CURATOR AS LEAD ARTIST

By
Justin Muir
BFA Honours, University of Victoria, 2004

A THESIS SUPPORT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
in
Visual Arts

EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN

2017

© Justin Muir, 2017

ABSTRACT
My thesis research methodology investigates the spaces between curatorial and artistic practices. More
specifically, I am interested in the boundaries and slippages between these separately defined disciplines, and the
potential that exists in testing points of crossover and confusion. With this in mind, this thesis considers the curator
as collaborator as artist position, to explore beyond the conventional expectation that artists make works of art
which curators then display. Through my work, I attempt to demonstrate the opportunities and challenges that arise
when curators take on increasingly authorial and creative roles in both the production and presentation of the work
of others. Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev, a curator who has in the past refused to use this professional designation,
notes that “the curator is the most emblematic worker of the cognitive age” (Balzar 9). Christov-Bakargiev’s quote is
an important place to begin my research because although she acknowledges that curators are significant, she hesitates to identify as one, demonstrated by her use of the term agent and such (Judah). If curators are at the forefront
of cultural production, where does that put the artists? This thesis project is a way to investigate, through creative
and material practice, the historical and contemporary discourse around a specific type of relationship between curating and art making: the area where the labour of curators and artists intersects. Additionally, it attempts to blur
and reframe the ethical questions raised specifically regarding issues of authorship, artistic responsibility, collaboration, and contextual engagement. In our spectacle driven culture with a multitude of content readily available, we
increasingly value those able to reshape, select, and organize this content in generative ways. New modes of practice, organized around the position of a kind of lead artist or curatorial artist, provide a critical space for rethinking
the possibilities of making, postproduction, representation, and display.

!2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT… 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS… 3

INTRODUCTION… 4

SHIFTING AWAY FROM CURATING TOWARD A NEW ROLE… 5

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARIST AND CURATOR… 6

CURATORS AS ARTISTS LOCALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY… 8

CRITICISM OF THE CURATOR AS ARTIST… 9

CURATOR AS LEAD ARTIST… 12

CONCLUSION… 16

WORKS CITED… 17

WORKS CONSULTED… 18

!3

INTRODUCTION
This thesis project explores the territory where curatorial direction pushes up against artistic practice, a
controversial site of engagement that many presenters of exhibitions are increasingly engaging in regardless of their
title. The conventional expectation is that artists make works of art which curators then display. Challenges arise
when curators take on increasingly artistic roles in how they produce and present exhibitions. At times, these practitioners compromise the individual artworks and artists that they work with, while at other times, they create new
opportunities for cultural production. As I will later describe, Vancouver-based artist Geoffrey Farmer has been credited with providing emerging artists with opportunities through his curatorial projects, while New York-based curator Jens Hoffmann has been criticized for creating exhibitions that are heavily designed and overshadow the artwork.
The middle ground between these polarized situations is where my practice lies. My project accepts the uncertainty
and frustration that currently face both curators and artists alike in reconceptualizing the terms of practice in a neoliberal moment. I believe that the most productive way to approach the state of curatorial practice today is to work
with the increasingly blurry division between the work of the artist and curator, which reflects my own skepticism
towards generalized binary positions. The spaces of making and displaying works of cultural production have long
overlapped—emphasizing this tension or point of collision allows for heightened awareness to be generated. This
constructed exercise proposes that recent trends in curating are creating a condition whereby curating is becoming a
pseudo-artistic practice. As a result, there are many artists and curators who are creating a new identity marked by an
array of new titles as a way to reflect these changes.
With a growing number of stakeholders (i.e. educators, funders, publics, etc.) investing in exhibition practices, the work of curators and artists becomes increasingly caught in a web of shifting ideologies and politics that
questions their role within the institutions they work. This project gains perspective on the ambiguity of participating
in this emergent practice, and achieve some insight as to the value of flexibility in attempting to carve out new intellectual fields. I have yet to find a new designation for this curator as artist practice and I question the degree to
which a simple title can resolve complex issues that have been debated for half a century. French conceptual artist
Daniel Buren states that Swiss curator Harald Szeemann was the inventor of a new tendency in the art world in the
late-1960s whereby the organizer of the show is the real artist (Fox). The intent of my thesis project is not to find a
new title, thereby suggesting that I am carving out new territory for myself, rather it is a way of practicing in and
around the uncertainty that has created these established conditions. The question remains open-ended: Has curating
become an artistic practice? Is the curator a kind of lead artist? The implication of this project is that the actual
process of putting these questions into practice is more interesting than resolving them in any fixed or stable way.
!4

