Curatorial statement

I didn’t even want to list the artists and curators in alphabetical order. 

I thought we take a lot of “rules” or “norms” for granted when in effect, these are just arbitrary standards that we have come to agree. For example, that names should be in alphabetical order, that “b” should come before “c”, or that 11 should be between 10 and 12. The manners in which agreements are made have also been shaped by “rules” taken for granted. For example, to reach a consensus  in a democracy: that everyone should have an equal say or number of votes, and that the majority should win. This is often coupled with the promulgation of meritocracy, which reinforces the legitimacy of the arbitrary, and perpetuates the belief system altogether.

Better Late than Never, began with the idea to expound on the free interpretation of art and styles, and thus, began with an open call for artworks departing from the arbitrary subject of the banana. Accordingly, it follows that the exhibition should openly invite curators to contribute to the presentation and offer their suggestions for interpretations of the artwork. The challenge then lies with finding a model in which the individualistic and varied interpretations could be presented, and how consensus could be reached.

Much ado about: “Better”, “Late”, “Than”, “Never”, offers an alternative and experimental view on how to reach this so-called “consensus”. 

Every one of the ten curators was invited to organise the artworks into four categories, namely, “Better”, “Late”, “Than”, and “Never”. Each outlines the categories by their individual definitions, and then sorts the artworks into the categories accordingly. Regardless of the definitions, the artworks’ have their classifications summed and decided by an algorithm, based on arbitrary assumptions, just to see what might happen.

For example, instead of going with the majority, I designed the algorithm to identify the second most frequent category assigned to the artwork. Complications arose when there is a tie, and had to be resolved, somehow as below:

1. If tie between the first and second place, then the third most frequent category would be assigned.

2. If tie between the second and third place, then the first would be assigned (or the majority)

3. If tie between the first, second, and third place, then the last category would be assigned.

4. If tie between all, flag as “all tied”.

5. If tie between the first and second place, and tie between the third and fourth place, flag as “two pairs tied”.

I couldn’t think of what to do if 4) and 5). I decided to figure it out when it happens if it did, but it did not, so it was moot.

I did, however, questioned the “rules” underpinning these new “rules” as well, for instance the assumption of and insistence on consistency, as in that the constancy of consistency is also taken for granted.

*

The curators were also invited to offer their input on this model for arbitrary consensus. Then I realised that a decision had to be made on which suggestions to take in or not. Should there be another set of algorithms to process these? It was really tedious to get inputs and arbitrate a common consensus repeatedly. Especally when things need to be decided and done.

And since I was or am to be ultimately putting this together, I ultimately decide. 

I had decided to ask for feedback in the first place. So I can decide against tedium. I can decide against consistency. I can decide against consistent tedium above all.

*

I’ve taken in several of others’ feedback, for example, to not weigh the votes. I thought to randomly assign different weights to the votes, maybe by a lucky draw, but some, like Bernice, thought that it would be too crazy and everyone should have one vote each. Others, like Dika and Stephanie, liked that idea, and suggested on “gamifying” the rules further, e.g. that the highest weightage could be accorded to the curator who wins at a scrabble game. Maybe it extended from how I was referring to all these as a game. It is a game, in the way that everything is a game, with rules and objectives, but it’s not a game like how a board game is a game. So, maybe the game element would have to be taken separately. I decided not to weigh the votes because I was curious to see the “unbiased” or at least “less distorted” outcome. 

It was Jennifer who pointed out that this is the narrative proposed and designed by me after all, although it encompasses others’ perspectives. I would ultimately decide what happens here because I get it done. I actually do it, and in doing it, I’m deciding to do it accordingly or not etc.

Isaac suggested that the artworks should be presented alongside the curators’ considerations. I don’t yet know if I am going to work this in, simply because it would take so much more work.

*

There are many “curatorial collectives” as we might now term it, although the technicalities might differ, essentially it’s about people working together to curate an exhibition or showcase. Then again, I wonder how many exhibitions had been truly curated by individuals anyway? Even a “traditional-museum”-type curator singularly credited for an “institutional” exhibition would have been working at least with the decisions of predecessors who acquired the artworks into the inherited collection. The design and presentation, if not working with the support of other specialists, would at least be affected by the architectural and physical limitations. 

But this is not the main point that I am getting. For how groups of people find ways to work together, is most of the time the problem of the group. 

The main point goes back to the premise of Better Late than Never, expounding on the free interpretation of art and styles. I hope that art audiences and artists, etcetera (not mutually exclusive) reinstate their confidence in assessing and interpreting art, to realise that every showing is an invitation to agree or disagree with the inputs or suggestions of the artists and curators, who must agree and disagree with each other on a variety of things. 

Who decided that the curator should curate? The curator did.

