Who wants to be a curator?

Many arts organization Web sites offer users the opportunity to contribute to their online programming in some way, but it's typically an artificial engagement practice. Rarely do users ever offer up anything truly artistic, and it's even rarer still for the organization to showcase the work in a meaningful way. However, the Brooklyn Museum is taking the idea of "you" as the online curator to a new level and letting Web visitors select the pieces for an upcoming exhibit in its physical space. Its upcoming photography show Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibit lets users register and adjudicate work that was accepted as part of a March 2008 open call. The submitting photographers were asked to "consider Brooklyn's transformation over the years, its past and its present, and submit a photograph that captured the 'changing face(s) of Brooklyn.'"

Now that the call for submissions has closed, the Museum has launched a Web interface that walks users through the registration and evaluation process. Rather than just showing images and asking users to vote for their favorites, though, the Brooklyn Museum offers evaluation guidelines. This is a real exhibit, and the Museum wants thoughtful consideration from its curators.

The Click! curator interface presents the image, its title and a description. Clicking the "Viewing Size" functions will increase or decrease the image size for those who wish to adjust for their screen resolutions or who wish to scrutinize the photo's detail. Users can also see thumbnails of the next images to be evaluated.

When the "curator" is ready to evaluate an image, he or she needs only to adjust the evaluation slider between "Most Effective" and "Least Effective" based on two questions presented by the Museum:

1. How well does the image illustrate or express the theme "The Changing Faces of Brooklyn"?
2. Do you consider this an exceptional image, given the technique and aesthetics?

"Curators" have until May 23, 2008, to submit their evaluations, and the exhibit will run from June 27-August 10, 2008, at the Brooklyn Museum.

While it's true that the crowd-curated approach doesn't work for all types of exhibits, the Brooklyn Museum has chosen a medium and theme that works well with an audience evaluation process. They ask about "technique and aesthetic," but the primary question is about Brooklyn's transformation.

So I guess my questions are:

1. Though it certainly isn't necessary to be an art expert to be qualified to evaluate the Click! submissions, should one at least be fairly familiar with Brooklyn?
2. Is this type of non-expert evaluation - as one recent blog reader mentioned - contributing to the dumbing down of art?
3. If enough people evaluate the work, does the group consensus validate that piece for a public show?

I'd be most interested to hear what formally educated curators have to say about the crowd-curated concept.

Wikipedia's Credibility

A documentary by Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelenhat premiered recently at the Next Web conference has been posted on YouTube. Clocking in at about 45 minutes, it's not a quick clip, but it's definitely worth your time.

...And in the old-fashioned tradition of eating words...

Maybe we do get some extras out of the deal, too! A piece I just saw in today's NYT describes new research that suggests musicians (specifically conductors) are able to simultaneously process sound and sight more effectively than the average person. So there ya go. The benefit of art is art. And the benefit of training musically is heightened senses. (Who woulda thought?)

Technology in the Service of Art

Lately I’ve been experimenting with Ableton’s Live software, which allows me to create interesting arrangements, construct new pieces from scratch, and generally play with music. Live lets me lay down every single layer within a track… by myself… fast… with thousands of different sounds at my disposal. It’s fantastic. Best of all, the anal retentive freak in me is able to go back and revise music I record to make sure that in the “saved” version of the piece, I hit the note smack dab at the beginning of the third thirty-second of the beat, rather than the hairs-breadth off that I actually played. Far from weaning me off traditional music making, Live has deepened my respect and love for the craft of artistry. I find that when I’m fiddling around with the digital manifestation of the music, trying to bring down the volume on the pedal point tones, or simply arrange the notes into a harmonic minor scale with just the mouse, I’m incredibly impatient with a task that should just HAPPEN under my finger tips.

Don’t get me wrong. Technology is wonderful. With Photoshop I can manipulate my images without investing in a full dark-room setup. With Illustrator I can create versatile graphics that can be used just about anywhere. With Live I can be an entire orchestra without leaving my home. And technology is especially wonderful when it enhances rather than detracts from art. When it allows me to do things that aren’t otherwise feasible. When it lets me experience things I can’t normally access.

Like the use of technology in Lois Greenfield and the Australian Dance Theater’s new performance, Held. For this work, Greenfield photographs the dancers mid-movement and the images are instantly projected onto a screen. This is a perfect exemplification of the Technology in the Service of Art principle. Greenfield notes in the Telegraph that in these images “you are seeing something you couldn't without the benefit of the photograph. I capture 1/2,000th of a second and our brains can't register that. But we can see it on a picture."

