lne Gevers	curator  \  writer  \  activist

· back

1 | 2 | 3 Jean Francois Lyotard, Les Immatériaux, 1985, Paris Practices that matter The exhibition as a discursive space Exhibitions are critical tools that help develop both theoretical and practical knowledge. I see the exhibition as a discursive space, where a continuous dialogue allows us to go beyond fixed notions of identity and difference. Exhibitions do not only 'work' both theoretically and practically, curating is a job that involves both theoretical and practical investment as well. I don't mean that you need to know your basics but that, with regard to curating, both theoretical and practical research are informative. I sympathise with the many efforts undertaken to question distinctions between theory and practice in other disciplines as well. Theory itself is a practice, conditioned by much of the same believes and perceptions as any other practice. Those 'discourses' (not just language, but knowledge, institutions and day to day practices as well) confine theory much more then many so-called 'objectivist' scholars believe. Thanks to the efforts of feminism and critical theory we can let go of many assumptions and illusions that support the idea of control, simultaneously burdening us with unproductive categories and dualisms. I want to show some examples. I will start with exhibitions that informed me when I was starting to focus both theoretically (in seminars and lectures) and practically (doing it myself) on curating. Les Immateriaux was produced in the Centre Pompidou in Paris in 1984 by the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard. We all know Lyotard from his famous book La Condition Postmoderne (1979), in which he prophesised the end of the grand narratives, the end of man's control over being (Descartes), the end of the humanist tradition. In Les Immateriaux he made the visitor realise that the existence of 'new materials' (new technologies, computerized spaces, internet) would alter man's relationship with the world even more extremely. These 'new materials' would force him to recognize that the old Cartesian programme of mastering and posses¬sing nature was history. These 'new materials' were not, as Lyotard explained, materials that are new, but materials that 'work' or 'talk' themselves and thus question the idea of Man being the only one who works, talks, plans and remembers. Goods, images and signs themselves generate new processes, resulting in ever new goods, images, signs and meanings. The sphere of influence of these processes extend far beyond the conscious intentions and interpretations of those who make and absorb it. This is the most fascinating proof of the ability of 'a work' to work and to affect its own operations. It has a 'life' of its own. Today the information ranges from the bacterial to genomics, the astronomical to the neurochemical, the geological to the global, and the technological to the posthuman condition (Hayles). All these influences are far too multiple and complex to be judged, or even controlled, by humans who are themselves composed of these same elements. Modernism has come to an end and the humanist tradition, presupposing that our entire culture is, or should be, largely determined by the free choices human actors make, has entered its last phase as well. Les Immatériaux has become even more famous 20 years after and has been celebrated in the Centre Pompidou with several exhibitions and conferences in the last two years. It is the best example I can find to show you how theory and practice merge in the making as well as in the way the exhibition 'works' argumentatively and interactively, physically and emotionally. There have been other exhibitions, which deeply informed my thinking about 'strategies in presentation' and my own practice as a curator. I want to mention one more. Clementine Deliss, ethnologist and curator, organised the exhibition Lotte-or-the-transformation- of the Object in Vienna, 1990. This exhibition was extremely important in how it, by means of juxtaposing known and unknown artefacts and cultural objects, without labelling them, deconstructed, destabilised and thus examined the self-image of Western culture. Visitors were exposed to their own preconceptions and suppositions based upon the definitions the West has attributed to the Other (non western cultures). Thus they were forced to reflect upon the so-called ethnocentric spectacles they were wearing. In so doing, the historical construction of our own successive self-images is put on trial. Such exhibitions - questioning existing distinctions between art and cultural objects, between 'autonomous' objects and handicraft, enable us to come to terms with the conditions of our being distanced from the world. In that same year Joseph Kosuth was invited to make a show on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Kosuth, whose conceptual work is deeply in debt of Wittgenstein's theory of language, took the opportunity to not only install a show dealing with the 'play of the unsayable', but also to question the formats and methodological procedures that are usually followed in setting up shows. The Play of the Unsayable (Vienna, Brussels,1989) was of immense importance to me. Instead of trying to hide the subjectivity of his selective and organizational criteria, Kosuth made them manifestly clear and to the contrary of curators and commissionaires that usually organize this kind of show, did not use any meta-textual elements justifying the works selected or alluding to the supposed criteria of aesthetic quality or historical correctness. According to Joseph Kosuth, by demonstrating that the selection and distribution of the different pieces obeys the "intention" of constructing a subjective meaning, The Play of the Unsayable allows the spectators to understand and experience personally the mechanisms that are put into movement in the processes of artistic production. In 1994 I organised, together with the visual artist Jeanne van Heeswijk, an international and complex exhibition called I + the Other. Art and the Human Condition (Amsterdam, Beurs van Berlage). 