Reading  ‘the  curatorial’  in  Ydessa  Hendeles’  Partners    Judit  Bodor  (Essay  submitted  for  ‘Ways  of  Reading’,  Aberystwyth  University)    Abstract:  This   essay   investigates   how   exhibitions   can   mediate   'the   past'   to   build  understanding   of   'history'   and   how   such   mediation   influences   reading   and  experience   in   particular   of   the   work   of   artists   in   relation   to   historical   context.   It  builds   on   the   notion   of   the   'the   curatorial'   to   analyse   narrative   construction   in  exhibitions  as  relates  to  complex  historical  reality.  Here  ‘the  past’  is  the  infinitude  of  previous  events   and   ‘history’   its   selective   reconstruction   through  present   remains  both   tangible   (objects,   archival   material)   and   intangible   (peoples’   memory   of   the  event).      The   essay   focuses   particularly   on   Maria   Lind's   analysis   (2009,   2012)   of   'the  curatorial'   to   read   Ydessa   Hendeles'   exhibition,  Partners   (The  Teddy  Bear  Project)  2003.   Partners   was   a   museum   exhibition   through   which   Hendeles   blurred  boundaries   of   artist,   collector   and   curator.   Drawing   on   other   readings   of   the  exhibition  by  visual  culture  theorists  Ernst  van  Alphen  (2003)  and  Mieke  Bal  (2007)  the  essay  critiques  traditional  chronological  or  thematic  exhibition  making.      From  'curating'  to  'the  curatorial'    The   role   of   curator   emerged   in  parallel  with   the  development  of   cultural   heritage  institutions  and  the  academic  discipline  of  History  in  the  19th  Century.  This  curator  as  'keeper  of  objects'  was  a  researcher,  historian  and  guardian  or  gatekeeper  of  art  and  culture.  The  curator  determined  and  interpreted  objects  of  artistic  significance  and   by   extension   the   History   of   Art.   During   the   20th   century,   curating   gradually  came  to   include  exhibition-­‐making   thus  moving   the  curator   towards  a   ‘centralized  position  within   the   art  world’   (O’Neill,   2012:2).   In  parallel,   artists,   such   as  Marcel  Duchamp,   increasingly   encompassed   exhibition   design   within   their   own   artistic  practice  and   took  an  active  role   in   the  presentation  of  art.  These  changes  resulted  the  understanding  of  curating  as  'technical  modality  to  make  art  go  to  public’  (Lind,  2009:11).  This  definition  remains  popular  and  even  becoming  the  basis  of  emerging  curatorial  training  courses  since  the  late  1980s.  It  has  been  also  critiqued  however  by  ‘artists,  curators,  artist-­‐curators,  and  curatorial  collectives  who  have  continued  to  question   the   limits   and  boundaries   of   the  work  of   art’   (O’Neill,   2012:1).  One   such  critique,   for  example,   is   that  curating  within  the  art  world  splits  curators   from  the  ‘totality  of  art’s  social  being’  (Beech  and  Hutchinson  in  O’Neill,  2008:  59)  and  is  thus  disconnected  or  limited  in  its  ability  to  articulate  actuality.    During   the   last   twenty-­‐five   years   curating   has   been   also   'recoded'   to   include   the  concepts   of   curating-­‐as-­‐practice   and   the   curating-­‐as-­‐discourse   (O’Neill,   2012:1).  Although  these  concepts  are  ‘dialectically  entwined’,  they  do  have  separate  relations  to  making  art  go  public.  As  practice  curating  is  motivated  by  the  end  product  and  the  