SHIFTING AWAY FROM CURATING TOWARD A NEW ROLE
Over the past fifty years, there has been a “shift away from curating as an administrative, caring, mediating
activity towards that of curating as a creative activity more akin to a form of artistic practice… The function of curating has become another recognized part of the expanded field of art production… The issues inherent to the curator
as artist question remains one of the key debates within curatorial discourse” (O’Neill 21). According to curator and
educator Paul O’Neill, this shift away from caretaking is controversial, as it raises the question, is it ethical for a
curator to pursue their own interests if their primary role is to care for the work of others? It is important to challenge the false dichotomy suggested by the belief that a curator can’t do both at the same time. My thesis involves, to
some extent, using the work of other artists to further my own agenda; however, any claims that this directly compromises the work of others is a reductive overgeneralization. It is certainly feasible to exercise one’s own interests
and those of others at the same time, yet there is doubt as to whether curating is an appropriate term for this. As art
critic Hettie Judah asks, “Who wants to be a curator? Not everyone, it seems. At least, not anymore… After a decade
or more in which soi-disant curators bestrode the earth like canapé-guzzling colossi, a subtle schism is underway,
led by a number of art world personnel drawn to the use of alternative wording” (Judah). The origin of the word
curator is from the latin word curare, which means to care. In the Middle Ages, curators were clergy having a spiritual cure or charge (Levi Strauss). Throughout the twentieth century, the curator was a custodian of a museum
collection. “Curatorial knowledge is now becoming a mode of discourse with unstable historical foundations” (O’Neill 26). Many terms, some more synonymous with the historical definition than others, have been used to describe
and construct a problematic mythology of the curator: collector, caretaker, priest, arbiter, auteur, editor, interpreter,
guide, trickster, alchemist, and, more recently, vampire (Balzar 80). “Bauman adds the term scapegoat to a long list
of ingredients for a curator’s role which he lists as animator, pusher, inspirer, brother, community maker and someone who makes people work and things happen and someone who inspires artists with ideas, programmes and projects” (O’Neill 23). In our current era, where information is so abundant and easily accessible, the task of selecting
and sorting material, whether artistic or not, becomes the work of nearly everyone, and the proliferation of the term
curator has moved it further and further away from its ecclesiastical origins. “And so it is that not only galleries and
museums, but also corporations, businesses, cultural organizations and not-for-profits, are using the model of the
curator to imply their products and services have been created, selected and expertly managed in their buyers’ favour…,” critic David Balzer offers, “Examples of guest curators like Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry are everywhere...
” (82). Since the role of the curator has been displaced over time, the context of my curatorial practice—demonstrated by a blend of caretaking, directing, and collaborating with artists—needs to be challenged and reinterpreted.
!5