Who decided that the artists should create? The artist did.

What should the audience think? The audience should decide. 

And one’s opinion should not necessarily go by what the majority or the perceived authority thinks. However, it should not necessarily go against these either.

*

I went with alphabetical order in the end, because it would be convenient for people who are looking for specific names. 

*

Jaeger-LeCoultre# has a watch called “Crazy hours” where the numbers are all jumbled up and the hour hand would “jump”. But 11 o’clock would still come after 10 and before 12. Otherwise, it would not be exactly useful to go by its time. But along the same lines, maybe that’s why it’s not really crazy. But it is the complication that makes it interesting.

Is this ostentatious luxury watch analogy too random? But my (sub) point is that numerical order is a recognisable order by common consensus, and common consensuses can work and can be practical.

*

Personally, I sorted the artworks into broad subject matter categories like how Chinese ink artworks are classically organised, namely, Flora and Fauna, Landscape, Portraiture or Figurative, and lastly, Text-based works that correspond roughly to calligraphy. This is not antithetical to prevailing Western paradigms, as in, I’m not purposely being pro-Chinese, but just a convenient alternative that I’m familiar enough with, to proposing stylistic or abstract definition, so that within each category, stylistic or abstract definitions may still vary. I realise that this manner of categorisation is also limited, because some works fall into several categories simultaneously, but this can be said for abstract categories also. Yet there is something that appeals to me… might it be because it is so obviously such a crude manner of categorisation that it does not add a too-thick layer of subjective meaning and interpretation in the presentation, that interferes with the audiences’ reading? I wonder.

I often wonder if the reason this exhibition could develop like this was that it was based on a banana.

The “sub” point I’m submitting here is that crude categories are like other practical common consensuses, alphabetical and numerical order of things, so to help people find things.

Others applied other logic for sorting the artworks, and I wonder what were they really thinking.

*

^I use the term “reinstate” because I think everybody begins with an instinctual response to art, even if personal likes and dislikes cannot be precisely justified or articulated. This is like taste in food; a child would cringe at something sour and spicy and decide if they like it or not. If they are encouraged to like it, perhaps, learning the joy of exciting the palate, then the child might augment their initial assessment, and learn to like the food, and thus, it may be said that something is an acquired taste. If they still do not like it, then they do not like it, but understand that some people like it. Either way, people are quite confident in deciding what they like or dislike in their mouth, and it is quite acceptable that different people have different tastes in food. 

Although at the same time, there’s a kind of common, general understanding on what constitutes good food, and so on. Like, there is even the common understanding that some foods, like durian, are controversial.

I think it can be quite similar for art. 

I am often asked about why I undertake a specialism in Chinese ink. One of my favourite replies is to explain that I prefer dark soya sauce with my fried eggs. I simply enjoy Chinese cuisine. Or food with the soya sauce taste.

If ink is like soya sauce, oil paint is like kind of like cheese? Maybe? I keep digressing.

Point: I’m proposing that for art to be as freely interpreted as food, premising on consensuses as common as those for food, but at the same time, allowing variances as generous.

*

As a participating artist, I enjoyed reviewing how all the curators viewed my art and how they perceived it, from the spreadsheet. At an earlier point, after artwork submission, some curators required more information and elaboration from the artists, but I did not supply more details as I felt that the work could be freely interpreted. I recognise now that different people think differently and look out for different things. Although, no matter what I provide, the work can and will always be freely interpreted.

Point: It’s the audience’s choice, to ultimately choose and use whichever “standards” to categorise or organise the art — whether common consensus and standards or more obscure ones (even those deemed common to some might be obscure to others, and vice versa).

It is because that I’ve learnt from this, that I’m explicating the points I am trying to make with my writing. If visual artworks can be supplemented by writing suggesting its less apparent meaning, then literary writing may be supplemented by writing doing the same, and visual artworks can also be supplemented by visual…outputs… not visual analysis which is verbal, but swatches of colour or sketches or…

*

In other words, it’s through this project that I was able to learn about more about the world and myself and how I am both disappointingly and unapologetically bias in my views of the world. So thank you again to the artists and curators for taking part and for your consideration and sharing your ideas.

Thank you, dear audience for coming by… it it also in trying to explain myself to you in this long piece of writing that I have advanced my understanding. I hope that you will enjoy giving the exhibition, and others’ exhibition, some thought and that the process will be an amusing one.

I shall be wondering about what you think. and then I will likely wonder some more.

Lee Ju-Lyn
25 Aug 2020
(with some edits thereafter)
meekfreak@gmail.com

#16 Oct 2020: My friend SB messaged me “eh, I thought it’s Franck Muller!” and she’s right! that I messed up! but it’s so apt and funny that I should include this as an after-note here!