The National Association of Art Critics (AICA Armenia) relaunches courses related to the curatorial practice, history and theory of Western European and North American as well as Armenian contemporary art from October 2009. To participate in the 9-months long program, the applicants are required to have a bachelor degree as a minimum. People of various professions interested in art and culture, artists and others can also apply.
The courses provide an opportunity to intrude into a sphere in which art, culture and politics are intertwined, where the artist, art critic, curator and historian could have common ambitions. Separate subjects will be presented by the president of the association, art critic Nazareth Karoyan, by the leading professor of the Academy of Fine Arts, art historian and philosophy translator Vardan Azatyan, cultural experts Vardan Jaloyan and Harch Bayadyan, independent curator Eva Khachatryan, Angela Harutyunyan, Misak Xostikyan, artists Arman Grigoryan and Vahram Aghasyan and others.
The course are unique and come to fill in the gap of educational initiatives for contemporary cultural operators in former Soviet countries.
To obtain more information about the process of application and terms for participation, please, contact Nazareth Karoyan: naz.karoyan@gmail.com
The courses will be held in Armenian
Friday, September 4, 2009
Վերջն ամենուր է Արվեստի կուրատորների 4-րդ ամառային սեմինարներ Արվեստի քննադատների ազգային ասոցիացիա Երևան, հուլիսի 26-օգոստոսի 2
Համայնքների կազմավորման համար թերևս երկու ճանապարհ կա՝ միավորվել՝ որոշակի գաղափար առաջ տանելու համար կամ պարզապես համախմբվել՝ հաղթահարելու միայնության զգացումը, որ ժամանակակից քոչվորական կենսաձև է ենթադրում։ Արվեստային համայնքները սովորաբար այս երկուսի մեջտեղում են. գոյություն ունեն վիրտուալ տարածության մեջ, բայց և ժամանակ առ ժամանակ նյութականանում են «արվեստի դաշտ» կոչվող հարթության վրա։ Համայնքները կազմավորվում են իրավիճակայնորեն՝ բանավիճելու, փաստարկելու, արդեն ծանոթ երևույթներն այլ կերպ պատկերացնելու, «կառուցելու» համախոհներ ու այլախոհներ, ցանցեր ու ճյուղավորումներ, շփվելու ու հակազդելու, պատասխանելու ու պատասխանից խուսափելու համար։ Սակայն նրանք, ովքեր կազմավորում են այս համայնքները, նաև արտադրում, աշխատում են ու հետք թողնում ընդհանուր այս դաշտի վրա փորձի միջոցով, որն ընդմիշտ և միայն եզակի է։ Ամեն անգամ, երբ ես, Նազարեթը և բոլոր նրանք, ովքեր ներգրավված են սեմինարների մեջ, փորձում ենք երևակայել մի համայնք՝ «ուտոպիական հանդիպումների» մի վայր, որ կնյութականա Երևանում, Բանգլադեշում, լողավազանի շուրջ (Մխիթար Սեբաստացու անվան կրթահամալիր, գեղարվեստի ավագ դպրոց), այս տեսիլը և՝ իրականանում է, և՝ ձախողվում։ Read More
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Over is All Over: 2009
photo: Lusine Talalian, Sevan, 2009
There are perhaps two main ways for a coming together of a community: to unite to advance a certain cause or to simply come together to overcome the feeling of loneliness and isolation that contemporary nomadic patterns of movement often entail. Artistic communities are often the combination of these two, existing both materially, but also virtually, ephemerally and quite concretely, through a common plateau called “the art field”. These come together situationally to debate, to argue, to imagine the already familiar phenomena differently, constructing associations and dissociations, networks and rhizomes, allies and rivals; to react and interact, to respond and withdraw. But those who constitute these communities also produce, work and make an impact upon this common field through an experience that is always already singular. Each and every time Nazareth, me and others who are involved in the Summer Seminars Program try to imagine a community –a utopian encounter, which would materialize in Armenia, in Yerevan, in “Bangladesh” –in and around the swimming pool. Each and every time this vision is both realized and betrayed at the same time.
Unlike the previous Summer Seminars from 2006 on, which were largely educational initiatives confined within the classroom format which implies a division between the roles of the one who teaches and those who were instructed, the 2009 seminars were driven from the need to collaboratively discuss and research methods of contemporary curatorial education within conditions that are radically different from the way the art market functions internationally, to share experiences, drinks, cigarettes, food and at times a bed. The 4th edition of the seminars program then served for two immediate but not necessarily simply identifiable goals: to provide the local scene with intellectual resources and ideas to initiate an alternative educational program on the other hand, and to help those invited to explore some of the ways in which it is still possible to articulate different models within the Euro-American academic and curatorial institutions, which would break away from the educational paradigm of instruction.