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARIST AND CURATOR
With my research, I’m struggling to understand and explore the difference between an installation artist and
an independent curator—the former incorporates many spatial objects within one art work and the latter presents
many art works within one art exhibition—in terms of how they are defined and how their work is signified.
Dorothee Richter, a professor of contemporary curating at the University of the Arts Zurich, states “the curator and
the artist now closely imitate each other’s position” (O’Neill 252). Art historian Claire Bishop’s essay entitled “What
is a curator?” (2007) looks back to the late 1960s and early 1970s as a time period when two new creative practitioners emerged within contemporary art: the installation artist and the independent curator. Bishop uses this essay to
argue against a previous essay entitled “Multiple Authorship” (2006) by Boris Groys who positions that there is no
difference between exhibitions that are constructed by curators and installations that are constructed by artists. “At
least since the 1960s, artists have created installations in order to demonstrate their personal practices of selection.
These installations, however, have been nothing other than exhibitions curated by artists, in which objects by others
may be—and are—represented as well as objects by the artist” (Bishop). Groys argues that exhibitions and installations are both mediums of contemporary art that incorporate smaller art objects within them as components. His
point: regardless of whether they are constructed by a curator or an artist, they are essentially the same thing. “Once
the identification between creation and selection has been established, the roles of the artist and of the curator also
became identical. A distinction between the (curated) exhibition and the (artistic) installation is still commonly
made, but it is essentially obsolete” (Groys 93).
Bishop argues that there are very different social, political, and economic factors that separate the function
and value of the installation artist and exhibition curator, and when an artist takes over a curator’s role, the unique
role of the curator as a contextualizer and interpreter for viewers is lost, along with any sense of distance or objective viewpoint, however fraught this notion might be. “But—to paraphrase Foucault paraphrasing Beckett—does it
really matter who is speaking? Because what is at stake is not the precise and pedantic difference between the curator and the artist, but the different discourses within which each player functions” (Bishop). There are two very distinct concepts here that are at play. One relates to authorship, and the other relates to context. In this debate, authorship is defined as the state of being the creator of a work of art, while context is defined as the circumstances and
discourses around the creator of an artwork and an exhibition, and how the conversations and debates around the
implications of these roles are shaped over time. I speculate that my work functions somewhere between the realm
of installation art and the evolution of curating.

!6

Unlike Bishop, Groys doesn't seem interested in the context and circumstances of the artist and curator—
he’s more interested in the fact that both artists and curators are authors and have a particular voice that they are using to express the creative work that they produce. Bishop’s argument is that the context surrounding artists and curators are fundamentally different in the sense that curators, even the ones that are considered independent, are often
beholden to the institutions and sponsors that hire them to produce an exhibition, as well as the audiences who have,
in most cases, paid admission. “This is important, for it introduces the idea that the curator has an ethical obligation
that is significantly different to an artist’s aesthetics of artistic presentation” (Bishop). What sculptor and conceptual
artist Robert Morris wants from a curator… “is someone who respects the artist’s wishes, communicates clearly, and
is available for negotiation. In other words, a figure who is subservient to the artist and who does not contest his/her
authorship” (Bishop). Due to the sociopolitical, historical, and sometimes economic relationships between institutions and curators, curators seem to be and are often more responsible to those who support their work and also to
those whose work they present. Thus Bishop argues that the difference between a curator and an artist is not so much
an issue of authorship; rather it is an issue of responsibility. By authoring or composing a visual experience using the
work of other artists, meanwhile employing ethical or responsible curatorial methods, my practice is situated somewhere between Groys’ and Bishop’s argument.

!7

CURATORS AS ARTISTS LOCALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY
I’m certainly not the only person in this industry who is exploring such designations. There are many examples of artists who work between the roles of the curator and artist, or whose collaborative relationships are core
to their practices. This is evident, for example, in the work of Vancouver-based artists Anne Low, Gareth Moore,
Hannah Jickling and Helen Reed, Vanessa Kwan, and Eli Bornowsky; as well as that of Geoffrey Farmer who combines artistic and curatorial roles while adopting the language of the performing arts. “Most brief biographies of
Farmer describe him as an installation artist who incorporates elements of video, sound, lighting, and text into his
practice. Farmer prefers to describe himself as an ‘arranger’” (Laurence). In music, an arranger is someone who reconceptualizes a previously composed work. Farmer has described himself using this title in reference to his piece
Leaves of Grass, composed of thousands of shadow puppets, which are typically props used in theatrical performances. Farmer is an artist, but in 2010, when he created an art space called Every Letter of the Alphabet, he took on
the role of a curator by commissioning and presenting work by many other artists.
Jens Hoffmann is a Costa Rican exhibition maker based in New York. He abandoned the title curator because for him, curating is fundamentally linked to exhibition making: “I feel some frustration with how the term
curating has been adopted by all sorts of fields to describe any process that involves making a selection of something… For me curating is about formulating a certain theory or argument, based upon which one makes a selection
of artworks or other objects with the aim of creating an exhibition in which those objects and artworks are displayed
to the public” (Hoffmann and Lind). Hoffmann studied theatre in Berlin and Amsterdam in the mid-1990s. It was his
role in organizing the performance-arts program at Documenta X that led to his curatorial positions in the visual arts.
Hoffmann approaches the exhibition in a similar way that a director approaches the stage—for him the artworks are
actors or performers. Hoffmann discusses his role as authorial, conceptual, and highly personal, which reflects a
curator that is not dissimilar to that of an artist (Theatre of Exhibitions). For Hoffmann, artists and artworks are to
the exhibition what actors and props are to the stage, which suggests that he sees his work as being somewhere between installations and exhibitions: the former being an amalgamation of dependent objects, and the latter being an
arrangement of delineated objects. Hoffmann’s position raises an important question: If an object or a composition
of objects attributed to an artist is already accepted as an artwork, can it be accepted as a component of a new artwork through its use within a larger artistic composition by a curator? In responding to this question, we must consider a negotiation between historical positions and the stakeholders involved.