art  on  display.  As  discourse  the  curatorial  is  more  concerned  with  ‘the  temporality  of  the  event  of  the  exhibition.’  (O’Neill,  2012:2).  This  recoding  in  contemporary  art  is  often  referred  to  as   'the  curatorial   turn'  (O’Neill,  2007,  2012,  Bismarck  et.al.  2012,  Lind  2009,  2012).  From  such  phenomena  has  also  emerged  the  separate  concept  of  ‘the   curatorial’   pushing   these   debates   further   and   introducing   an   even   broader  definition.  In  the  last  five  years  the  curatorial  has  been  discussed  more  and  more  as  a   ‘field   of   knowledge’   that   crosses   disciplines   and   relates   –   in   general   -­‐   to   ‘the  conditions  and  relations  of  the  appearance  of  art  and  culture’  (Bismarck  et.al,  2012:  8).  Maria  Lind,  for  example,  defined  it  as  a  ‘viral  presence  consisting  of  signification  processes  and  relationships  between  objects,  people,  places,  ideas,  and  so  forth,  that  strives  to  create  friction  and  push  new  ideas  –  to  do  something  other  than  “business  as  usual”  within  and  beyond  contemporary  art”.  (Lind,  2012:20).      The  re-­‐definition  and  re-­‐naming  aims  to  articulate  changes  in  the  understanding  of  curating,   however,   as   often   with   the   creation   of   dialectically   entwined   concepts  there   is  a  paradox.  On  one  hand  the  curatorial  now  appears   to  be  distinctive   from  curating  and  claims  that   it   is   less  to  do  with  the  end  product  and  more  to  do  with  discourse   as   knowledge   production.   On   the   other   hand   to   be   able   to   function   as  discourse,   the  curatorial  relies  on  curating  as   its   ‘technical  modality.’   It   is  curating  that  makes  ‘explicit  the  conditions  within  which  [the  curatorial]  exists’  (Bismarck  et.  al,  2012:  2).  Curating  as  practice  and  discourse  are  not  the  same  but  clear  separation  proves  to  be  difficult  even  when  we  use  new  terminologies,  such  as  ‘the  curatorial’.  To  make  this  difference  more  explicit  Lind  (2012)  suggests  that  the  curatorial  is  to  curating   like   Chantal   Mouffe's   'the   political'   is   to   'politics'.   Mouffe   (2001,   2005)  differentiates  the  aims  of   'the  political'  and  'politics'  as  divergence  over  consensus.  Politics  as  daily  practice  is  longing  for  solution  based  on  consensus.  But  longing  for  consensus   is   anti-­‐democratic,   as   it   doesn’t   allow   pluralistic   thinking   to   avoid  antagonistic  -­‐  and  potentially  destructive  -­‐  conflict.      Mouffe  proposes  ‘the  political’  as  platform  for  ‘agonistic  democracy’,  which,  without  being  destructive,  allows  the  existence  of  conflict  and  polyphony  of  voices   ‘each  of  which   constitutes   its   own   irreducible   discursive   identity’   (Mouffe,   2001:   191).  According  to  Lind  (2009:  20)  where  the  political  resists  conformity  of  consensus  in  politics,  the  curatorial  challenges  the  repetition  of  art  historical  'orders'  in  curating.  Lind   also   sees   the   curatorial   similar   to   the   political   in   it’s   nature   as   ‘polyphonic’  arena;  where  the  voice  of  the  curator  is  only  one  of  many.  This  'political  curatorial'  concept  compares  also  with  Mikhail  Bakhtin's  literary  concept  of  'heteroglossia'.  In  Discourse   in   the   Novel,   Bakhtin   described   how   'processes   of   decentralisation   and  disunification'  operate   in   language  alongside   'verbal-­‐ideological   centralization  and  unification.'  (Cited  in  Holquist,  1981:  272).  Thus  for  Bakhtin,  Mouffe  and  Lind  there  is   inevitable  plurality   and   conflict   in   language,  politics   and  art   respectively,  which  cannot   be   repressed   by   ‘authoritative’   practices.   Bakhtin's   analysis   of   speech,  character,  narrator  and  author  in  literature  can  extend  to  relations  of  artist,  curator,  objects  and  architecture  in  curating.    

