FILLIP Issue No. 15Fall 2011 $15.00 €12.00

List of Illustrations

F/B. Adrian Piper, Mythic Being, Cycle I.8: 4/12/68, 1974. Village Voice newspa-per ad for April 25, 1974, no. 8 of 17. 37.8 ! 29.2 cm. Courtesy of the Adrian Piper Research Archive Foundation Berlin.

4. Crowd awaiting polio immunization, San Antonio, 1962.

10. Osama bin Laden, n.d.

20. Jon Rafman, detail of 78 Myrdle St, Poplar, England. From the series The Nine Eyes of Google Street View, 2008–.

27. Jon Rafman, Rue Monte Castelo Duque de Caxias, Brasil. From the series The Nine Eyes of Google Street View, 2008–.

32. Cildo Meireles, Tree of Money, 1969.One hundred folded One Cruzeiro banknotes. Photo by Pat Kilgore. Cour-tesy Galerie Lelong, New York.

40. Olaf Nicolai, cover of Die Gabe. Eine Sammlung, 1994. 30.5 ! 23.5 cm. Courtesy Galerie Eigen + Art Leipzig/Berlin.

49. Olaf Nicolai, Chant d’Amour, 2003. Two rooms divided by a wall, plastic straw. Photo by Claudio Abate. Courtesy Galerie Eigen + Art Leipzig/Berlin.

52. A. Michael Noll, Gaussian-Qudratic, 1962/3. Computer generated image.

57. Cover of Group Material exhibi-tion pamphlet, University Art Museum, Berkeley, 1989.

62. Tammy Rae Carland, Pirate Platform, 2005. From the series Outpost. C-print. 101.6 ! 127 cm. Courtesy of Silverman Gallery, San Francisco.

70. Stephen Russell, Love, 2008. Site spe-cific installation. Courtesy of Accidentally Annie Street Space, Brisbane.

98. John Cage & Karlheinz Stockhausen, 1958. Courtesy of the John Cage Trust.

110. Penelope Umbrico, 4257692874-69276.jpg and 01020001040901030720070711624fcb3a997751467800b983.jpg, 2010. From the series Desk Trajectories. Risograph prints on paper. 21.59 ! 27.94 cm.

115. Bruce Conner, Applause, 1970. Litho-graph on paper. 18.1 x 53.3 cm. Courtesy of SODRAC, Montréal.

122. BANK, document from FAX BAK, 1999.

134/35. Dexter Sinister, press releases sent as part of True Mirror, 2008.

140. GELITIN, The B-Thing, World TradeCenter, New York, 2000.

146. Metahaven, Guantanamo—WikiLeaks, 2011. T-shirt. Sponsored and produced by Gwangju Design Biennale.

149. Metahaven, The Situation Is Cata-strophic But Not Serious (Slavoj Zizek) and Facebook—Welcome To New Roman Times, 2011. Installations view at the Gwangju Design Biennale, 2011.

1 5

9 771715 321025

Fillip: Issue No. 15

Publisher: Jeff Khonsary Editor: Kristina Lee Podesva Associate Editors: Antonia Hirsch, Magnolia Pauker, Kate Steinmann Assistant Editor: Amy ZionFounding Editor: Jordan StromCopyeditor: Jaclyn Arndt Office Manager: Michael Cadamia Design: The FutureInterns: Liza Eurich, Ksenia Cheinman, Kevin Day, Rob Ondzik, Erin Marranca, Alex Turgeon, Alan Woo, Dirk Wright Printed in Belgium by Die Keure Edition: 2,500 Paper: 115 gsm Munken Print White and 80 gsm Colorado Grey

Fall 2011ISBN: 978-0-9868326-5-9 ISSN: 1715-3212

Board of Directors

Jeff Derksen, Christoph Keller, Jonathan Middleton, Melanie O’Brian, Jordan Strom, Cheyanne Turions

Advisory Board

Patrik Andersson, Sabine Bitter, Zoe Crosher, Maria Fusco, Silvia Kolbowski, Ken Lum, Larry Rinder, Kitty Scott, Matthew Stadler, John Welchman, William Wood

Address

305 Cambie Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 2N4

Subscriptions

Canada and US: $30/year International: !30/year Institutions: $50/year

Distribution

Fillip is available at bookshops and magazine stands worldwide and is distributed by Motto Distribution in Europe and Disticor Magazine Distribu-tion Services, Emma Marian Ltd., and Textfield Inc. in North America.

All content © 2011 the authors, artists, and editors. Unauthorized reproduc-tion is strictly prohibited. All images are reproduced courtesy of the artist unless otherwise specified.

The views expressed in Fillip are not necessarily those of the editors or the publisher. Letters may be sent to the editors at letters@fillip.ca.

Fillip gratefully acknowledges the support of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the City of Vancou-ver, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the British Columbia Arts Council. Spe-cial thanks to the Kadist Art Foundation.

52 53

Christian Nagler & Joseph del Pesco

Curating in the Time of Algorithms

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century the role of the contemporary art curator shifted from caretaker of collections to producer of exhibitions, a shift that ran parallel to the changing role of algorithmic processes of information sorting DQG�GLVWULEXWLRQ��/DUV�%DQJ�/DUVHQ�LGHQWLƩHV�WKH�PRPHQW�RI�D�ŝUH�GHƩQLWLRQ�RI�WKH�FXUDWRU�GXULQJ�WKH�ʔʜʛʓV��ZKHQ�LW�EHFDPH�DQ�DFFHSWDEOH�QRWLRQ�that exhibition organizers could act independently from the archive.”1 But in the last two decades the archive has taken on a new role due to the increased visibility and access made possible by the transition from material storehouses to digital databases. Meanwhile, the cultural sector has be-FRPH�LQFUHDVLQJO\�LPSDFWHG�E\�WKH�ƪRZV�RI�DQ�LQ-formation economy—most visibly through social networks, search engines, user-generated content sites, and online databases—and the gradual adop-tion of these networks and tools by artists, cura-tors, and institutions. For artists, having a Web site is akin to having a business card twenty years ago, and museums are now developing complex GDWDEDVHV�WR�PDQDJH�WKHLU�ŝGLJLWDO�DVVHWV�Ş�:LWK�WKH�ŝVHDUFK�IXQFWLRQŞ�HQDEOHG�E\�WKH�:HE��FXUD-tors can conduct extensive research and have had (in roughly the last twenty years) access to related information and images many times greater than any one person could review in a lifetime. Boris Groys outlines this information expansion of the cultural territory in terms of a crisis of visibility, evident in an artist’s attempts to gain recognition in zones where participatory mass consumption is UHIUDPHG�DV�D�PRGH�RI�SURGXFWLRQ��In order to make visible himself or herself in the contemporary context of mass artistic production, the artist needs a spectator ZKR�FDQ�RYHUORRN�WKH�LPPHDVXUDEOH�TXDQWLW\�RI�DUWLV-tic production and formulate an aesthetic judgment that would single out this particular artist from the mass of other artists. Now, it is obvious that such a spectator does not exist—it could be God, but we have