45 artists, filmmakers, documentary photographers, along with advertising companies, media corporations, and last but not least the Red Cross organisation contributed. As any exhibition can be defined as the 'shaping of context' this exhibition 'framed' the different artifacts, documents and works of art in a very specific way. We manipulated the way in which different representations of 'reality' would connect and form dialogues. We knew that this complex attempt to combine different positions, discourses and practices could only succeed if we were able to intervene and question the constructed identities of the different agents involved, especially those of the Red Cross and the Institution of Art. Our position, as curators, was to be analysed too. We were both representatives of the institution of Art but worked in assignment of the Red Cross organisation. Not an easy task. The idea was to confront art and document in such a way that both the Red Cross organisation, as the ultimate manifestation of the humanist tradition, and the institution of Art, claiming to be ethically and aesthetically neutral and autonomous, were interrogated. Alienation was the hidden strategy. Alienation as a state of mind that can no longer be avoided in a world that is unacceptable and contradictory. Alienation as perhaps the only remedy left to combat indifference and disinterest. Alienation, not meaning being distanced from the world but, on the contrary, being immersed in the world. This was to become the place and avenue of our engagement. As we proceeded working on the exhibition and discussing with the artists involved (Adrian Piper, Christine Borland, Roy Villevoye, Marina Griznic, Marlene Dumas, Nancy Spero, Andrea Fisher, Martin Lucas a.o.), we agreed upon feeling alienated in a world where plurality is denied instead of celebrated and where differences are accepted only in terms of 'othering' the Other. In our view alterity or otherness was not limited to differences in race, culture or religion only. Differences in terms of gender, class, health, mental and physical abilities, intelligence and so on, were dealt with similarly. Our aim was to try and share this state of mind with the viewer. Art of course had a crucial role to play in this process. By means of confrontation between document and art we tried to cut through fixed patterns and structures, concerning preconceived interpretations and documents (like Red Cross material, advertising, press photography, television programs, computer and video games etc.) and concerning the production of aesthetic meanings as well. Many works showed that it is exactly this contentment with and distance from the world of today that makes us so inhuman, intolerant and disinterested. The only way to communicate this engagement was by creating a multi-layered context that offered no escape. Only by asking questions about what it means to be human, until the level of risking our preconceived ideas about identity and subjectivity, the visitor could capture this state of mind and share this experience. Many voices of difference have emerged in I + the Other, contributing to the replacement of the rational knowing subject and universal mind by multiple minds, subjects and knowledges reflecting various social locations and histories. Feminism, queer studies and critical race studies brought the often artificially constructed modern/postmodern debate into lived reality. Continuing this line of thought, I tried to explore a field which I thought might in time overshadow the current debates. The discourse on neurological normalcy versus neurological difference, seen within the parameters of today's technological, information-based economy and cyborgian society, will give an edge to positions we thought we had left behind us. Motivated by personal experience, this was to be my topic for the coming years. Projects such as the seminar (En)countering the Culture of the Norm, accompanied by a small exhibition, Temporary Sanity: an alternative plea when considering madness and motive (De Geuzen, 2000) where more focussed on discourse and dialogue then on showing works and artefacts. They stem however from the same conviction that, like an exhibition, also a symposium or a seminar should enable the visitors and participants to negotiate (cultural) identities and (supposed) differences. I used similar tactics and strategies in the organisation as I would do when making an exhibition. Again theory and practice merged to such an extend that one could not tell which aspect of the event was actually responsible for the changes of perception that occurred. (En)countering the Culture of the Norm presented autism as culture (like deaf culture, disability culture etc). Speakers with disorders in the autistic spectrum were invited as authorities instead of passive victims willing to illustrate medical theories which would represent them as powerless and dependant. The main objective of this seminar was to gather a public which was neurologically speaking as heterogeneous as the speakers. Apart from differences with respect to life experience, cultural background, daily occupations, theoretical and practical perspectives from which the issues concerned were perceived and reflected, the public was selected on the basis of different mindsets as well. Within the context of this particular day, people could not continue living with the presupposition of the self-same, implying that most of US would be normal as opposed to THEM who were invited to 'show their difference' and explain what this meant in real life. Interfacing with a chatbox giving voice to even more neurological others - most of them ac's - Martijn Dekker made it a down to earth fact that the neurologically typical no longer formed the majority here, but rather those who were considered to be neurologically different. Participants were bound to find new ways to connect, to link in with and communicate with others. Here a new basis of intercultural communication was being developed. Beyond their differences, or should I say WITH their differences, people could freely wander around looking for moments of experiencing precious moments of human recognition that went far beyond differences measured on the scale of the self-same. (En)countering the Culture of the Norm was in fact the first public project of the DeCenter, a Centre for Neurologically Diverse Cultures, founded in 1999. This collaborative initiative (with artists, theorists, scientists, all sharing lived experience with being neurologically different) aimed to de-marginalize the positions of autistics and their cousins (ac's) and to support the self-representation of these and other cultures of people who are 'differently brained'. The goal was to bring people with autism and related mental disorders such as borderline, schizophrenia, and learning disabilities together as 'cultures', a process which was further argued and discussed on my website on neurodiverse or 'nonsymbolic' (not totally symbolic) cultures. From a medical point of view, these 'disorders' are quite different from one another in terms of symptoms. I was, however, interested in experiences which could bridge these differences and as such help neurologically atypical people to unite and survive as a group, thus shaping the conditions to gain power and equally participate in the world. Intercultural