Please share your comments, reflections, links, etc. on the discussion at the bottom of this post.

Ania Szremski: Eric, Aay and Kelly each described the curatorial "process" (or sometimes lack thereof) that they go through. Can you describe how that works at Johalla projects? 

Anna Cerniglia: We have a unique form to our curatorial process. We use a check and balance technique through the three of us (Melissa Marinaro, Caitlin Arnold and myself). There is a lot of critique and criticism. Once I have an idea for a show it is presented and talked about through many emails in order to achieve the finalized idea. That is just theory based- each of us take on a different role in the technical side: I handle all the business and sponsors, while Melissa works more with the artist statements and critique. Caitlin deals with the presentation of the art to make sure everything is oriented the way we like to present it. The correct way to “curate,” according to institutions, is a bit different than what we do. But since we are still a young space we are mainly concentrating on themes, art, and artists. 

AS: One issue that came up a few times and that caught my attention was the question of the curator's moral responsibility to the artist. What's your take on that? Many of the speakers/guests (who were often artist-curators) were all about respecting the artist's right to self-determination and not getting in the way of that with a curatorial conceit. 

AC: A curator’s role in what the artist makes should be minimal. Unless one has studied and actively participated in that form to a point of expertise, the curator should not have ultimate say on the artist’s motives, but instead focus on their role as a mentor. Considering Johalla Projects is run by a group of artists, I feel we are more sympathetic to the art form. We give artists freedom to make their work and consider their say in our press releases and statements. There is a reason we are choosing them. We control the thematic and technical units of the show but pick artists for the work they make. This is the relationship, there is a compromise. I feel all of our collaborations with artists and other curators have led us to be more knowledgeable. 

AS: We also talked about possible tensions between curating inside an art space and making work that infiltrates into daily life, and how a curator may help or hinder the art-outside-the-gallery side of things. I was surprised to hear Eric really defend the sanctity of the white cube in that respect. Your thoughts?

AC: Both of these items are completely different and are very difficult to compare. Both entities are important and viewed differently. I personally support the “white cube” and believe it allows the work to present itself without any distractions. If there is anything that is distracting the relationship between the viewer and the artist, the ultimate goal is not met. This also falls on the intent of the artist. Artists want reaction and in order for someone to fully understand the piece and develop a reaction, the less distractions the better. Art outside the gallery has a different purpose and can be very impactful. We have recently done a few murals and carefully chose our artists based on the impacts we knew their work could make in the neighborhoods. Apartment galleries are different than commercial galleries. Basel art fair is different than Aqua art fair. They all deserve criticism based on their own entities. 

AS: All the speakers commented on the effect of grad school on their practices, which mainly boiled down to: a.) they have less time to do projects, and b.) they have to write a lot more and think about that aspect of their process more critically. I know you haven't gone through a grad program, so do you have any thoughts on higher education and how it could help/hinder your curatorial development? 

AC: Graduate school. This is always been a very interesting topic for me, especially now that I am teaching at an institution where grad students are taking my class. I did apply to grad school and still plan on going in the future. When I decided to not go to grad school and open up Johalla Projects, I was making the decision based on my maturity level and I didn’t feel as if I was ready at the time. The amount of knowledge I have gained through Johalla, art consulting, working for the Verge art fair, and now teaching is a lot more than I would of learned in graduate school. I know I am not at the level I want to be at and foresee graduate school in my future. I know this has had an impact on my curatorial ways. This has made me more of an unconventional curator- my themes are different from the norm. I see art criticism in places where others might not see it, since my ideas and inspirations come from places besides institutions. I feel as if I spent my twenties building up cliental and working out my business form. I did this knowing I will be learning forever and have time for the more intense, restricted learning.

When my colleague, Rebecca Hernandez, and I were planning the “Curating the Turn” SALON (the first session in our @work SALON series), we started by talking about Anton Vidokle’s essay, “Art Without Artists.” The article rehashes a lot of the same arguments about the so-called creative curator that have been debated for a couple of decades now, but in the updated context of the “educational turn” (or, “the incorporation of pedagogy [things like research materials, symposia, lectures, and essays] into curatorial practice,” says the good folks at De Appel. For a paradigmatic example of what the educational turn can look like in an exhibition context, check out the Curating Degree Zero Archive.) Vidokle’s essay incited many responses from prominent curators, as it highlighted curators’ increasing obsession with talking about talking (i.e., the discursive, self-justifying nature of curatorial practice). See the publication, in spring 2010, of “Curating and the Educational Turn” by the aforementioned De Appel Arts Center in Amsterdam, for instance, and a flurry of essays on the topic published in recent months in e-flux.

Of course, the idea of a curator whose role is increasingly hybridized with the figure of the artist and the educator, and for whom the role of language is increasingly important (whether through the scholarship that he or she produces in conjunction with the exhibition, or through roundtables or other such pedagogically-oriented events) hardly feels novel anymore. But, interestingly, during our SALON on February 8^th, there appeared to be some resistance to that idea here in Chicago.

As independent curator Kelly Shindler pointed out during the Salon, Chicago is not exactly an “institutional” city. If debates about the relative power of the creative curator (or the ethics regarding his or her “co-authorship” of an exhibition) make sense in New York or in European cities, it’s because those cities have a very different artistic ecology, so to speak. As Eric May and Aay Preston-Myint attested to, Chicago is characterized by its plethora of small, independent artist-run spaces, where such concerns don’t really enter into the equation. Both Eric and Aay described their curatorial work as a relatively hands-off endeavor, through which they tried to help other artists show their work in the best manner possible, without imposing a curatorial vision. The concept of “ethics” or “responsibility” towards the artist was often mentioned in this regard; both artist-curators felt they had a responsibility towards other artists to allow them to represent their work as they saw fit, and in their own terms.

This point of discussion brought forth a lot of comments from SALON attendees, and piqued my curiosity as to why this unspoken ethical code for artist-run spaces exists (you must not show your own work, you must show the work as the artist intended, etc.). It was often brought up in the discussion that Chicago is great for artists and curators alike because there are so many of these small spaces that are so easy to access; which makes me wonder, if there are so many “safe spaces” for experimentation, why be so cautious? Perhaps Chicagoans should not be so self-congratulatory in this regard. Why not think more self-reflexively about the possibilities for curating, and engaging more actively with the debates that occur elsewhere in the world - could the reticence to do so be indicative of a somewhat apathetic hermeticism?