already been informed of the fact that God is dead. If contemporary society is, therefore, still a society of spectacle, then it seems to be a spectacle without spectators.2

But is it possible that this information surplus could be felt even more acutely by the self-LGHQWLƩHG�FXUDWRU��ZKR�LV��LQ�VRPH�ZD\V��FKDUJHG�ZLWK�WKH�WDVN�RI�EHLQJ�*UR\VśV�ŝGHDG�JRGŞ"�The SV\FKRDQDO\VW�-DFTXHV�/DFDQ�ZURWH�RI�WKH�ŝVXE-MHFW�VXSSRVHG�WR�NQRZ�Ş�D�IDQWDVL]HG�ƩJXUH�ZKR�is presumed capable of culling through the analy-sand’s everyday stream of unconscious material, recognizing the meaningful and revealing move-PHQWV�RI�WKH�VSHDNLQJ�VXEMHFW��1RZ��ZH�PLJKW�VD\��WKLV�IDQWDVLHG�ŝVXEMHFW�VXSSRVHG�WR�NQRZŞ�RSHUDWHV�less hermeneutically and more quantitatively. In an RQOLQH�FRQWH[W��ŝYLUDOŞ�SURFHVVHV�PDNH�WH[W��LPDJHV��and other phenomenon visible for a moment, and networks of users select this information, which is strictly indexed in terms of hits, clicks, votes, and comments. These aggregations of attention, TXDQWLƩHG�LQ�PLFUR�XQLWV��VWDQG�LQ�IRU�WKH�VSHFWUDO�knowing subject, producing a culture where the interest of the many is privileged over the special-ized knowledge of the few.

We would do well here to consider Scott /DVKśV�QRWLRQ�RI�WKH�ŝSRVW�KHJHPRQLF�RUGHU�Ş�where power works not through domination from above, not from a separate realm of sovereignty, but from below and within, through networks of communication and performance. In other words, repressive power is distributed through networks that appear and function as generative and pro-ductive forces. Furthermore, Lash asserts that this post-hegemonic power operates no longer through FRPPRGLWLHV�DV�GHDG�HQGV��EXW�DV�OLYLQJ�ŝWKLQJV�that think,” or processes with their own social life that only sometimes serve as commodities and ZKRVH�LQƪXHQFH�LV�UDUHO\�YLVLEOH��7KHVH�WDNH�VKDSH�most acutely in the formation of the software algorithm, which are not just protocols, but learn-ing and decision-making processes that persist and develop through feedback. In Lash’s formulation, ŝD�VRFLHW\�RI�XELTXLWRXV�PHGLD�PHDQV�D�VRFLHW\�LQ�which power is increasingly in the algorithm.”3

,Q�WKH�VLPSOHVW�VHQVH��WKH�DOJRULWKP�LV�D�ƩQLWH�list of step-by-step instructions, coded in such a way that it can be read and executed by a

54 55

capital”8 represents a threatening lack of privacy; IRU�RWKHUV�WKH�PRUH�JHUPDQH�TXHVWLRQV�DUH��:KDW�are the possible algorithmic tools that could mine DQG�KDUYHVW�VXFK�ŝUHODWLRQDO�GDWD"Ş�:KDW�ZRXOG�D�society look like where our every expression and exchange is mapped, measured, monetized, and ultimately leased back to us?

9HU\�UHFHQWO\��D�QXPEHU�RI�ƩJXUHV�KDYH�HPHUJHG�DV�FULWLFV�RI�WKH�ŝ$JH�RI�WKH�$OJRULWKP�Ş9 2QH�RI�WKHVH�FULWLFV�LV�(OL�3DULVHU��WKH�IRUPHU�GLUHF-WRU�RI�0RYH2Q�RUJ��ZKR�DUWLFXODWHV�WKH�DQ[LHW\�over the possibility that Google’s individually tailored hierarchies of relevance are quickly trans-IRUPLQJ�LQIRUPDWLRQ�VWUHDPV�LQWR�ŝƩOWHU�EXEEOHVŞ�RU�ŝLQIRUPDWLRQ�FRFRRQV�Ş�ZKHUH�WKH�DOJRULWKP�only gives us what we are most comfortable with and occludes, without our knowing, all that might EH��DFFRUGLQJ�WR�KLV�YDJXH�IRUPXODWLRQ��ŝXQFRP-fortable or challenging or important.”10�,Q�3DULVHUśV�interpretation, these algorithms both concentrate and enclose the political and cultural awareness of communities and formerly unincorporated QHWZRUNV�RI�DƫQLW\��VSRWOLJKWLQJ�RXU�LPSXOVLYH�preferences to click on, say, our liberal friends’ links more often than our conservative friends’, thus fating us to an increasingly liberal categorical imperative. What might be the end result of these LQIRUPDWLRQ�FRFRRQV"�3HUKDSV�D�PRUH�SRODUL]HG��FORLVWHUHG��RU�ŝ%DONDQL]HGŞřDQG�WKHUHIRUH�LU-reconcilable—culture of political discourse? Is this a new wave of concern about the loss of a public culture, or a reactive fear of the atomization of political communities cloaked in the language of technology? In any case, an important element LV�WKH�IDFW�WKDW�SHRSOH�DUH�QRW�PDNLQJ�ŝLQIRUPHGŞ�choices about the access they get, but are rather allowing their own too-convenient micro-choices encoded in their browsing history (and processed by the performance enhancing aid of algorithms) to decide for them.

