http://blog.xpace.info/2010/01/16/december-top-5-events-toronto/ Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:59:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://blog.xpace.info/2010/01/16/december-top-5-events-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-410 Ginger Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:19:56 +0000 http://blog.xpace.info/?p=323#comment-410 It's great to call the work ambiguous, if only because of the public listing and convoluted confirmation of your participation within the didactic materials (which is what first got me to pay attention to the project.....asking, wait, what's going on here, is Schwebel included or not included, and how is the other artist, Michelle Lacombe involved? If he is included, then way the coyness with his inclusion - drawing more attention to intended absence through this non-absence?) I think curatorial undermining is a superb form of institutional critique, particularly if you are successful in producing a line of questions that continue on beyond the work. I believe the job of curator changes so much from individual to individual that the position itself is constantly up for contestation if only because it seems too uncertain on premise alone. I know myself, that my role as a curator shifts significantly from project to project, in what sort of decisions I make, how much I participate in the development of participating artists' projects etc. By instilling real confusion, and by circumventing the role of the curator (as something already convoluted) through sending out rejection letters to "accepted" artists and inviting a "rejected" artist to participate, the work drew attention to all the right things that should be debated more loudly in the public forum. Thanks so much for the response! I really appreciate it. It’s great to call the work ambiguous, if only because of the public listing and convoluted confirmation of your participation within the didactic materials (which is what first got me to pay attention to the project…..asking, wait, what’s going on here, is Schwebel included or not included, and how is the other artist, Michelle Lacombe involved? If he is included, then way the coyness with his inclusion – drawing more attention to intended absence through this non-absence?)
I think curatorial undermining is a superb form of institutional critique, particularly if you are successful in producing a line of questions that continue on beyond the work. I believe the job of curator changes so much from individual to individual that the position itself is constantly up for contestation if only because it seems too uncertain on premise alone. I know myself, that my role as a curator shifts significantly from project to project, in what sort of decisions I make, how much I participate in the development of participating artists’ projects etc.
By instilling real confusion, and by circumventing the role of the curator (as something already convoluted) through sending out rejection letters to “accepted” artists and inviting a “rejected” artist to participate, the work drew attention to all the right things that should be debated more loudly in the public forum.
Thanks so much for the response! I really appreciate it.

]]> http://blog.xpace.info/2010/01/16/december-top-5-events-toronto/comment-page-1/#comment-396 Joshua Schwebel Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:02:22 +0000 http://blog.xpace.info/?p=323#comment-396 hi, I just came across your precis of the misinformed informants event on your blog. While it is great to see how your read the work, as the artist, I would like to add and or correct some of your (mis)-information. I am a conceptual artist who works through site-responsive interventions. The trajectory for the work was that after sending the package to the 'wrong' address, the work was *accepted* by Visser. I then requested that she send me a rejection letter, which, as you said, followed the curatorial premise and the conceptual premise of the work. Then, I sent that rejection letter, with a bit of doctoring, to the other artists who were accepted in the project, and sent Michelle Lacombe (an artist whose work was rejected from Visser's curatorial call) to perform in my place. Lisa Visser was not entirely comfortable with my project, as it undermined her curatorial authority over the event. In many ways, the ambiguity around my work is a reflection of her discomfort with the project. I am really glad to see that you 'got' the work, but I just thought you might be interested in some of these details. thanks again for the blog! Josh hi, I just came across your precis of the misinformed informants event on your blog. While it is great to see how your read the work, as the artist, I would like to add and or correct some of your (mis)-information.
I am a conceptual artist who works through site-responsive interventions. The trajectory for the work was that after sending the package to the ‘wrong’ address, the work was *accepted* by Visser.
I then requested that she send me a rejection letter, which, as you said, followed the curatorial premise and the conceptual premise of the work. Then, I sent that rejection letter, with a bit of doctoring, to the other artists who were accepted in the project, and sent Michelle Lacombe (an artist whose work was rejected from Visser’s curatorial call) to perform in my place.
Lisa Visser was not entirely comfortable with my project, as it undermined her curatorial authority over the event. In many ways, the ambiguity around my work is a reflection of her discomfort with the project.
I am really glad to see that you ‘got’ the work, but I just thought you might be interested in some of these details.
thanks again for the blog!
Josh

]]>