The program involved three components: daily morning lectures which ranged from the issues of culture industry within the post-fordist modes of economic and social relations (Aras Ozgun); alternate models of collective collaborative research and the physical and conceptual shape that future study collections might take (Clementine Deliss); aesthetic production between instrumentalization of creativity by private capital and modernist autonomy of art (Mel Jordan and Andy Hewitt) as well as some of the ways in which it might be possible not to instrumentalize art education for social and economic productivity (Malcolm Miles).
The second component of the program were round-table discussions. Even though these had a pre-defined conceptual framework and agenda, through diverse and antagonistic contribution by the participants of differing background it often drifted from this framework opening up new exciting avenues for discussion and intellectual exchange. These discussions moderated by Marko Stemenkovic, Sari Stenczer, Joanna Sokolowska, Lali Partenava and myself in the background (including Clementine Deliss’ subversive and course changing interventions) included themes which would echo the morning lectures without directly reflecting upon these: Art and/as Economy; Art Education as a Site of Critical Practice, Curating in the Expanded Field and The Politics of Pedagogy. These discussions never aimed at producing a general product or a consensus upon the debated themes or being used for some external goal other than communication. However, these provided stimuli to return to the specific context of Yerevan-- to the contemporary art scene here, to the politics of institutionalization (or de-institutionalization of contemporary art), and finally, to the political, cultural and social context of Mkhitar Sebastatsi Fine Arts College in “Bangladesh” which has been hosting the seminars since their conception in 2006.
Evening presentations by local and invited artists and curators were more dynamic, involving a larger public (since translation was provided, re: me acting as St. Sebastian). Without a specific thematic line, these presentations included the questions related to archiving and memory (Arpi Adamyan, Arax, Lusine Talalian, Astghik Melkonyan, Mher Azatyan as well as Joanna Sokolowska and Lali Partenava), affective curating (Nat Muller), experiences with institutions (or lack of them) and exhibition making practices (Sari Stenczer, Vivianna Checchia, Vahram Aghasyan and Marianna Hovhannisian). At times the topics drifted away from the main program, becoming insider-outsiders, such as the conversation between Marko Stamenkovic and myself. This latter came into being through a tension between my own desire to reflect upon the sea as a metaphor as well as a non-place and Marko Stamenkovic’s attempts to bring the sea closer to the ground.
A presentation by Eva Khachatryan also served to provide information about the local context, but this was information that can be always in doubt as much as we can question an easy access to a set of relationships, practices and experiences which we call “the context”. Through an experiment which I called “topographical curating” I tried to transport the audience into another space –the garden of Utopiana in August, 2008. What I disregarded was the specific topography (and climate conditions) of Sevan (where the presentation took place) as well as the specific “topography of mood” triggered by Grigor Khachatryan’s 55% apricot vodka.
Perhaps the seminars themselves were a topographical and relational engagement which can materialize differently while its story is being told through different emotional and intellectual (or as Nat Muller calls it-- affective) experiences. At least after the “guests” left and the hosts stayed, I realized that there is a medical condition called a post-summerseminars’ syndrome.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Summer Seminars 4: Towards Collaborative Curating
Towards Collaborative Curating: Contemporary Curatorial Education in the Age of the Global Art Market
Summer Seminars’ For Contemporary Art Curators,
4th Annual Edition
27 July – 2 August, 2009
Is it still possible to break away from the cycle of reproducing the already existing and inherently hierarchical systems of representation? How do individual curatorial practices reaffirm or subvert the ways in which the global art market functions? Can curating function outside of market conditions? Is it possible to come up with common theories for contemporary curatorial education across heterogeneous contexts, or is curating only a context- specific and context-sensitive practice? What are the main problems facing the curatorial education today? Is it possible to prepare curators who are able to address ever- changing art practices? What role do theories of curating play in practice? These are some of the questions we would like to discuss within the framework of AICA-Armenia’s annual curatorial program, focusing on the intersection of curatorial education, theories and practices.
The 4th edition of the Summer Seminars’ Program for Contemporary Art Curators entitled Towards Collaborative Curating: Contemporary Art in the Age of the Global Art Market brings together art curators, theorists and academics, who are involved in the ongoing theoretical and practical issues of researching and finding adequate methods and modules for curatorial education and practice. The week-long seminars are comprised of lectures, round-table discussions and public presentations.