,I�WKLQNHUV�OLNH�3DULVHU�UHFRJQL]H�D�GDQJHU�LQ�the overindulgence of our drive for ideological comfort by the cognitive prosthetic of the algo-rithm, others such as Kevin Slavin are concerned about the post-human values of the algorithm taking frightening primacy, both economically DQG�FXOWXUDOO\��)RU�LQVWDQFH��ƩQDQFLDO�DQDO\VWV�have exhibited increasing alarm about a market

V\VWHP�LQ�ZKLFK�ʚʓ�SHUFHQW�RI�WUDGLQJ�LV�FRQWUROOHG�E\�WKH�GHFLVLRQV�RI�ŝTXDQWVŞ�RU�LQYHVWPHQW�EDQNV�and hedge funds using proprietary algorithms that behave like automated armies deployed by traders and analysts.11 In another example, companies like 'HPDQG�0HGLD�UXQ�ŝFRQWHQW�IDUPVŞ�WKDW�XVH�DOJR-rithms to keep a running tabulation of user search-es and of the vicissitudes and preferred language of Google’s ranking algorithm with the singular goal of crowdsourcing the production of millions of pages of Internet content optimized to rank higher (i.e., at the top of any given Google search). They ZLOO�WKXV�EH�DEOH�WR�FRQGXFW�D�PLFUR�TXDQWLƩFDWLRQ�of their ad value, turning Web pages into info-FRPPRGLWLHV��$V�VXFK��ŝFRQWHQW�IDUPVŞ�RXWUDQN�RU�GHYDOXH�DQ\�FRQWHQW�WKDW�PLJKW�EH��DV�3DULVHU�DUJXHG��ŝLPSRUWDQW�Ş�WXUQLQJ�WKH�,QWHUQHW�LQWR�a cultural sphere structured by the monolithic TXDOLW\�RI�*RRJOH�GHWHUPLQHG�ŝUHOHYDQFHŞ�WR�WKH�exclusion of any other qualities.

8QGHUQHDWK�WKHVH�DQ[LHWLHV�OLHV�SHUKDSV�D�deeper fear that the negation of important content WKDW�HLWKHU�KDV�QR�TXDQWLƩDEOH�DQG�LPPHGLDWHO\�instrumentalizable value or has value that is chronically misinterpreted by the original gram-mars that write and underwrite the network system will lead to a systematic banalization of the communicative sphere by pervasive risk-management, the primary directive of which is SURƩWDELOLW\�RQ�WKH�,QWHUQHW��2Q�WKH�RQH�KDQG��WKLV�logic, if carried far enough, could signal the end of a species of spectacle-driven capitalism, where the brand value of an editorial entity like, for H[DPSOH��1<7LPHV�FRP��LV�LQFUHDVLQJO\�EROVWHUHG�by the illusion of a panoptical mastery of human culture, regardless of the real use value of the information it provides. Instead there is something like a new paradigm, stemming from changes to how information is valued, in which the immedi-ate use value of information is subject to instant TXDQWLƩFDWLRQ�DQG�YDORUL]DWLRQ��DQG�LQIRUPDWLRQ�with more distant, less determined, or contested YDOXH�LV�ƩOWHUHG�RXW��)RU�H[DPSOH��XSGDWHV�RQ�Guantanamo or Ai Wei Wei’s detainment by the Chinese government are stories that fall outside the narrowing stream of personalized content despite their potential as catalytic geopolitical IRFDO�SRLQWV��3HUKDSV�WKH�FRPPRQ�GHQRPLQDWRU�RI�

machine.4 But these instructions are also condi-tional, generating complex decisioning processes that, through repeated automation (and the sustained maintenance of their programmers), can sort and select, track and map, and over time can JHQHUDWH�QHZ�VHWV�RI�UXOHV�DQG�UHƩQHPHQWV�RI�WKHLU�own processes.

$UWLƩFLDO�LQWHOOLJHQFH�UHVHDUFKHUV�DQG�LQIRUPD-tion theorists often refer, quite matter-of-factly, to a time when we were living in a mnemocentric culture; that is, a time when our memories were the primary storage vessels of information and the main retrieval mechanisms were stories—represented sequences of action carrying practical and aesthetic information about the world and how to live in it. With the advent of mnemonic prostheses like manufactured images and texts, the primary storage vessels became books, archives, and collections, and the attendant technologies of recall and retrieval depended on various linguis-WLF�FODVVLƩFDWRU\�V\VWHPV��7KH�WZHQWLHWK�FHQWXU\�experienced an expansive shift in the production of multi-modal representations—sound-, image-, text-, movement-, and time-clusters of varying FRPSRVLWLRQ��7KHVH�UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV�ƩUVW�SUHVHQWHG�themselves in everyday lives as more centralized SKHQRPHQDO�VWUHDPV��H�J���UDGLR��FLQHPD��79���then resolved themselves into accumulations called databases, and now into more densely dynamic, distributed, coded structures called networks.

Throughout the twentieth century, ency-clopaedists, registrars, archivists, and early Web developers (like Yahoo.com) made various at-tempts to improve the usefulness of customary, KLHUDUFKLFDO�FODVVLƩFDWLRQ�V\VWHPV�DQG�UHWULHYDO�mechanisms—with dubious success. As a result, SHRSOH�EHJDQ�WR�UHVSRQG�WR�WKH�ŝLQFRQVHTXHQWLDO�morass”5 of information-saturated culture with a sense of anxiety and alienation. In the words of Guy Debord, whose critique of spectacle could be understood as a visually focused precursor to the information-saturation anxieties that were QDVFHQW�LQ�WKH�ODWWHU�KDOI�RI�WKH�WZHQWLHWK�FHQWXU\��ŝDOO�WKDW�ZDV�RQFH�GLUHFWO\�OLYHG�KDV�EHFRPH�PHUH�representation.”6�2I�FRXUVH��'HERUG�VSHDNV�QRW�only to the encounter between the individual and the mass of representation, but also to the way that

representation obstructs social relations. Debord’s LGHDV�ZRXOG�VRRQ�EH�IROORZHG�E\�%DXGULOODUGśV�� We are no longer in the society of the spectacle, of ZKLFK�WKH�VLWXDWLRQLVWV�VSRNH��QRU�LQ�WKH�VSHFLƩF�NLQGV�of alienation and repression that it implied. The PHGLXP�LWVHOI�LV�QR�ORQJHU�LGHQWLƩDEOH�DV�VXFK��DQG�WKH�confusion of the medium and the message (McLuhan) LV�WKH�ƩUVW�JUHDW�IRUPXOD�RI�WKLV�QHZ�HUD�”7 This is the moment that the task of cultural selection began to be experienced as unwieldy, and culture began to be conceived as a nearly unnavigable wilderness of signs.