!8

CRITICISM OF THE CURATOR AS ARTIST
Throughout the early 2000s, Hoffmann made a series of exhibitions that used 19th century western literature as themes for arranging contemporary art: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Moby Dick, and The Adventures of Tom
Sawyer. His first in this series was based on Around the World in Eighty Days at the Institute for Contemporary Arts
London and the South London Gallery in 2006. It used Jules Verne’s 1873 classic adventure novel, which marked
the end of the age of exploration and the start of an age of global tourism, as a way to present international contemporary artworks that, over 130 years later, described the effects of globalization. The artworks dealt with social constructions of place and identity, and included work by artists from Lebanon, Iraq, India, Singapore, Nigeria, England, Germany, New Zealand, France, Japan, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Bangladesh, Serbia, Ghana,
and Brazil. The exhibition contained poignant work by renowned artists: marbles arranged on the floor in the shape
of a map that were sometimes dispersed accidentally by the audience (Mona Hatoum); photographs of decayed animal corpses in the sand alluding to problems related to water access and desertification (Jananne Al-Ani); and, video
documentation of locations and people that were previously under British rule (Erika Tan). And yet, despite the impact of these individual works, Nav Haq stated that “Visually speaking, the design was overly dominant and at times
ran the risk of eclipsing the exhibited works” (Haq). Similarly, Sue Hubbard criticized the exhibition by claiming
that the extent to which Hoffmann themed the exhibition overshadowed the individual artworks (Hubbard). Although the issue of overshadowing doesn’t necessarily suggest that curators are artists, it does indicate that some
curators are emphasizing their own thematic interests, rather than pushing the work of other artists forward. This can
be seen as an abdication of responsibility in favor of one’s own creative interests, marking the shift away from caring in curatorial practice that O’Neill describes.
Hoffmann responded to his criticism by acknowledging that curators are often accused of using artworks to
address or illustrate their own ideas, interests, topics, and themes, and suggested that curators should respect how
artists want their work to be presented: “I personally always give the last word about installation, the selection of
work for a show, etc, to the artists, and could not imagine forcing an artist or a work of art into a frame where it does
not belong” (“Yes, but ... Jens Hoffmann answers back”). He goes on to state that the formation of exhibitions is
complicated: “I hope every artist has the strength to articulate her or his concern should they feel used by a curator,
but the dynamics of putting together an exhibition are often far more complex than this oppositional formulation
suggests” (“Yes, but ... Jens Hoffmann answers back”). The success of an exhibition depends on assessing the quality of the viewer’s experience, and if new modes of production can aid in that endeavour, then the risk of overshadowing individual artworks may be warranted, and may ultimately serve to benefit the artworks involved. Exhibitions
!9

that steer an artist’s work in a new direction, or use their work for another purpose, may contribute to an area of cultural production that has value, providing that the artist is effectively involved in the production of the exhibition
and is given sufficient opportunity to articulate their concerns.