Lind’s   positioning   of   the   curatorial   to   extend   curating   into   a   conflicted   pluralistic  arena   of   cultural   practice   is   particularly   relevant   to   an   analysis   of   the   exhibition  Partners.   This   exhibition   is   a   good   example   to   explore   how   narrative   exhibition  making   as   pluralistic   curatorial   strategy   can   relate   to   the   discursive   realm   of   the  curatorial.   In   Partners   (2002),   Ydessa   Hendeles   curated   a   selection   of   her   own  collection  over  fourteen  rooms  at  the  Haus  der  Kunst,  Munich.  The  exhibition  plan  (see  fig.  1)  shows  the  importance  of  spatial  design  in  influencing  visitors’  reading  of  the   collection.   Four   rooms   near   the   entrance   form   an   initial   cul-­‐de-­‐sac   through  which  visitors  pass  and  return  before  or  after  the  rest  of   the  exhibition.  The  route  chosen   depends   on  whether   the   visitor   exits   left   from   the   opening   room   into   the  main   exhibition   or   ahead   into   the   cul-­‐de-­‐sac.   This   spatial   design   anticipates  repeated   and   reversed   viewing   of   a   sequence   of   four   rooms   of   displayed   objects.  This   distinctive   exhibition   arrangement   suggests   a   key   to   reading   the   curatorial  narrative   and   so   I   focus  my   analysis   here   on   this   part   of   the   exhibition   given   its  peculiarity.    Each   room   includes   varied   objects   from   different   times,   media   and   ‘social   and  aesthetic   realms’.   (Alphen,   2003:   168).   This   juxtaposition   arouses   curiosity   and  creates   confusion   in   equal   measure.   The   first   room   displays   three   modest   items.  First,  on  the  left,  Diane  Arbus'  Self-­‐portrait  with  camera  from  1945  (see  fig.  2)  shows  Arbus  as  a  young  woman  looking   in  a  mirror  from  behind  a  camera.   In  the  centre,  John   Swartz's  The  Wild  Bunch,  c.1900,   (see   fig.   3)   is   a   photographic   studio   group  portrait  of  five  formally  dressed  men.  Last,  on  the  right,  is  a  vintage  wind-­‐up  tin-­‐toy,  Minnie  Mouse  Carrying  Felix   in  Cages,   a   popular   icon   from  Hollywood   ca.   1926-­‐36  (see   fig.4).   An   analysis   could   compare   the   photographs   and   the   possible   power  relationships  of   five  men   facing  one  woman,  albeit  she  points   the  camera  at   them.  The   toy’s   relationship   to   the  photos   appears  more   ambiguous:   a   collector’s   object  placed   centrally   in   the   exhibition,   it   represents   the   inversion   of   a   (female)  mouse  capturing  a  (male)  cat.  The  appearance  of  this  object  on  the  cover  of  the  exhibition  catalogue  suggests  moreover  its  importance  as  a  key  to  reading  the  exhibition.  This  opening  room  indicates  Hendeles'   intention  to  present  artworks  alongside  cultural  memorabilia.  Sometimes,  her  selection  and  arrangement  elevates  these  artefacts  to  equal   status   of   artwork   itself   as   with   her   installation   of   thousands   of   everyday  photographs   featuring   teddy   bears   over   the   next   two   rooms   of   the   cul-­‐de-­‐sac   as  (Partners)   The   Teddy   Bear   Project.   (see   fig.   5)   The   photographs   are   mahogany  framed   and   exhibited   floor-­‐to-­‐ceiling   or   in   standing   vitrines.   This   overwhelming  visual   display   recalls   the   Wunderkammer,   or   cabinet   of   curiosities,   of   the   post-­‐Renaissance.   This   parallel   of   displaying   artifacts   whether   anthropological,  archaeological   or   ethnographic   is   a   useful,   readable   and   established   reference   for  the  viewer.  We  are  looking  at  cultural  objects  made  significant  by  their  display  and  reception  in  a  museum.    Hendeles'   installation  reminds  of  Marcel  Duchamp's   ‘readymade’,  everyday  objects  chosen   by   the   artist   for   display   and   became   artworks   only   in   the   context   of   the  gallery   or   museum.   The   viewer   has   to   slow   down   and   look   at   the   photographs  closely  to  find  out  what  is  common  in  these  pictures,  why  are  they  kept  together  and  