6LPXOWDQHRXVO\��D�GLƨHUHQW�SURVWKHWLF�ZDV�taking shape throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, a tool that would help guide the need to interface and journey through the oceans of information that were coming to be HVVHQWLDO�WR�VRFLHW\śV�HYHU\GD\�RSHUDWLRQ��WKH�DOJR-rithm. The algorithm’s strength lies in the sum of LWV�WZR�FDSDFLWLHV��WKH�DELOLW\�WR�OHDUQ��GHHSHQ��DQG�complexify its relationship to a data-set through YDULRXV�UHFXUVLYH�DQG�UHƪHFWLYH�IXQFWLRQV��DQG�the ability to approach information with semantic QHXWUDOLW\řWKDW�LV��WR�DYRLG�EHLQJ�LQƪXHQFHG�E\�the data it processes. Together, these two func-tions result in a cognitive prosthetic with unprec-edented analytical power.

That the everyday choices people make are LQFUHDVLQJO\�LQƪXHQFHG�E\�DOJRULWKPV�KDV��LQ�recent years, become the subject of critical at-WHQWLRQ��2Q�WKH�PRVW�YLVLEOH�OHYHO��UHWDLOHUV�OLNH�$PD]RQ�DQG�1HWƪL[�DOJRULWKPLFDOO\�WUDFN�RXU�selections and learn from our choices in order to suggest more things we might like to buy. Social networking sites do a version of the same when WKH\�HPSKDVL]H�VRFLDO�DƫUPDWLRQV�LQ�RUGHU�WR�keep us hooked into their systems, testaments to WKHVH�VLWHVś�KLJK�YDOXH�LQ�WKH�ŝDWWHQWLRQ�HFRQRP\�Ş�Slightly less visibly (but more notoriously), *RRJOHśV�3DJH5DQN�DOJRULWKP�WUDFNV�DQG�LQGH[HV�our personal Internet use-histories according to ƩIW\�VHYHQ�YDULDEOHV��LQFOXGLQJ�ORFDWLRQ��GXUDWLRQ��and repetition). Known but less discussed is the fact that Google has access to the semantic and re-lational content of billions of emails, chat sessions, telephone calls, and other private, content-rich forms of information. For some, this accumula-WLRQ�RI�ZKDW�0DWHR�3DVTXLQHOOL�FDOOV�ŝFRJQLWLYH�

56 57

all of these anxieties is that the network has come to be the primary and mass-produced media of human culture, and that, given the network’s need WR�EH�FRGLƩHG�DQG�VXSSOLHG�ZLWK�SURWRFROV��LW�LV�also hyper-vulnerable to capitalism’s compulsive UHYDOXDWLRQ�RI�OLIH��DQG�NQRZOHGJH�ƪRZV��

The critics and theorists under consideration KHUH�SURƨHU�YDULRXV�VROXWLRQV�DQG�QRQ�VROXWLRQV�WR�FRXQWHU�WKH�ŝSRVW�KHJHPRQ\Ş�RI�WKH�DOJRULWKP�12 Media theorists Alex Galloway and Eugene Thacker, for instance, call for (and provide a YHUVLRQ�RI��D�SROLWLFDO�HFRQRP\�RI�WKH�ŝELWV�DQG�atoms” of the network; that is, the material and categorical systems of code that comprise its spec-LƩFLW\��3DVTXLQHOOL�SURSRVHV�WKDW�\RX�ŝUHFODLP�\RXU�ranking”—that is, construct alternate systems RI�YDOXDWLRQ�DQG�SXW�WKHP�LQWR�SUDFWLFH��3DULVHU�VLPSO\�XUJHV�SHRSOH�WR�ŝYDU\�WKHLU�LQIRUPDWLRQ�pathways.”13 In nearly all of these propositions, WKH�ƩJXUH�WKDW�FRPHV�XS�DJDLQ�DQG�DJDLQ��WKH�RQH�who is perhaps capable of handling this task of UHIRUPDWWLQJ�WKH�FRQFHSW�RI�UHOHYDQFH��RI�RƨHULQJ�new, risky, and non-monetizable possibilities for FXOWXUDO�VRUWLQJ�DQG�FODVVLƩFDWLRQ��LV�QRW�WKH�DUWLVW�or the editor or the archivist, but the curator.

The Curator

+LVWRULFDOO\��FXUDWRUV�ZHUH�WKH�FDUHWDNHUV�RI�FROOHFWLRQV��ŝERWK�ŚFXUDWHś�DQG�ŚFXUDWRUś�GHULYH�from the Latin curare (to care).”14 Associated with public service, the curator’s role involved cataloguing, documentation, and material pres-ervation of the collection—a limited accumula-tion of cultural materials and artifacts—as well as advising and overseeing its appropriate public GLVSOD\��+RZHYHU��ŝWKH�FXUDWRUśV�WDVN�LV�QRW�RQO\�the safeguarding, analysis and presentation of a cultural heritage; it includes enriching it, prin-cipally through the acquisition of contemporary works.”15 This implicates the curator in a process of selection and an engagement with the market, RQH�WKDW�UHTXLUHV�KLP�RU�KHU�WR�ŝUHVLVW�WKH�WLPHV�or fashion.”16 At stake is the curator’s ability to assess a work’s authenticity (avoiding fakes) and its value in terms of posterity (its future or po-tential cultural value). These tasks would persist

despite a reformulation of the curatorial role and an expansion of their responsibilities in the mid to late twentieth century. We’ll focus here on the WKUHH�SULPDU\�VKLIWV�WKDW�KDYH�GLUHFWO\�LQƪXHQFHG�the contemporary art curator.