Held uses technology to intensify our ability to cherish and appreciate the craft of the artists. It’s a beautiful marriage of media because it respects the strengths and limitations of every component involved, from the camera to the artists to the audience.

Is Art and Shopping the new Art and Entertainment?

In our Strategic Planning class last night, our professor and CEO of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Larry Tamburri, made mention of the current trend to link art with entertainment. On city websites and in tourist guides, "Arts & Entertainment" abounds- correlating performance and visual arts spaces with movies, bowling alleys and roller rinks. While these sectors, along with sports, are competitive for the use of our leisure time, one has to ponder whether the arts is becoming diluted or just marginalized by efficient marketing. This discussion, however, becomes completely moot as a whole new space and concept has presented itself in Winston-Salem, NC.

Wal-mArt

It's mildly disturbing and yet I can't help to acknowledge that it might just be another form of corporate sponsorship. There is also the chance that it was just a clause of the negotiation that allowed Wal-Mart to set up shop there.

A true test would be to see if the sculptures are "Public Art" or "Art in a Public Space." Without having a good picture to make reference, I would be really interested to see if Wal-Mart finally designed a building that reflected the community architecture, and by extension, contracted a sculpture that reflected its environs. �

Interpreting Culture, Part 2

As the shelf life of “new” continues to be defined by smaller and smaller time increments, how do we as arts administrators help artists to do their jobs – ask the timeless questions – in a timely fashion? I’m a big fan of John Seabrook’s 2001 book NoBrow: the Culture of Marketing and the Marketing of Culture, a series of essays that illustrate how these two phenomena work in contemporary American society. In one essay, Seabrook compares his own life to that of his father’s, noting the evolution of high-brow/low-brow distinctions are made through clothes: his father had a suit for every occasion, whereas “a Chemical Brothers T-shirt will get me further in many places than my father’s suit.”

One implication of Seabrook’s message is that in order to communicate effectively in a time when identity is defined by taste, arts organizations must realize that an artist’s message will be read in the specific context of a highly customized, consumption-driven life. People filter “high art” messages through the same lens they use to see billboards, print advertising, television commercials, product placements, movie trailers, product jingles…

What tools can we use to deliver artists’ content quickly and effectively? What role do we play in making sure their voices are heard clearly, and on time (particularly on a day like today)? How do we “buy in” to all the exciting two-way communication technology tools available to us now without “selling out”?

A vision of our future

Conference presenter Erika Block shared this video during her session, which examines the future of media and information and a forecast of changes at Google, Amazon, and The New York Times.

Music on the Brain...

I read a great article on Wired.com today about a new book by neuroscientist Daniel Levitin called This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. The book discusses our neurological reaction to music and examines why humans have loved music since cavemen were banging stones together. (Okay, I'm just assuming cavemen banged stones together for musical entertainment... that's not necessarily scientific fact.)

Read the full WIRED article.

What is the cost of saving art?

In 2001, the Taliban destroyed two 1,500 year old stone Buddhas in Bamiyan. Five years later, UNESCO is proposing to rebuild the statues at an estimated cost of $30 million each. In case you are not familiar with this story, you can read more in an article featured in the Washington Post earlier this week. Several thoughts and emotions ran through my mind as I read this article. First and foremost, I was disgusted at the violent destruction that took place in the Bamiyan valley. It is beyond my comprehension to understand how humans can completely disregard the sanctity of a site and crush the culture and religion of a group of people. But there are far worse crimes against humanity happening all over the world, and so I continued to search for more articles on the stone statues.

My disgust quickly turned to despair. There are two sides to every story, and Mullah Mohammed Omar, then leader of the Taliban, has his own reasons for destroying the statues. He claims to have ordered the destruction of the statues after he was refused foreign aid for food and medical attention. Instead, money was offered solely for the conservation of the statues. You can read more about the Taliban side in an article posted by the Asia Society on Asia Source.

We may never know or understand why the statues were destroyed, however I think the bigger issue is figuring out where the people of Afghanistan go from here. I wonder if spending $30 million dollars to try to put the pieces of a statue back together is the smartest and most favorable decision. My opinion is that the money would be better spent on food, agricultural tools and medical facilities. Rather than funnel millions of dollars into the preservation of an object, why not prepare the people of the Bamiyan valley for a more stable future? I understand the need to preserve art, particularly that which reflects cultures long gone. At this point, however, the residents in the Bamiyan valley are also on the verge of disappearing. And I think preserving their lives is more important than putting back the pieces of a statue.