in   this  exhibition.  The  photographs  depict  people  holding,   sitting  alongside  or   just  being  in  shot  with  teddy  bears.  Hendeles  groups  the  images  as  'children',  'soldiers',  'prostitutes,  and  'athletes'.  Far  from  ‘sentimentalizing  the  culture  of  the  Teddy  Bear’  (van   Alphen   2003:173),   this   typological   display   evokes   a   feeling   of   'uncanniness.’  The   uncanny,   (from   German   das   unheimlich)   was   studied   -­‐   amongst   others   -­‐   by  psychoanalyst   Sigmund   Freud   and   refers   to   an   uncomfortable   and   frightening  feeling  that  emerges  from  experiencing  something  familiar  yet  alien.  The  ‘‘'uncanny'  –  he  explained  -­‐  is  frightening  precisely  because  it  is  not  known  and  familiar’  (Freud,  1919:  1).  Vitrines  filled  with  teddy  bears  close  by  a  taxidermied  dog  'sleeping'  on  the  floor   amplify   this   juxtaposition   and   sensation.   This   dog   is   actually   a   sculptural  artwork,   Untitled   (1998)   by   Maurizio   Cattelan   (see   fig   6)   This   object   in   the  exhibition  ‘stimulates  us  into  tension,’  (Brooks  cited  in  Alphen,  2003:  171)  just  like  the  ambiguous,  enigmatic  presence  of  the  toy  mouse  in  the  first  room.  In  one  sense,  the  dog  and  mouse  are  simple  representations  but  reading  their  relationship  to  the  photographs  seems  less  immediately  clear.  By  now  though  the  viewer  recognises  a  rhythm  emerging  from  the  repeated  appearance  of  animals.  These  animals  are  only  animate   through   the   viewer’s   projection   of   ‘imagined   personalities’   onto   them  (Hendeles,   2003:   215).   Through   these   projections   they   become   metaphors   for  safety,  vulnerability  as  well  as  power,  violence,  danger.    The   next,   last   room   of   the   cul-­‐de-­‐sac   is   almost   empty   except   a   sculpture   of   the  kneeling  figure  of  a  7-­‐9  year  old  boy  praying  that  the  viewer  only  sees  from  behind.  The  title  is  Him,  the  artist  is  again  Maurizio  Cattelan  (see  fig.7).  Walking  towards  the  sculpture  the  viewer  must  turn  and  bend  to  see  the  figure’s  face  that,  it  transpires,  is  of  an  adult  Adolf  Hitler.  This  unexpected  view  creates  a  sudden  shock  and  interrupts  our  movement  through  the  exhibition.  This   is  similar  to  the  moment  of  realisation  that  the  dog  of  the  previous  room  is  not  only  real  but  also  dead  instead  of  sleeping.  A  process   of   re-­‐reading   the   experience   and   understanding   of   the   exhibition   so   far  begins   in   the   moment   of   standing   above   the   boy’s   figure.   Cattelan’s   Him   (2001)  juxtaposes  the  fragile  –  Christ-­‐like  -­‐  body  of  a  vulnerable  boy  with  the  adult  face  of  Adolf  Hitler.  Interestingly,  the  sculpture  has  been  installed  before  in  historical  sites  such   as   the  Warsaw  Ghetto   in   addition   to   customary   gallery   exhibition.   It   is  most  often  positioned  so  the  viewer  approaches  the  sculpture  from  behind.      As  such  the  sculpture  always  creates  a  sudden  shock.  Yet  the  viewer’s  reaction  and  reading   is   different   every   time   the  work   is   reinstalled.   Here   the   re-­‐reading   starts  with  the  moment  of  realisation  of  Hitler’s  face,  which  is  also  the  moment  when  the  viewer  sees  the  photographs  in  the  background  with  a  multitude  of  other  faces.  Hendeles’  curatorial  approach  of  juxtaposing  objects  of  the  past  with  contemporary  works   is   an   example   of  what  Mieke  Bal   calls   ‘preposterous   history’.   Preposterous  history   is   an   anachronistic   concept   relating   to   the   reconfiguration   of   linear  narrative.  Bal  (1999)  argues  that  ‘art’s  engagement  with  what  came  before  involves  an   active   reworking   of   the   predecessor’.   (Cited   in   Alphen   2007:   365)   Here   the  simultaneous  view  of  Him  and  the  old  photographs  with  the  teddy  bears  makes  the  viewer  re-­‐read  them  in  conjunction  from  the  present  context  of  their  juxtaposition  with  Him.  It  is  the  presence  of  Him  that  makes  a  change  in  understanding  of  the  old  