$V�WKH�ƩQDQFLDO�VWDNHV�LQ�WKH�DUW�PDUNHW�LQ-creased (creating competition between museums and private collectors) and trade routes extended across the globe (most visibly at international art fairs), large-scale international exhibitions DSSHDUHG�LQFOXGLQJ�WKH�6¢R�3DXOR�%LHQQLDO��ʔʜʘʔ��DQG�GRFXPHQWD�LQ�.DVVHO��*HUPDQ\��ʔʜʘʘ���SUHGDWHG�RQO\�E\�WKH�9HQLFH�%LHQQLDOH�IRXQGHG�LQ�ʔʛʜʘ��7KHVH�H[KLELWLRQV��DQG�DQRWKHU�GR]HQ�OLNH�them that would appear in the years following, have routinely featured more than one hundred artists and are typically organized by curatorial teams. Suddenly the curator, facing an impossibly large purview, had to include scholars, writers, theorists, and other curators in the curatorial pro-cess. Meanwhile, many museum collections were broadening their views to include a wider array of international art, which required the curator to EHFRPH�DZDUH�RI�JOREDO�FXUUHQWV��KRZHYHU�ƩOWHUHG�by advisors in a transnational institutional net-work. By necessity, the curator became a strategic thinker, aware of international social and political forces. And even those curators with secure insti-tutional positions began to think beyond the walls of the museum, organizing temporary exhibitions elsewhere and writing critical texts.

3DUDOOHO�WR�WKH�DUW�ZRUOGśV�JOREDOL]DWLRQ��RWKHU�forces contributing to the development of the curator include the proliferation of revisionist histories, institutional critique, and the challeng-LQJ�RI�VFLHQWLƩF�REMHFWLYLW\��SDUWLFXODUO\�DV�LW�DS-pears in the museum. These critical engagements combined with the appearance of new technolo-gies shaping cultural life. Technophilic curator DQG�WKHRULVW�-DFN�%XUQKDP�RƨHUHG�VRPH�HDUO\��DOEHLW�OLPLWHG��WKLQNLQJ�DERXW�WKHVH�LVVXHV��The computer’s most profound aesthetic implication is that we are being forced to dismiss the classical view of art and reality which insists that man stand outside RI�UHDOLW\�LQ�RUGHU�WR�REVHUYH�LW��DQG��LQ�DUW��UHTXLUHV�the presence of the picture frame and the sculpture pedestal. The notion that art can be separated from its HYHU\GD\�HQYLURQPHQW�LV�D�FXOWXUDO�Ʃ[DWLRQ�>LQ�RWKHU�

58 59

(artists, institutions, etc.) emphasizing the subjects and histories embedded in the works (and the context of those subjects and histories), which requires the curator to be intellectually promiscu-ous and polymathic. In other words, curators carefully negotiate the nexus of forces, objects, and individuals that go into the production of a public presentation, whether in the form of an exhibition or not. They are also aware of the ŝPHGLXP�LV�WKH�PHVVDJHŞ�GLFWXP��DV�LV�HYLGHQFHG�E\�+RƨPDQQśV�FKRLFH�WR�IRXQG�D�PDJD]LQH�DERXW�DXWHXU�FXUDWLQJ�HFKRLQJ�WKH�1HZ�:DYHśV�SHULRG�RI�involvement in the magazine Cahiers du Cinéma VWDUWLQJ�LQ�ʔʜʘʗ��ZKLFK�FU\VWDOOL]HG�WKHVH�LGHDV�IRU�D�JHQHUDWLRQ�RI�ƩOPPDNHUV�LQ�)UDQFH��)RU�VRPH�curators, the medium is the exhibition and the H[KLELWLRQ�LV�D�PHVVDJH��)RU�+RƨPDQQ��WKH�message is synonymous with an argument. This appearance of the curatorial message redirects caring (the curatorial curare) away from the collection and toward the exhibition itself, as is made vivid through the curator’s authorship of FXOWXUDO�QDUUDWLYHV��2QH�FDQ�WKHQ�UHDG�DQG�critically analyze the message as to its creative merits, utility, and relevance to the present. Whether or not the narratives posed by curators have any traction or cultural gravity, or if we even need curators to provide this service is unclear. What is clear is that the exhibition itself is now to be understood as a medium.

7KH�LQYDVLRQ�RI�VSHFLDOLVWV�IURP�UHODWHG�ƩHOGV��the expanded global scope, doubts regarding sci-HQWLƩF�REMHFWLYLW\�FRPELQHG�ZLWK�ZLGHQLQJ�]RQHV�RI�LQWHUHVW�DQG�DFWLYLW\��DQG�WKH�LGHQWLƩFDWLRQ�RI�the exhibition as a medium have all precipitated D�WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ�RI�WKH�FXUDWRUřLGHQWLƩHG�PRVW�clearly in the free agent, or independent, curator RI�FRQWHPSRUDU\�DUW��VWDUWLQJ�ZLWK�+DUDOG�6]HH-mann)—as a sometimes paradoxical hybrid of politician and philosopher, critic and agent, auteur and activist. As a result of these slippages, the con-cept of the curator, and the word itself, has drifted into more popular usage, leading to an increasingly JHQHUDOL]HG�LGHQWLƩFDWLRQ�ZLWK�WKH�UROH�DQG�WKH�appearance of deprofessionalization. This shift has occurred simultaneous to the professionaliza-tion of contemporary art curators through various academic programs.