PROGRAM
Monday, July 27th: Towards Critical Education And New Modes of Research
10:00-10:45 -Introductory Note: Nazareth Karoyan and Angela Harutyunyan, AICA-Armenia,"Art Criticism And/As Education"
11:00-12:30 -Lecture: Dr Clémentine Deliss, Director, Future Academy, Edinburgh College of Art
"Future Research Collections in a Period of Recessional Curating"
13:30- 14:30-Round-Table (moderated by Lali Parteneva and Marianna Hovhannisian): Art Education as a Site of Critical Practice
19:00-20:30 -Artists' Talk. Lusine Davidyan and Arpi Adamyan, "Ghost Archive Project"; Mher Azatyan "An Archeology of the Everyday"
Tuesday, July 28th : Art And/As Economy
10:00-11:30 -Lecture by Aras Ozgun, New School for Social Research, "Post-Fordism, Neo-Liberalism, and Cultural Production"
13:00- 14:30 -Round-Table (moderated by Marko Stamenkovic) Economy of Art, Art Education and Curating within the circulation of the Global Art Market
19:00-19:45 - Public Presentation by Nat Muller, free-lance curator, "The Curatorial Affect: Surplus Value in an Age of Globalisation
20:00-20:45 - Public Presentation by Marianna Hovhannisian, Open University, Yerevan, "Season 18: L'Ecole du Magasin"
Wednesday, July 29th: Curator as Producer
10:00-11:30 - Lecture: Mel Jordan and Andy Hewitt (Freee Art Collective ), "On Co-production"
13:00-14:30 - Round-Table: Curating in the Expanded Field (moderated by Joanna Sokolowska ans Sara Stenczer): Curating and Creativity: Curator as Mediator/Translator
19:00-19:45 Public Presentation by Sára Stenczer (curator)
20:00-20:45-Public Presentation by Lali Pertenava (Independent curator and researcher)
Thursday, July 30th: The Practice and Methods of Education
10:00-11:30 Lecture by Malcolm Miles, University of Plymouth, "Contemporary Art, Theory, and Education"
13:00-14:30 Round-Table (moderated by Sara Stenczer): The Pedagogy of Education: Reading Session. Jacques Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster
19:00-19:45 Public Presentation by Joanna Sokolowska, Galerie für Zeitgenössische Kunst in Leipzig, Another City, Another Life - of the Archives, video screening with introduction
20:00-20:45 Public Presentation by Viviana Checchia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Slovakia, FRAME
Friday, July 31: Open Program
10:00-11:00 Video Screening Program I Eva Khachatryan
11:00-13:00- Lunch and Swimming Lessons by Grigor Khachatryan
14:00-15:00 – Visit to an artists’ studio
19:00-20:00 A public conversation with Marko Stamenkovic, conducted by Angela Haryutunyan
*Lectures and Round-Tables take place in Mkhitar Sebastatsi Fine Arts College. Public presentations will take place in Gallery One.
For more information, including abstracts for papers and biographies, please, log on to our website at www.naac.am
The Project is Supported by Open Society Institute
Saturday, January 24, 2009
From Elsewhere: Reflections on the Symposium
Angela Harutyunyan
The symposium with a laconic but vague title From Elsewhere took place on Nov. 6th at the Project Room of SCCA-Ljubljana, as a part of the networking meeting between several partners who established a collaboration of curatorial education-- Towards Collaborative Curating: Art Education in the Age of the Global Art Market. The individuals involved were Dusan Dovc, Petja Grafenauer and Barbara Borcic from SCCA-Ljubljana, Angela Harutyunyan and Nazareth Karoyan from AICA-Armenia, Renatta Papsch from Anadolu Kültür in Istanbul, Turkey, Valeria Ibraeva from SCCA-Alma-Aty in Kazakhstan and Laura Canderera from Townhouse Gallery in Cairo, Egypt.
Even though there was a lack of moderation, which did not provide the signposts for the audience to understand the purpose of the public symposium, it did not prevent an active and lively semi-formal discussion to flow after the presentation. The announced titles of papers were essentially the same (“The current condition of the contemporary art scene in Armenia (--Egypt, Kazakhtsan, Turkey) and the state of curatorial practices.”). However, the speakers presented rather heterogeneous views as well as structurally very different papers. Nazareth Karoyan addressed several artistic practices and curatorial positions in which the artistic/curatorial subjectivisation takes evolves on a spatial dynamic, as a relational exchange between different actors in the context of the Armenian contemporary art scene. The paper, while quite intriguing in its argument, nevertheless lacked in structure, which prevented the audience from getting a clear idea of the speaker’s own position within the presented discourse. Valeria Ibraeva told a compelling story about the ways in which contemporary Orientalism functions in relation to Central Asia and South Asia and the artistic challenges to this specific exercise of power, on the example of the exhibition “Destination Asia”. However, the speaker failed to address the context of the contemporary art scene in Kazakhstan or the artists’ specific positions within the discourses of subverting Orientalist assumptions.