photographs   ‘even   though   reading   them   all’   might   be   ‘both   impossible   and  pointless’.  (Bal,  2012:  28)  Before  we  saw  the  photographs  as  images  from  different  times  and  different  places  showing  people  from  all  over  the  world.  Now  we  just  see  the  sheer  volume  of  faces  of  people  on  old  photographs,  which  can  be  read  either  as  victims  or  survivors  of  the  Holocaust  in  front  of  whom  Hitler  prays  upwards.  The  re-­‐reading  of  Him  is  also  possible  in  relation  to  the  teddy  bears.  The  experience  of  both  Him   and   the   bears   unsettlingly   juxtaposes   innocence   and   evil.   These   uncanny  objects   in   the  exhibition  act  as   'inspiration'  or   ‘catalyst’   (Hendeles,  2003:  215)   for  interpreting   ‘the   past’   and   ‘history’   from   ‘the   present’.   Their   juxtaposition   creates  multiple   narratives,   perspectives   and   readings   of   art,   gender,   politics   and   power.  Meaning-­‐creation   occurs   through   experiencing   interrelations   and   interactions  between  objects  and  subjects  in  the  space  and  time  of  the  exhibition.  The  narrative  can   said   to   be   ‘performed’   by   the   viewer,   it   develops   in   the   viewer’s   head   while  walking  through  exhibition.    Ernst   van   Alphen   (2003)   discusses   Partners   specifically   in   terms   of   being   a  ‘narrative  exhibition’.  He  argues  that  while  all  exhibitions'  medium  is  the  narrative,  a  narrative  exhibition  works  as  a  narrative.  By  this  he  means  that  the  coherence  of  meaning   in   most   exhibitions   comes   from   'pre-­‐established   narrative   principles'  (Alphen,   2003:166),   such   as   the   chronological   arrangement   in   the   case   of  permanent   collections   or   the   thematic   arrangement   of   group   exhibitions.   These  certain  arrangements  pre-­‐define  the  reading  of  the  exhibition,  which  the  reader  use  as  framework  to  understand  the  singular  objects.  Each  object  is  readable  in  relation  to  the  central  narrative  principle  and  through  we  understand  their  presence  in  the  same  exhibition.  In  the  case  of  narrative  exhibitions  there  is  no  pre-­‐existing  or  fixed  narrative  principle  and  therefore  the  coherence  of  meaning  cannot  come  either  from  thematic  or  chronological  relationship  between  objects.  In  the  case  of  Partners  both  the  title  of  the  exhibition  and  the  selection  of  objects  remain  enigmatic.  Instead,  they  point  toward   ‘mutating  meanings  of   images’  (Hendeles  cited  in  Squiers,  2003:135)  and   ambiguous   relationships   between   curator   and   artists,   private   collector   and  public   museum,   Germans   and   Jews   or   between   artworks.   This   ambiguity   runs  throughout   the   exhibition   as   point   of   reference   rather   than   a   fixed   plot   for   the  narrative.    In  Exhibition  as  Film  (2012)  Mieke  Bal   further   explores   this   idea  of   ‘exhibition-­‐as-­‐  narrative’   introduced   by   Alphen   before   and   compares   curatorial   and   cinematic  mechanisms   of   narrative   construction.   Hendeles'   use   of   ‘poetic   figures,’   such   as  ‘contrast’  (crowded  room  vs.  emptiness),  ‘counterpoints’  (’innocence’  and  ‘evil’)  and  ‘reiteration’   of   dualities   (vulnerability   and   power)   compares   with   cinematic  conventions   such   as   zoom-­‐in,   close-­‐up,   long-­‐shot   etc.   A   close-­‐up,   for   instance,  counters   the   linearity   in   the   narrative   and   slows   down   ‘the   forward   thrust   of   the  plot’.   (Bal,   2012:   26).   Poetic   figures   in   exhibitions   and   in   films   are   therefore  mechanisms   to   frame   the   viewer’s   perception   and   punctuate   the   narrative.   They  create  ‘affect-­‐images’,  or  moments  of  suspended  time  in  the  narrative.  Affect-­‐images  emerge   ‘between   the  perception   that   troubles  us’  –   in  other  words  what  we  see  –  ‘and  an  action  we  hesitate  about’  –  in  other  words  what  we  do  next.  (Bal,  2012:  35).  