All this leads us back to the critics of the age RI�WKH�DOJRULWKP��ZKR��OLNH�3DULVHUřUHDFKLQJ�IRU�D�WHUP�WR�GHVFULEH�WKH�ƩJXUHV�UHVSRQVLEOH�IRU�SUHVHQWLQJ�WKH�ŝXQFRPIRUWDEOH��FKDOOHQJLQJ��RU�important”25 aspects of culture—turned to the role DQG�HYHQ�WKH�FKDUDFWHU�RI�WKH�FXUDWRU��,Q�3DULVHUśV�FULWLTXH��ŝQHZV�IHHGV�ODFN�DQ\�FXUDWRULDO�YDOXHVŞ26 DQG�ŝKXPDQ�FXUDWRUV�DUH�RIWHQ�PRUH�OLNHO\�WR�take. . .risks.”27�3DULVHU�LGHDOL]HV�WKH�FXUDWRU�DV�DQ�outlier, or even an in-between-lier, a subject who has the cultural meta-understanding of the value of haunting the alleyways among information streams in order to encounter and present things that the viewer/user didn’t know they wanted to NQRZ�DERXW��)RU�3DULVHU�ŝFXUDWRUŞ�LV�LQWHUFKDQJ-DEOH�ZLWK�ŝHGLWRU�Ş�%RWK�DUH�ŝOLNH�JUHDW�PDWFKPDN-HUV��WKH\�LQWURGXFH�SHRSOH�WR�ZKROH�QHZ�ZD\V�of thinking, and they fall in love.”28 In contrast, Galloway, writing about the possibility of curating FRPSXWHU�YLUXVHV��RƨHUV�D�PRUH�FRPSOH[�UHDG-ing of the curator who has traditionally tended ŝWRZDUG�WKH�SUHVHQWDWLRQ�RI�WKH�VWDWLF�Ş�SURGXFLQJ�D�ŝKLVWRULFDO�VWLOOQHVV�Ş�EXW�ZKR�FDQ�DOVR�SURGXFH�D�NLQG�RI�H[FHVV��SURYLGLQJ�DQ�RSHQLQJ�ŝWKURXJK�which the unexpected happens.”29 This excess takes shape most evidently as the unknowable LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV�DQG�RSLQLRQV�RI�YLHZHUV�ZKR�ŝPD\�pass over all the care put into curating.”30

Curators, like algorithms, are organizational QRGHV�LQ�FXOWXUDO�V\VWHPV��VHUYLQJ�DV�ƩOWHUV�IRU�FRO-lections of artworks (whether sourced from a mu-seum, loaned from elsewhere, or commissioned). 6RPH�RI�WKH�PRVW�EDVLF�FXUDWRULDO�ƩOWHUV�RU�WHP-plates are the monographic exhibition, a survey of an individual artist’s (or artist group’s) work; the his-torical period��RXWOLQLQJ�DƫOLDWLRQV�RI�D�WLPH�OLPLWHG�era; the geographic survey, a grouping of artists from D�VSHFLƩF�UHJLRQ�RU�FRXQWU\��WKH�PHGLXP�VSHFLƩF, ƩOWHULQJ�E\�PDWHULDO�RU�WHFKQRORJLFDO�DVVRFLDWLRQV��DQG�ƩQDOO\�WKH�ahistorical and thematic exhibition, where artworks are assembled together based on UHOHYDQFH��IRUPDO�RU�VW\OLVWLF�DƫQLW\��SURSRVLWLRQDO�argument, or other narrative formation.31 The cura-WRU�FDQ�DOVR�LPSRVH�PXOWLSOH�ŝVRUW�E\Ş�SDUDPHWHUV�for a particular exhibition. For example, one can easily imagine an exhibition of photographs, from ,FHODQG��LQ�WKH�SHULRG�RI�WKH�ʔʜʙʓV��FRPELQLQJ�WKUHH�ƩOWHUV�DW�RQFH��,Q�WKLV�LQVWDQFH��WKH�FXUDWRU�

words, a mythic structure 17] as is the ideal of objectiv-ity in science.18

While Burnham was developing and publiciz-LQJ�KLV�ŝ6\VWHPV�(VWKHWLFVŞ�YLHZ�RI�WKH�H[SDQGHG�territory of art, there was a general recognition WKDW�WKH�ƩHOG�KDG�RSHQHG�EXW�WKDW�WKH�DQDO\WLFDO�and cultural tools to identify, order, sort, and make FRQQHFWLRQV�GLG�QRW�\HW�H[LVW��7KLV�ZDV�WKH�ŝSRVW�formalist” moment, and it was in this moment that %XUQKDP�VROLGLƩHG�WKH�SHUFHLYHG�XVHIXOQHVV�RI�systems theory as an alternate response to concep-tualist, kinetic, and early cybernetic art—in other words, the artwork that was not easily conforming to the conventional categorical narratives of art KLVWRU\��8VLQJ�WKH�PHWDSKRU�RI�VRIWZDUH��ZKLFK�resulted in a failed exhibition project by the same name, Burnham revealed a new and lasting ap-proach to thinking about art, one unburdened by the formal logic of art history. In a review of Software, FXUDWRU�9LQFHQW�%RQLQ�QRWHV��ŝ%\�VKLIW-LQJ�WKH�FRQFHSW�RI�SURJUDP�WRZDUG�DQ�DUWLVWLF�ƩHOG��Burnham tried to draw parallels between projects relying on devices for transmitting information (fax machines, teleprinters, audiovisual systems), and those that used language as material without resorting to technology.”19�:KLOH�%XUQKDP�ŝQHYHU�comprehensively followed through on a disarticu-lation of systems theory from its techno-industrial deployment,”20 he was able to sketch some ideas that have persisted in the critical analysis of how WHFKQRORJ\�LQWHUVHFWV�ZLWK�WKH�FXOWXUDO�ƩHOG��

7KH�WKLUG�DQG�ƩQDO�FXOWXUDO�VKLIW�FRQWULEXWLQJ�to the transformation of the role of the curator started during what Debora J. Meijers called the ŝ0XVHXP�UHYROXWLRQ�RI�WKH�6HYHQWLHV�Ş21 a time when museums experimented with new kinds RI�RSHQQHVV��6SHFLƩFDOO\��VWDUWLQJ�LQ�WKH�śʚʓV�DQG�FRQWLQXLQJ�LQWR�WKH�śʛʓV��WKH�FXUDWRULDO�SRVLWLRQ�has been occupied by a host of other characters LQ�WKH�FXOWXUDO�ƩHOG�LQFOXGLQJ�DFDGHPLFV��SKLORVR-SKHUV��FULWLFV��DQG�WKHDWUH�DQG�ƩOP�GLUHFWRUV��0HL-MHUV�SRLQWV�WR�WKH�ƩOP�GLUHFWRU�3HWHU�*UHHQDZD\�ŝIUHH�KDQGLQJŞ�WKH�FROOHFWLRQ�RI�WKH�%R\PDQV�0XVHXP��DQG�+HLQLFK�DQG�3ROODN�FLWH�SKLORVRSKHU�Jean-François Lyotard’s exhibition Les Immaté-riaux �ʔʜʛʘ�.�3ULRU�WR�WKHVH�WZR�H[DPSOHV��DUWLVWV�had also intervened in the curatorial process. &XUDWRU�&KXV�0DUW¬QH]�FLWHV�WZR�HDUO\�H[DPSOHV��

ŝLa Menesunda, created by Marta Minujin and Rubén Santantonín (with many collaborators) at WKH�,QVWLWXWR�GL�7HOOD�LQ�%XHQRV�$LUHV��0D\Ř-XQH�ʔʜʙʘ���DQG�Hon: en katedral��6KH��D�FDWKHGUDO���D�ODUJH�VFDOH�VFXOSWXUDO�LQVWDOODWLRQ�FUHDWHG�E\�1LNL�GH�6DLQW�3KDOOH�LQ�FROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�-HDQ�7LQJXH-O\�DQG�3HU�2ORI�8OWYHGW�DW�WKH�0RGHUQD�0XVHHW�LQ�6WRFNKROP��ʔʜʙʙ��Ş22 Both of these shows pro-SRVH�WKH�LGHD�RI�DQ�H[KLELWLRQ�DV�D�ŝWRWDOL]LQJŞ�DQG�ŝDOO�HQFRPSDVVLQJŞ�H[SHULHQFH��7KH�FXUDWRU�KHUH�is no longer the caretaker and scholar, a position held by individuals with a deep and long-standing relationship to the collection and the museum, but a role to be extended to any cultural agent for the sake of exhibition production.

8SGDWHV�WR�WKH�FXUDWRULDO�SRVLWLRQ�HPSKDVL]H�WKH�UROH�RI�ŝSURGXFHU�RI�H[KLELWLRQV�Ş�&XUDWRUV�LQ�WKH�ƩHOG�KDYH�EHHQ�VKRULQJ�XS�WKHLU�LGHQWLW\�through fast-paced historicization and critical meta-analysis of exhibitions (directed more at the medium of exhibition-making than the artworks included), as well as through curatorial state-ments of intent. Indeed, this position is precisely DUWLFXODWHG�E\�-HQV�+RƨPDQQ��ZULWLQJ�LQ�WKH Exhibitionist, a new magazine he co-founded and which is dedicated to the intellectual domain of WKH�FXUDWRU��The exhibition, as a creative medium, HVWDEOLVKHV�DQG�FXOWLYDWHV�D�VSHFLƩF�QH[XV�EHWZHHQ�LQ-dividuals and objects. The curator is the author of this nexus, selecting and installing the artworks, which DV�D�JURXS�RƨHU�D�ODUJHU�DUJXPHQW�WKDQ�DQ\�RQH�ZRUN�could make by itself. In other words, the exhibition mirrors the subjectivity of the individual curator, just as each artwork mirrors the subjectivity of the artist who made it.23

7KLV�FULWLFDO�SRVLWLRQ��ZKLFK�+RƨPDQQ�UHIHUV�WR�DV�ŝWKH�DXWHXU�WKHRU\�Ş24 is borrowed from the ƩOPPDNHUV�RI�WKH�)UHQFK�1HZ�:DYH��DQG�ZKLOH�it tends to make the organizational work of the curator more visible and liable to criticism, it also implies a heavy mediation of the works in an exhibition, risking instrumentalization of both artworks and artists, as well as overemphasizing the role of the curator as ideological and cultural ƩJXUHKHDG��

But it might still be argued that the predomi-nant curatorial ethic is one of sensitivity to a constellation of competing voices and ideas

60 61

We can recognize in these four examples the initial stages of a curatorial method that might be considered as a proto-algorithmic function. Do It suggested the possibility of localized participatory LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV�EDVHG�RQ�DUWLVW�GHƩQHG�SURWR-cols, and The Hypnotic Show produced a kind of user-generated content. Musée Precaire Albinet proposed an interface between multiple collec-tions and a constituency of users. And The AIDS Timeline’s accumulation of a broad range of cul-tural materials, including but not limited to art and ƩOWHUHG�E\�UHOHYDQFH��LV�DNLQ�WR�WKH�FXUUHQW�VWDWH�of information proximity and algorithmic sorting. What would a curatorial gesture look like that searched and sorted the whole global range of cul-WXUH��IURP�DUW�WR�QRQ�DUW��DQG�XVLQJ�PRUH�UHƩQHG�and sophisticated tools than the ones currently on RƨHU�E\�*RRJOH��DPRQJ�RWKHUV"�+RZ�PLJKW�WKH�curator discover new parameters by which the work could be presented and experienced? If the Google algorithm has over two hundred param-eters informing its decision-making power, what FRQGLWLRQDO�FKHFNV�PLJKW�FXUDWRUV�HQDFW"�+RZ�might curators optimize the traditional parameters so that they would be sensitive to the particulari-ties and contexts of artworks and artists? Could one perhaps identify which parameters might be productively divested of authority and privilege so that the exhibition’s cultural selection process could be on the forefront of transparency and connectivity?

Curators have resisted, and the older genera-tions appear almost allergic to, overt quantitative analysis of contemporary culture. Yet curators are already using tools that enable the sort of H[WHQGHG�UHDFK�VR�ƩQHO\�FUDIWHG�E\�*URXS�0DWH-rial via social networks and search. According to 0LFKDHO�3HSL��ŝFXUUHQW�GHEDWHV�RYHU�DUW�KLVWRU\śV�HSLVWHPRORJLFDO�IUDPHZRUN�FDQQRW�DƨRUG�WR�LJQRUH�the limitless manifestations of what is arguably the singular cultural and intellectual achievement of RXU�HUD��WKH�ZHE�EDVHG�GHFLVLRQLQJ�SRZHU�RI�WKH�Algorithm.”35 So too we argue that a reconsid-HUDWLRQ�RI�WKH�ƩHOG�RI�DUW�E\�FXUDWRUVřQRW�RQO\�with regard to the visibility of artists as we saw with Groys or broader access for wider popula-tions, but on behalf of a deepening and critical analysis of the methods of research and modes of

SUHVHQWDWLRQřPLJKW�EH�SRVVLEOH�E\��DW�ƩUVW��WKLQN-LQJ�WKURXJK�DOJRULWKPV�DQG�WKHLU�HƨHFWV�DQG�WKHQ��later, writing them; not to automate the process but to expand the curator’s capacity in order to EHQHƩW�QRW�RQO\�IURP�WKHLU�SRZHU�WR�VHDUFK�DQG�sort the massive and complex worldwide network, but to extend and support our cultural memory, generating new connections.

