This is a little off topic, but one of the reasons why I believe in my major and what Im studying (art therapy), is because I think we need to become more okay with having these difficult, uncomfortable conversations. We should be able to without risking our jobs, careers, pay, and livelihoods essentially. Most are going to want to avoid dark conversations and so we scratch the surface of it instead of digging as a way of keeping peace with the hands that feed us essentially, but what peace is kept if there was never peace at all? These parties were created by these groups and for these groups, and genuinely without the intention of including others because of a view of superiority over others (marginalized groups). It's great to create our own spaces, it gives us confidence, resources, and strength in numbers, etc. However, I think change within these institutions are going to be more effective when done from the inside out, which means inviting ourselves to their table, pulling up a chair when there isn't one for us, and having those conversations.
What is Curatorial Activism? What can we do to improve art and art history? What do you envision for the future of art?
The author describes curatorial activism as the practice of "organizing art exhibitions with the principle aim of ensuring that certain constituencies of artists are no longer ghettoized or excluded from the master narratives of art". Essentially, this is the practice of making sure that marginalized groups are not left out or misrepresented in the art world anymore. Truthfully, I don't know what I see for the future of art. "When perusing the majority of mainstream museums, for instance, one must search more diligently for the women artists, artists of colour, and artists of non-Euro-American descent. Without question, the art world is not yet concerned with full assimilation of work by minority, postcolonial or any other voices into the larger discourse, except, of course, as ‘special’ (read separatist) exhibitions, e.g. Aboriginal art, Latin American art, Women artists, etc." (10) I do continue to think that it will be a mostly white and male dominated space, as these are the people typically with the resources and backup plans essentially to support art, and so if we do not have these difficult conversations, art will continue to be stagnant. The career I want to have is primarily dominated by white women, and while I want to be apart of the change in this, I also recognize my own privileges that allowed me to consider and go into this field. I think our chance of improving the future truly does lie in self-reflection/self-awareness of who we are and what we can do, as well as some philosophies and practiced I acknowledged. previously in my posts. "Theirs is not Affirmative Action curating, it’s intelligent curating. It is a practice rooted in ethics and, as such, their exhibitions function as curatorial correctives to the exclusion of Other artists from either the master narratives of art history, or from the contemporary art scene itself". This quote from the first reading brought back memories from a philosophy class I had taken that describes equity for equality. To reiterate essentially, in order to achieve actual equality, we must first practice equity. Meaning that, we dont all just get to stand on a pedestal which white, male artists get to keep the one they're already on, because we're still looking up. The pedestal that white, male artists have stood on needs to be dismantled, and artists from marginalized groups need to be placed on this pedestal and be held to same regard. After these types of reparations are made essentially, then can the conversation of a true equality come. I dont want anyone to think also that this mean white, male artists are pushed away, but truthfully, we have enough research and history preserved that cannot be accounted for in other groups and I do think this is a dire situation. I feel this way concerning art and not. But, We have records upon records upon records of basically one group of people, on a planet filled with all types of people, and yet we have not created records in as much depth on any of the other groups. I think the artists quote in the second reading is a part of the necessary process in order for this to happen, "It insists that there is a moral emergency in the art world; indeed, there has been for a long time. While Other artists have made progress since the 1970s, the statistics remain quite grim. Overt discrimination needs addressing; and I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to tackle this problem. There is an urgent need for a re-evaluation of mainstream (non-activist) curatorial practice, in particular. Most curators today don’t seem concerned with equality in representation or a diversity of voices. Nor are they acknowledging that the contemporary art world is sexist, racist, oppressive, and that they are playing a critical role in this “centralized system of apartheid,” as Gerardo Mosquera rightly calls it." To reiterate, I believe that while it is great we have created our own spaces, we have to infiltrate the largest institutions still upholding the archaic practices. This is why I believe we need to become okay with having these very difficult conversations, not only with others but ourselves. & when we do have them with others, that we are not just speaking amongst ourselves.
