Home / International Curatorial Workshop / ICW_2011

May 28th to 30th, 2011

The Course will offer the opportunity to 14 young curators from around the world to work with internationally renowned curators, dealing with many challenging issues of theoretical and practical aspects of curatorial research.

A three-day workshop about cultural topology, the dynamism of forms and surfaces in relation to the transitory nature of reality, applicable to Eastern/Western Europe and the Mediterranean area.

The workshop methodology will be based on group activities focused on individual case studies. The core of these case studies will be comprised of varying exercises dealing with secondary material concerning the curatorial practice in relation to the overarching exhibition made in a certain geographical area.

The workshop will be held by the Scientific Committee of vessel :

Charles Esche – Director of Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven (Netherlands)
Ilaria Gianni – Writer and Curator
Cecilia Guida – Researcher and Independent Curator
Denis Isaia – Researcher and Curator
Viktor Misiano – Art Critic, Curator and Director of international museums
Marco Petroni – Art Critic and Curator
Roberto Pinto – Art Critic and Curator
Viviana Checchia – Researcher and Independent Curator
Anna Santomauro – Independent Curator

Participants 2011:

Haizea Barcenilla (Spain), Stephanie Bertrand (Canada), Mary Conlon (Ireland), Melissa Destino (Italy), Güneş Forta (Turkey), Lynda Gaudreau (Canada), Jernej Gregoric (Slovenia), Jerlyn Jareunpoon (USA/Germany), Joao Laia (Portugal), Pablo Lag (Spain), Liav Mizrahi (Israel), Sveta Nikolaeva (Russia), Yavuz Parlar (Turkey), Paola Lucente (Italy), Francesco Scasciamacchia (Italy).

Public discussion
The role of secondary sources in the contemporary art exhibition

May 30th from 4 to 6 p.m.

Via G. Amendola, 165
70126 – Bari


vessel's first International Curatorial Workshop was concluded the afternoon of May 30th with a public presentation at the E.Di.S.U in Bari. Each day of the workshop, the participants and members of vessel’s committee gathered in their respective groups for discussion utilizing the case studies proposed by the vessel committee as the focal point. The subjects of the investigation were the importance of secondary sources in the modern exhibition and the status and evolution of curatorship. The groups were composed as follows:

Group One: Cecilia Guida, Viktor Misiano, Haizea Barcenilla, Stephanie Bertrand, Mary Conlon, Melissa Destino and Rachel Pafe

Group Two: Ilaria Gianni, Roberto Pinto, Viviana Checchia, Güneş Forta, Jerlyn Jareunpoon, Pablo Lag, Francesco Scasiamacchia and Pieter Vermeulen

Group Three: Denis Isaia, Marco Petroni, Lynda Gaudreau, Paola Lucente, Rachel Paarman, and Arzu Yayintas.

As the groups reunited on the 30th to share their findings, it was soon established that no single conclusion could serve as the focus of the presentation. The discussions were as varied as the opinions held by the participants. However, there were several reoccurring themes: the role of curator, the research process, the relationship between curator, artist and public, and the inherent responsibility of curatorship.

The group working with committee members Gianni and Pinto focused their investigation on public art and public spaces, while the group of Guida and Misiano focused on the role and importance of research. Those working with Isaia and Petroni were more concerned with the motivations of curators and the question of the audience. Nevertheless, the methods by which the discussions were conducted remained the same for each group. The case studies which served as a basis for investigation were presented and followed by periods of open questioning, conversation and elaboration. As was stated in the final presentation, the "methodology of doubt" and the value of the question were the driving force behind workshop conversations.

At the public presentation, each group was afforded the opportunity for a single speaker to elaborate on the inquiries which had taken place over the past several days. Group One worked with the case studies of refused exhibitions. They were generally concerned with the role, interpretation and methods of research in relation to the exhibition and curating itself. It was their finding that in an age of oversaturation, research and experience should be the foundation of the exhibition. Group Two and described the basis of their work as a re-elaboration of terminology.

They worked with the terms public, public art and curation while exploring the juxtaposition of organic and synthetic production. Questions were raised as to the tactics involved in dealing with "charged" public spaces, and the methods of incorporating the dialogue occurring outside the public space. Group Three discussed their individual motivations as curators and investigation of the controversial term audience. The case studies further illuminated the difference in motivation from one curator to the next, and yet there was an underlying desire to create an experience, connection, or possibility for a "witness" of some sort.

In regards to exhibitions, there were two different schools of the thought expressed: some believed the exhibition was a faulty means of answering questions while others saw it as the most viable method for expressing desired concepts to the public. The role of the curator was also disputed and definitions ranged from that of a mediator to that of a project manager, researcher or facilitator. However, it was agreed that in a moment of uncertainty of the future of curating, it is crucial that each curator reflects upon his or her motivations and positions, and that the process of creating and initiating become one that is carefully considered before it is enacted. Now more than ever, there is a need for curators to fully commit themselves to and sustain a position or idea through open understanding and honest investigation, despite the form taken by the final product.

This announcement was published on 28/05/11