About the Authors

Joseph del Pesco is the Program Director of the Kadist Art Foundation in San Francisco.

Christian Nagler is an artist and a writer of fiction and essays. He teaches at the San Francisco Art Institute.

Notes begin on page 159.

functions here as one part of a larger algorithmic SURFHVV��H[WUDFWLQJ�GDWD��DUWZRUNV��EDVHG�RQ�ƩOWHUV�from a database (collection). This set of parameters constitute a program that runs on the operating system of the art institution.32

Lev Manovich, in The Language of New Media, LGHQWLƩHV�D�VKLIW�LQ�QHZ�PHGLD�IRUPDWLRQV�IURP�WKH�narrative to the database��'DWDEDVHV�DUH�ŝVWUXF-WXUHG�FROOHFWLRQ>V@�RI�GDWDŞ�ZLWKRXW�ŝDQ\�GHYHORS-ment, thematically, formally or otherwise which would organize their elements into a [narrative] sequence. Instead, they are collections of individ-XDO�LWHPV��ZKHUH�HYHU\�LWHP�KDV�WKH�VDPH�VLJQLƩ-cance as any other.”33 This is neither to say that all objects are formally or conceptually equivalent nor that there is only one way to organize a data-base. It is precisely the structuring of the database, its point of interface, that is intimately related to the parameter-based curatorial approaches dis-cussed above. In fact, one might even say, in the case of a collections-based presentation, that the exhibition is synonymous with the interface.

The curatorial inclination to set parameters can, in more extreme cases, take the shape of a SDFNDJHG�H[KLELWLRQ�SURJUDP�WKDW�FDQ�ŝSOXJ�LQŞ�WR�ODUJHU�LQVWLWXWLRQV��2QH�H[DPSOH�LV�+DQV�8OULFK�2EULVWśV�Do It��ʔʜʜʚŘʕʓʓʔ��DQ�H[KLELWLRQ�as-process where artists were invited to provide instructions (recipes) for the production of their work by others. The exhibition, which travelled internationally under the auspices of Independent Curators International, comprised locally pro-duced outcomes of artists’ instructions. In other words, the exhibition itself, its physical content, was cooperatively realized through material and immaterial interpretation by individuals at each venue. This kind of admin-participation, coupled with works that directly demanded enactment RU�SHUIRUPDQFH�E\�YLVLWRUV�IRU�WKH�DUWZRUNśV�ƩQDO�materialization, distinguishes Do It from other curatorial systems that have little opening for audience members, who are more often reduced to secondhand receivers of culture. In a similar curatorial system, curator Raimundas Malasuas-kas’s The Hypnotic Show �ʕʓʓʜŘʔʓ�, collected instructions by artists to be performed by a profes-VLRQDO�K\SQRWLVW�DW�GLƨHUHQW�LQWHUQDWLRQDO�YHQXHV��directly hypnotizing the audience and attempting

to enlist their unconscious minds as co-creators of a conceptual artwork.

7KRPDV�+LUVFKKRUQśV�Musée Précaire Albi-net��ʕʓʓʗ��LQYROYHG�WKH�FUHDWLRQ�RI�D�WHPSRUDU\�museum—organized with the close support of Les Laboratories d’Aubervilliers—in front of a public housing complex, which was developed in close partnership with his neighbours. For the project, +LUVFKKRUQ�JDLQHG�DFFHVV�WR�WKH�FROOHFWLRQV�RI�WKH�&HQWUH�3RPSLGRX��0XV¨H�1DWLRQDO�Gś$UW�0RGHUQH��DQG�WKH�)RQGV�1DWLRQDO�Gś$UW�&RQWHP-porain, and together with his neighbours selected artworks that were exhibited for a series of week-long exhibitions in their housing project. The proj-ect reframes the question of the curator’s cultural memory and agency as something that resides not LQ�DQ�LQGLYLGXDO�RU�DƫOLDWLYH�QHWZRUN��PDUNHG�by the professional and privileged domain of art), but instead in the point of interface between a collection and a particular constituency, whose VLJQLƩFDWLRQV�DQG�H[SHULHQFHV��DV�PDUJLQDOL]HG��transitional, and precarious) and whose selec-tions (unexpected and underdetermined), taken together, form meaningful search and sorting func-tions in the expanded domain of culture.

$�ƩQDO��DQG�DFWXDOO\�HDUOLHU��H[DPSOH�RI�D�FRO-laboratively and transparently authored curatorial system is found in The AIDS Timeline, organized by Group Material for the Berkeley Art Museum LQ�ʔʜʛʜ��7KH�H[KLELWLRQ�FDOOHG�ŝXSRQ�D�YDULHW\�of art objects as well as cultural artifacts, includ-ing images and texts from the popular media, the government, and grassroots political activists, to create a chronology of the syndrome.”34 Group Material uses the timeline as a mechanism to GHWHUPLQH�WKH�VHTXHQWLDO�ƪRZ�RI�WKH�ZRUNV�DQG�FXOOV�IURP�DOO�FXOWXUDO�PDWHULDO�ƩOWHUHG�E\�UHOHYDQFH�to AIDS. Relevance here is framed as a mate-rial investigation of culture in general, not only artworks, and it also foreshadows (as it parallels the nascent stages of a public Internet) a process of cultural selection that would later prove coinci-dent with the logic of the algorithm. We would do well to think about the vast amount of work entailed in crafting a research endeavour that assembled a convincing constellation of relevant content in the pre-Internet days, a function that is now largely taken for granted.