Through   the   lens   of  Bal's   reading   the   viewer’s   experience   of   Cattalan’s   sculptures  are   like   experiencing   a   cinematic   close-­‐up.  The   affect-­‐image  happens  between   the  moment   of   the   perception   of   the   face   of   Him   and   the   Teddy   Bear   Project   in   the  background  and  our  decision  of  going  back  to  see  the  photographs  again.  Similarly,  we   might   also   say   that   seeing   the   Teddy   Bear   Project   in   the   background   is   the  equivalent  of  a  long  shot  and  looking  at  the  photographs  close  is  like  a  zoom-­‐in.  The  curator  directs  the  viewer’s  gaze  as  a  cinematographer  directs  the  camera.    For  the  more  interested  viewer  Hendeles’  Notes  on  the  Exhibition  (2003),  as  well  as  the   context   of   the   exhibition,   provide   further   layers   of   information.   These   further  extend  the  possibilities  of  reading  but  by  no  way  give  a  key  to  a  singular  narrative.  For   example,   the   Haus   der   Kunst   (House   of   Art),   which   hosts   Partners,   is   a  remaining   example   of   Nazi   architecture.   It   was   built   in   the   1930s   as   House   der  Deutsche  Kunst  (House  of  German  Art).  As  a  child  of  Holocaust  survivors,  Hendeles  constructs   a   narrative   exhibition   confronting   the   literal   and   metaphorical  architecture   of   National   Socialist   regime.   Her   curatorial   approach   is   also   read  moreover  as  an  exploration  of  the  museum  as  context  of  presenting  contemporary  art.  The  Teddy  Bear  Project,  for  example,  blurs  boundaries  both  of  what  art  is  as  well  as   who   might   be   an   artist.   The   contemporary   museum   as   context   validates  vernacular  photography  as  art,  while   in   the   framework  of   the  exhibition  Hendeles  becomes  one  of  the  artists.    As   collector   and   curator   independent   from   the   agenda  of   the   institution  Hendeles  can   ask   questions   and   make   decisions   about   installation   that   are   not   usually  ‘privileged  –  or  even  allowed  –   in  a  museum  setting’.   (Squiers,  2003:142).  She  can  for   example   appropriate   an   artist’s   work   within   her   own   installation   or   present  herself  as  artist  within  her  own  exhibition.  Therefore  her  curatorial  approach  might  be  easier  to  compare  with  when  artists  act  as  curators  rather  than  to  the  customary  approach   of   a   museum   curator.   Two   exhibitions   by   artists   come   to   mind   as  comparable   examples,   both   from   1993.   In   the   exhibition   The   Uncanny  (Gemeentemuseum,   Arnhem,   Holland)   (see   fig.8)   Mike   Kelley   appropriated  artworks,  photographs,  and  everyday  objects  and  used  the  installation  as  metaphor  to   ‘mirror   contemporary   art   world   problems’   around   technological   Utopianism  (Kelley  cited   in   Iversen,  2005:1).  His   installation   'revived  a   "conservative"   form  of  display,  which  he  intended  as  a  post-­‐  modern  recuperation  of  the  outmoded'  (ibid).  Germania,   (see   fig.   9   and   10)   curated   by   artist   Hans   Haacke’s   at   the   45th   Venice  Biennial,  juxtaposed  documentary  photograph  of  Hitler  visiting  the  Biennial  in  1934  and   a   demolished   floor   to   reference   Hitler's   demand   for   redesigning   the   German  pavilion  between  1934  and  1938.  This  installation  elicited  associations  with  German  history,   especially   the   ‘irreconcilable   divide   between   the   Nazi   past   and   present  usage   of   this   site   of   exhibition'   (Jordan   and  Haladyn,   2008).   These   exhibitions   by  artists  are  comparable  to  Partners  through  their  appropriation  of  archival  material,  cultural  objects  and  artworks.  They  all  provide  contemporary  approach  to  act  upon  the   past   and   move   the   viewer   'beyond   the   literal   object   to   a   level   of   metaphor  without   being   connoisseurs   in   the   various   disciplines   of   the   pieces   on   display.'  