Laura Canderera’s and Renatta Papsch’s presentations shared structural similarities in that both aimed at giving a clear and comprehensive idea about contemporary art institutions in Cairo and Istanbul respectively. Laura Canderera especially focused on the role of Townhouse Gallery in shaping the landscape of contemporary art in Egypt in the last 10 years, and its importance in bridging the gap between art as an exclusive, class-based place for subjective creativity and harsh and dystopian everyday life in Cairo. Renatta Papsch’s paper was mostly informative in that it comprehensively presented all the significant actors within the contemporary art field in Istanbul and their positions within this field.
With all the differences between the presented contexts, the speakers shared a similar concern about the lack of cultural practitioners, such as art curators, writers, critics and managers, and underscored the primacy of developing human recourses in these areas, as a priority. The round-table discussion which followed was mostly centered around the above-mentioned issues and more specifically, whether it is possible to establish shared paradigms and methods for curatorial education or the latter is always a context-specific and context-sensitive practice. The question did not receive definite closures, but the mere fact of bringing it up is perhaps more important for the process of reflection than finding quick and definite answers.
In my view, the symposium largely succeeded, if we are to stress the importance of communication between different cultural and geographical contexts rather than the presentation of simplified and easily digestible total knowledge about complex and heterogeneous contexts.
The symposium with a laconic but vague title From Elsewhere took place on Nov. 6th at the Project Room of SCCA-Ljubljana, as a part of the networking meeting between several partners who established a collaboration of curatorial education-- Towards Collaborative Curating: Art Education in the Age of the Global Art Market. The individuals involved were Dusan Dovc, Petja Grafenauer and Barbara Borcic from SCCA-Ljubljana, Angela Harutyunyan and Nazareth Karoyan from AICA-Armenia, Renatta Papsch from Anadolu Kültür in Istanbul, Turkey, Valeria Ibraeva from SCCA-Alma-Aty in Kazakhstan and Laura Canderera from Townhouse Gallery in Cairo, Egypt.
Even though there was a lack of moderation, which did not provide the signposts for the audience to understand the purpose of the public symposium, it did not prevent an active and lively semi-formal discussion to flow after the presentation. The announced titles of papers were essentially the same (“The current condition of the contemporary art scene in Armenia (--Egypt, Kazakhtsan, Turkey) and the state of curatorial practices.”). However, the speakers presented rather heterogeneous views as well as structurally very different papers. Nazareth Karoyan addressed several artistic practices and curatorial positions in which the artistic/curatorial subjectivisation takes evolves on a spatial dynamic, as a relational exchange between different actors in the context of the Armenian contemporary art scene. The paper, while quite intriguing in its argument, nevertheless lacked in structure, which prevented the audience from getting a clear idea of the speaker’s own position within the presented discourse. Valeria Ibraeva told a compelling story about the ways in which contemporary Orientalism functions in relation to Central Asia and South Asia and the artistic challenges to this specific exercise of power, on the example of the exhibition “Destination Asia”. However, the speaker failed to address the context of the contemporary art scene in Kazakhstan or the artists’ specific positions within the discourses of subverting Orientalist assumptions.
Laura Canderera’s and Renatta Papsch’s presentations shared structural similarities in that both aimed at giving a clear and comprehensive idea about contemporary art institutions in Cairo and Istanbul respectively. Laura Canderera especially focused on the role of Townhouse Gallery in shaping the landscape of contemporary art in Egypt in the last 10 years, and its importance in bridging the gap between art as an exclusive, class-based place for subjective creativity and harsh and dystopian everyday life in Cairo. Renatta Papsch’s paper was mostly informative in that it comprehensively presented all the significant actors within the contemporary art field in Istanbul and their positions within this field.
With all the differences between the presented contexts, the speakers shared a similar concern about the lack of cultural practitioners, such as art curators, writers, critics and managers, and underscored the primacy of developing human recourses in these areas, as a priority. The round-table discussion which followed was mostly centered around the above-mentioned issues and more specifically, whether it is possible to establish shared paradigms and methods for curatorial education or the latter is always a context-specific and context-sensitive practice. The question did not receive definite closures, but the mere fact of bringing it up is perhaps more important for the process of reflection than finding quick and definite answers.
In my view, the symposium largely succeeded, if we are to stress the importance of communication between different cultural and geographical contexts rather than the presentation of simplified and easily digestible total knowledge about complex and heterogeneous contexts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)