Anton Vidokles Text Art Without Artists - Essay Example

Anton Vidokles text "Art Without Artists?" Art Without Artists is an article that brings into focus the relevance ofcurators in the world of art. It starts by asserting that curatorial responsibilities have diversified immensely, making curators some of the most important players in this industry. According to Vidokles, curators are charged with duties that include: administration of art experience and distribution of art production moneys. The curators also collaborate with various collectors and sponsors, the press and politicians to ensure that the interests of art producers are well taken care of. id performing their duties, curators play the role of mediators between art production and societal power structure. The importance of curators in the world of art cannot be downplayed for without them there are very things that could go wrong. Their knowledge of art and culture places them at a crucial position through which art gains prominence and relevance in the ever-changing society. Art is more than just the exhibition of artistic objects, which is why the work of curators in very important. However, this is not and should not be used as a justification for downplaying the importance of artists. The claim that art is more than mere exhibition should not be taken to mean that artists and their productions are just support objects that are used for curatorial functions. Vidokle says that undermining artists is tantamount to declaring death to the world of art, which would become useless without this very important group. The work of artists is fundamental in supporting the work of curators. In other words, curatorial practice would not be as relevant and useful as it is today were it not for the effort of artists. Any artistic work that does not include the artist themselves is doomed to fail. According to V, the talents of the curator are not enough to make art a success. He says that there is need to distinguish between what he terms as “the artistic decision to include an activity within an artwork and the curatorial power to designate something as art through its inclusion in an exhibition”. In other words, V points out that an artist’s decision to have his production included in an exhibition is very different from the curator’s decision to exhibit a certain piece of art. According to Vidokle, curatorial power and artistic authorship can be differentiated through proper legislation. He gives the example of a clash between Brazilian curators and graffiti artists whereby the curators attempted to hold an art exhibition without the participation of artists. In this regard, the question is of whether curators should use artistic space and resources to showcase their personal collections of artwork and other items. Vidokle says that the problem does not lie in the power of curators to open archives to the public or to the extent to which their exhibitions are interesting. Rather he says that the problem lies with the practice of most curators to dismiss or discredit the work of original artists. According to the author, it is wrong for the curators to use artistry and artists for self-gain. The article also looks at the job of the curator. He insists that curators are not free agents, but professionals who perform their duties on behalf of other parties. The jobs of curators normally come with power, security and a responsibility for several artistic activities. These powers, security and responsibilities may give the curator some sense of institutional authorship of artistic works, but Vidokle indicates that this does not necessarily translate to claim on individual works of art. Curators’ job is to advance the works of artists, not trying to own the artworks. Vidokle goes further to analyze the relationship between curators and artists. The author likens this relationship with the kind of relationship that exists between an organization’s management and its workforce. In this case, the workforce is represented by the artists while the management consists of management. According to Vidokle, most artists feel like the curators do not fully understand their work. They also think that curators are normally “controlling, egocentric and ignorant”. Vidokle also says that artists feel mismanaged and mistreated by curators. This has resulted in resentment among many artists who do not appreciate the kind of treatment they normally get from curators. Vidokle observes that many artists do not enjoy the benefits that most workers have. These benefits include good working conditions, unionized labor, stipends, pensions, salaries, unemployment protection and contractual jobs. The author says that there have been instances where there were artist’s unions, the presence of the unions proved to be more problematic than helpful for artists. He gives the examples of Rodchenko in the USSR and Mondrian in New York, two unionized artists who died in poverty because their unions could not help them. He says that certain ideology does not necessarily give artists their professionalism of freedom to enjoy the work of their hands. The author also touches on the social relevance and popularity of curators. Vidokle states that the popularity of the curatory can be attributed to the decline of artistic criticism. With this decline, curators became the default critics of art and this added to the powers they exercised in museums. After the decline of the critics, many artists hoped that they would be free from the “tyranny” of harsh critics, who oftentimes seemed to overstep their boundaries. However, this reprieve was not to be as they continued being controlled by curators. Vidokle observes that the power that curators wield over artists is likely to transform artists from their rebellious nature to be more authority fearing. This could be very convenient for curators who would not face any disobedience from artists as they carry out their duties. The article also alludes to curators as producers. Many artists do not believe that consulting and collaborating with curators who are likely to take authorship claims on their artwork. Vidokle asserts that while meta-artistic approach to curatorial work is a welcome move, generalizing the concept of cultural practice is not good for the art industry. This is because such a practice could lead to the control of artist by the academic world and emerging cultural managers. The author argues that for there to be constructive critical art, there must also be artist sovereignty. This means that the artist should have the liberty to map out the direction he wants his work to take. This will bring out a balance in the role of the curator and the significance of the artists without any conflicts between the two. Work Cited Vidokle, Anton. Art Without Artists. e-flux, May 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. Read More