(Ferrando-­‐Hendeles,   2012)   Furthermore,   they   are   also   examples   of   the   curatorial  exploring  the  conditions  of  making  art  public  in  art  institutions.U  Conclusion    Although   curating   chronological   and   thematic   exhibitions   is   most   popular   in  museum   settings   their   reliance   on   unique   art   objects   and   archival   material   as  evidence   of   History   might   be   limiting.   Reading   the   curatorial   model   of   Ydessa  Hendeles’   Partners   allows   examination   of   how   the   exhibition-­‐as-­‐narrative   can  address   complex   histories   differently   from   standard   chronological   or   thematic  display  of  objects.  The  unpacking  of  the  contemporary  discourse  of   ‘the  curatorial’  establishes   a   framework   for   both   reading   the   exhibition   and   understanding   the  wider   field   of   my   research.   Partners   is   also   an   example   of   an   exhibition   as  polyphonic   platform  where  multiple   –   and   often   conflicted   –   readings   of   the   past  becomes  possible.  The  curatorial  approach  acts  on  the  past  without  repeating  what  is  canonical  in  history.  It  also  provides  different  perspectives  through  which  viewers  can  develop  their  own  understanding.  Central  to  this  is  exhibiting  and  elevating  the  historical   significance   of   everyday   cultural   artefacts   through   their   framing   them  within   the   art   museum.   This   gesture   brings   up   questions   of   what   we   value   as  significant,  but  also  how  we  construct  history   through  selection.  Hendeles’  way  of  appropriating  contemporary  artworks  to  provide  a  new  perspective  on  objects  from  the  past  is  essentially  creative  and  given  parallels  in  contemporary  art  practice  such  as   installation  art  can  be  considered  an  artwork   in   itself.   It  also  became  clear   that  exhibition-­‐design  is  a  particularly  important  in  this  respect.  It  invites  the  viewer  to  actively   read   and   even   ‘perform   the   narrative   while   walking   through   the   chosen  passage.  The  exhibition  unfolds  through  the  temporal  event  of  the  visitor’s  journey.  These   are   all   strategies,  which   stretch   exhibition-­‐making   to   become   a   democratic  platform  for  polyphonic  and  conflicted  voices.      

     Fig.   1.:   Exhibition   floor   plan   (2001).   In:   Partners,   [exhibition   catalogue],   Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  5.    

       Fig.2.:   Arbus,   Diana:   Self-­‐Portrait   with   Camera   (February   1945).   [photograph]   In  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  25.  

   Fig  3.:  Swartz,  John:  The  Wild  Bunch  (ca.1900).  [photograph]  In.  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  27.    

   Fig.4.:  R.S.   (La   Isla  Toys):  Minnie  Mouse  Carrying  Felix  (ca.  1926-­‐36).   [wind-­‐up   tin-­‐  toy].  In  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  [cover  image]  

         

   Fig.   5.:   Hendeles,   Ydessa:   (Partners)   The   Teddy   Bear   Project   (2001).   [detail   and  installation  view].  In  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  32.    

   Fig.   6.:   Cattelan,   Maurizio:   Untitled   (1998).   [sculpture].   In   Partners,   [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  35.    

