Getting to know your space

I did mention that the other curators and I are organising a series of shows in another window, didn't I?
Today we went to have a further look at the space. This is the result:



Hope the others are not going to kill me now. Especially because I always forget not to export videos in the 16:9 format.
Damn it.

Again about the concept of the Space

I am just browsing Foucault's "Of Other Spaces".

At the very beginning of this show's planning, Habda mentioned the concept of Heterotopia. If you don't understand philosophy, like myself, it can drive you mad. But the minute you understand it, a whole new world unfolds right before your eyes, and you start to wonder how is it that you have wasted so much time without even trying to approach such books, too scared to feel like an idiot in front of the vastness of such concept. Just the first two or three lines of that small essay were illuminating.

We decided to write a short paragraph each about our conception of the Space, so I'll try not to cheat, reprising the philosopher's words, and go for what I feel, and know, about it.

For me, the space in relation to an exhibition is like an interface between it and the showed works that is undoubtedly necessary but could, in a way, be defied. Of course, an artwork needs to be in relation to the space in order for it to properly communicate with the viewer, but sometimes the view of the space seems to take over and influence the work's display too much. There is only one example, in the case of the "space taking over", that comes to my mind: Kiesler's space for Peggy Guggenheim's gallery, The Art of This Century (1942).

Unit 2 is a space with a strong identity, meaning that it isn't an actual commercial gallery, or a museum's section, which may both be considered as mere containers where just artworks do the talking. It is in response to this identity that, in my opinion, we are choosing certain artworks and artists to create the show. So far, the proposed works all require the public to interact and create different means of communication beyond the space's physical boundaries. This should activate a different perception of the space: not just a mere container, but an active entity that works with the artworks without overwhelming them, and creates an experience for the public at the same time. As an active entity, the space can be considered organic, and consequently become active or inactive, opened or closed, intersected or left to be, expanded or contained. All this sounds very elusive, but I am sure I can define it better by the end of the month. At least, it's a beginning.

Two words about the picture I have put there: it is by Luisa Lambri and represents Oscar Niemeyer's Casa Das Canoas in Rio De Janeiro. Try to take a step back, just before I revealed what it is: does that space look like anything recognizable in that picture? Lambri's practice, extended from spaces to places, is about a personal interpretation (not documentation) of the space, which leaves the viewer with no reference but, in turn, a different personal perception of it.

The issue of the space

Hum.

I have been surfing the net for an image of Unit 2 Gallery, the place where we are going to install the show in a few months' time. This is all I have found, which gives absolutely no idea of the space we have to confront with. We popped in the other day to see the present show (which isn't on the website by the way: no updates since April 2009) and found ourselves walking into a narrow and long room, with a glass window and door at the bottom.

The only access is a door behind the University's gates, which are accessible only if you are a student and possess a card. Should you forget your card home more than three times, access will then be denied to you. Habda asked if the front door on the street could be opened, to facilitate people's access, and the answers were: "Yes of course" and "Absolutely no". We still have to find out which is the correct one.

The relationship with the space is quite an interesting point each curator has to consider sooner or later. The artworks can just be traditionally exhibited on the walls, or put in a tight dialogue with the space itself, which can be altered, changed, according to the nature of the show. There seem to be no written rules of display, and I personally do think that sometimes a good setting just comes from a right sensation "in your guts", like some dealers like to say.

Some of us are very interested in the space, especially with the concept of active and inactive. Unit 2 is an exhibition space inside a public building, like a brain in a head, and this already puts it in a peculiar position. Artists who work on the space, investigating it, modifying its perception, have been proposed by Habda. She sent a link today to a very interesting artist, Russel Chater. He works with displays holding nothing, playing with the notion of the Arcade and realizing objects between minimalist, formalist and kitsch aesthetic.

Clementina is really interested in the concept of the maze, and would like to use it as a display device, whereas Francesca took some examples of Theo Vandoesburg 's paintings and showed them to us like they were a map of a space seen from above.

I won't give away what Will is working at, instead, because he may blog it himself. Come on, mate!

As for me...well, I have a very complicated relationship with the space, it's still kind of tough to me and it shouldn't interfere with the artworks too much. Therefore, I am still working on it.

Voilà nôtre Blog!

Taking notes...

Just to make some history here, we (Habda, Will, Francesca, Clementina and myself) are half-way through our first year as MA Curating the Contemporary students, the first organised by London Metropolitan University and in collaboration with Whitechapel Gallery. Yes, we're the guinea pigs. Our main assignment for May 2010 will be to curate and organise a show; so the first thing we thought among others was: "We need a blog."

It's just a perfect way to share images, materials, and ideas that will add to the main core of our work. The first show meeting we had was seasoned with Italian food and hosed with too much wine, but nonetheless some ideas begun to stir. Today we had our second meeting, which was very productive.

First of all, we were thinking about some themes for the show and a very intriguing one was: brainwaves. The brain is a space that contains informations and those informations could be mapped, but the result is like a maze. There's a whole world in here: space, the gallery space seen as active/inactive, time, connections, modern technologies like the internet or the unsolved questions, like those raised in this article here.

Secondly, we might have chosen the title of the show, but we are not going to tell you. Yet. The solution is so much within reach that you'll be baffled.

It is all about perception, in the end. The title of this post, for example, refers to what Claude Monet said to a journalist when he asked, quite sarcastically, where his studio was. Since they were in the open air, our beloved Claude made a gesture and said: "Voilà mon atelier!" Meaning: "This is my studio!"

That simple sentence changed the perception of contemporary art for the years to come.