communication, utterly necessary for human beings in order to develop personhood but often denied to those who are considered 'Other', should become a matter of course. Technological devices supporting these attempts are cyberspace, but also newly constructed contexts in real life. With the emergence of resistant subcultures all over the world, the shift in position from modern notions of independence and autonomy towards postmodern concepts such as interdependence and relative autonomy have thus reached a status of immediate relevance. At this moment I am working on an exhibition which has, in many respects, links with I + the Other, the DeCenter and Encountering the Culture of the Norm. I am still in the conceptual phase and as it is again quite an ambitious project, it is planned to be realised for over two years in either Boijmans Museum or the Beurs van Berlage. Also in preparing Difference on Display the concept and ideas shift and change as a result of encountering works of art, films,scientific outcomes, and visual culture in general. Discussions with artists, scientists, intellectuals and empowerment groups are crucial as well. In fact, representatives of these separate groups are brought together in expert meetings, trialogues and in different commitées. The exhibition Difference on Display departs from a paradox that is becoming increasingly evident in today's society. Crossovers and dynamic partnerships between empowerment movements and intelligent machines offer promising possibilities in terms of diversity and difference. However, commerce and global economics tend to exploit new developments in biotechnology, robotics and virtual technologies, primarily in favour of normality and homogeneity. Before long, governments and companies, as well as citizens themselves, could come to discriminate not only on the usual grounds (gender, race and culture), but also on the basis of health status and genetic constitution. The problems we could come to face in this genocracy could overshadow those of globalisation and multiculturalism. My goal is to bring art, science and lived reality together, in more than just an abstract sense. To engage visitors in direct experience of the paradox. The emancipation and resistance of minority groups, experiences with alternative forms of living, along with developments in the fields of neuroscience, bio-informatics and robotics, have upset the traditional image of a human being as an autonomous individual fully in charge of his or her environment. Artists simultaneously explore the shadow-side of these developments via their particular sensibilities. An unflinching focus will be thrown on bio-politics and the makeover culture, on engineering ideologies and strategies of normalization to which we are all exposed in our daily lives. A growing appreciation of the coincidental nature of our biological existence and awareness of our human interdependence plead for a different view of the world. Feminist and integrationist utopia's are being reconsidered, not only in a critical but also affirmative manner. Meanwhile, fascination for the sensational and voyeuristic interest in the transparent, perfected but also the imperfect body, are tactically used to draw and focus attention. Difference on Display will focus on seduction and repulsion, admiration and hate, and above all about fear of illness, otherness and death. These still being the most important ingredients of our human and shared existence (topic of Aldous Huxley's The Brave new World, Houllebeck's new novel, etc). In preparing this exhibition, again, theory and practice are inseparable from one another. First, my own personal and practical life has been THE motive behind many of the projects I have been involved with. Since the late '90's I have been searching for voices and narratives enabling me to share experiences and construct an environment that could enable my son with autism to be recognised as a real human being instead of just abject and abnormal. I got introduced to a whole new field of theoretical practice addressing notions of difference from the perspective of health status, normal and abnormal behaviour and functional impairment, rooted in the 70's. One that came into existence out of discontent and critique of practices of discrimination, stereotyping and the privilege of unknowing, marking the social construction of disability. Following the model of deaf culture with its own mode of intra-communication, other, different, and among themselves heterogeneous cultures have been striving for emancipation and empowerment. From within these new-born cultures who no longer tolerate exclusion from normative society and humanity at large, a new politics of identity emerged. Argumentative theoretical tools, innovatory narratives but also daring documentaries and films aimed at equal participation and inclusive societies. Disability studies links in with, and borrows from, many fields and movements, including cultural studies, area studies, feminism, race-and-ethnic studies, and gay-and-lesbian studies. New-style disability researchers consider disability to be an ordinary human variation, like gender, race or ethnicity, and approach the topic accordingly. Informed by postmodern theory and cultural criticism, this new area of critical discourse pulls apart concepts about disability to see which cultural attitudes, antagonisms and insecurities went into shaping them. Most important is the differentiation between the individual and medical models if disability (disability as an organic defect) and the social model of disability (the social view of disability). The latter notion sees disability as socially created, constructed on top of the actual impairment, and places the explanation of its changing character in the social and economic structure and the culture of the society in which it is found. As both these theories of disability seek to explain it universally, ending up creating once more totalising, meta-historical narratives that exclude important dimensions of disabled people's lives and knowledge, the third option is to introduce disability as the ultimate postmodern concept. The disabled community can be represented as a culture, even if it is the most heterogeneous community one can imagine. I hope I have contributed with these examples to show how theory and practice continually intertwine. A clear distinction cannot be made and should not be desirable. In my opinion any practice should mirror itself or coincide, connect, and link in with other practices in order to see its blind spots and create ambiances in which any limitation no longer necessarily implies a serious obstruction. Ine Gevers, keynote lecture at PARADOX, The Fine Art European Forum, 31 march 2006. [top]