   Fig.7:   Cattelan,  Maurizio:  Him.  (2001).   [exhibition  views  of   sculpture].   In  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  42      

   Fig.8:   Cattelan,  Maurizio:  Him.  (2001).   [exhibition  views  of   sculpture].   In  Partners,  [exhibition  catalogue],  Munich:  Hause  der  Kunst,  42      Bibliography    Alphen,  E  van.  (2003).  Exhibition  as  Narrative  Work  of  Art.  In  Dercon,  C.  –  Weski,  T.  eds.  Partners,  Koln:  Walther  Konig,  166-­‐185.    Bal,  M.  (1999)  Quoting  Caravaggio:  Contemporary  Art,  Preposterous  History.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.    Bal,   M.   (2007)   Exhibition   as   Film.   In   MacDonald,   S.   –   Basu,   P.   eds.   Exhibition  Experiments.  Oxford:  Blackwell  Publishing,  71-­‐93.    Beech,   D.   –   Hutchinson,  M.   (2007)   Inconsequential  Bayonets?  A  Correspondence  on  Curation,   Independence   and   Collaboration.   In   O’Neill,   P.   ed.   Curating   Subjects.  London:  Open  Editions,  53-­‐62.    Bismarck,  B.  von  et.al  eds.  (2012)  Cultures  of  the  Curatorial.  Gothenburg:  Sternberg  Press.  

 Bryson,   N.   (2001)   Introduction.   In   Bryson,   N.   ed.   Looking   In:   The   Art   of   Viewing.  Essays  by  Mieke  Bal.  Critical  Voices  In  Art,  Theory  and  Culture,  Amsterdam:  G+B  Arts  International,  1-­‐41.    Ferrando,  A.  –  Hendeles,  Y.  (2012)  Ydessa  Hendeles.  Curatorial  Compositions.  In  Flash  Art,   284   (May-­‐June).   Available   from:  http://www.flashartonline.com/interno.php?pagina=articolo_det&id_art=902&det=ok&t  itle=YDESSA-­‐HENDELES.  Accessed  on  19.02.14    Freud,   S.   (1919)   The   Uncanny.   Penguin   Modern   Classics.   Available   from  http://www-­‐  rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/uncanny.html.  Accessed  on  19.02.14.    Haladyn,   J.J.   –   Jordan,   M.   (2008)   Disrupting   Utopia:   Hans   Haacke’s   Germania   or  Digging  Up  the  History  of  the  Venice  Biennale.  Paper  presented  at  Charged  Circuits:  Questioning   International   Exhibition   Practices   [Symposium].   Available   from:  https://www.academia.edu/2322715/Disrupting_Utopia_Hans_Haackes_Germania_o  r_Digging_Up_the_History_of_the_Venice_Biennale,  Accessed  on  19.02.14.    Hendeles,  Y.  (2003)  Notes  on  The  Exhibition.  In  Dercon,  C.  –  Weski,  T.  eds.  Partners,  Cologne:  Walther  König  Books,  209-­‐229.    Holquist,   M.   ed.   (1981)   The   Dialogic   Imagination:   Four   Essays   by   M.M.   Bakhtin.  University  of  Texas  Press  Slavic  Series  (Book  1).    Iversen,   M.   (2005)   The  Uncanny.   In   Papers   of   Surrealism,   Issue   3.   Available   from:  http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/journal3/acrobat_files/iversen_  review.pdf.  Accessed  on  19.02.214)    Laclau,   E.   –  Mouffe,   C.   (2001)  Hegemony  and  Socialist  Strategy:  Towards  a  Radical  Democratic  Politics.  2  edn  (first  published  1985).  London:  Verso.    Lind,  M.  (2009)  The  Curatorial.  In  Artforum,  103  (October).    Lind,  M.  (2012)  An  Introduction.  In  Lind,  M.  ed.  Performing  The  Curatorial  Within  and  Beyond   Art,   Tensta   Konsthall,   ArtMonitor/University   of   Gothenburg:   Sternberg  Press,  9-­‐23.    Mouffe,  C.  (2005)  On  The  Political,  (Thinking  in  Action).  London  &  New  York:  Routledge.  O’Neill,  P.  (2007)  Curating  Subjects.  London:  Open  Editions.    O’Neill,  P.  (2012)  The  Culture  of  Curating  and  the  Curating  of  Culture(s).  Cambridge,  Mass.:  MIT  Press.    Squiers,   C.   (2003)  The  Curator  as  Collector   In  Dercon,   C.   –  Weski,   T.   eds.  Partners,  Cologne:  Walther  König  Books,  131-­‐142.