!10

Fig. 1. Film by Lauren Marsden of upside down bird of paradise being dissolved by smoke.
1! 1

CURATOR AS LEAD ARTIST
My thesis exhibition is titled Purgatorio to Paradiso by Justin Muir (feat. found object and video by Lauren
Marsden, dance by Sydney Southam, painting by Edmund Li, text by Donato Mancini, and audio by Liz Solo). Purgatorio to Paradiso, the first part of the title, references the second and third cantos from the epic poem The Divine
Comedy by Dante. The literary theorist Joan Ferrante describes Dante’s purgatory in the poem as representing a society in transition that is moving from self-centredness to care for and commitment to others, and paradise as representing a society of people that are responsible to others (Ferrante 132). This sociopolitical reading of Dante’s paradise was a useful allegory in planning my exhibition because care for others versus care for oneself is at the core of
my research. In preparing for this exhibition, I employed a variety of curatorial methods that are conventional today:
1.

Researched a group of work by artists that could be used to reference The Divine Comedy;

2.

Requested new work by these artists and provided them with parameters and tools for production;

3.

Arranged the work to create a single art exhibition.

However, these methods can also be thought of as artistic methods:
1.

Researched a group of material objects that could be used to reference The Divine Comedy;

2.

Engaged a group of artists to make predetermined objects under my direction with materials and resources that I provided;

3.

Arranged the work to create a unified art experience.

Each of the individual pieces stems from a bird of paradise flower and were produced by artists from outside the
university in collaboration with myself. The flower is featured alongside a mixed media painting, a 46 second video
loop, a remixed excerpt of text, and, a 92 second audio loop. The title wall uses parenthesis and the abbreviation
feat, which is common in the music industry to identify when an artist is invited to perform on another artist’s track.
This tension between curatorial and artistic methods can position me as akin to a lead artist or curatorial artist. I use
this as a strategy to suggest that contemporary curatorial and artistic methods are increasingly similar, and that today,
independent curators of temporary exhibitions are actually more similar to artists than they are to traditional curators
who predominantly care for and present artworks in a permanent collection. This responds to my earlier question
around the difference between the roles and functions of the artist and curator designations within the conventions of
the contemporary art industry: If an object or a composition of objects attributed to an artist is already accepted as an
artwork, can it be accepted as a component of a new artwork through its use within a larger artistic composition by a
curator? By positioning myself as lead artist or curatorial artist, rather than just positioning myself as a curator, I
am emphasizing the collision of artistic and curatorial practices. Rather than simply accepting this as a new state of
!12

Fig. 2. Dance inspired by an upside down bird of paradise by Sydney Southam.
!13

curating, I heighten an awareness to this state so that I may further consider its unresolved implications. It is easy to
overlook the similarities between these practices if we just accept that this is how curators now function, but without
paying close attention to these methods, we assume a resolution that doesn’t exist.
The multiple iterations of the paradisiacal flower function as a utopian—yet synthetic—symbol of the collaborative artistic process. Through the title wall, I assert that the exhibition as a whole is by myself and features the
other artists. The usage of these terms on the title wall, combined with the symbol of paradise used by each featured
artist, implies that curating an exhibition that functions as an individual artwork is a utopic endeavour; it situates the
curator as akin to a lead artist or curatorial artist who presents the work of other artists within their artwork. This is
a situation that, as O’Neill has mentioned, has been debated and theorized for half a century, but has yet to be resolved (21). All of the artists featured in my thesis exhibition created work about my thesis research by using the exhibited bird of paradise prop as a symbol. Marsden’s film depicts the bird of paradise hanging upside down, disappearing and reappearing in a cloud of fog (see fig. 1). Marsden’s video of Southam depicts her performing a pole
dance maneuver called Upside Down Bird of Paradise (see fig. 2). Li's painting depicts Marsden shooting in my
studio (see fig. 3). Mancini & Solo’s spoken word piece is an excerpt from Dante’s Paradiso that describes Dante’s
fictional account of paradise consisting of dances, turns on poles, fulfillment, desire, and individual parts coming
together to form a whole. Together, these artistic methods demonstrate how each artist worked in tandem with myself as the lead artist or curatorial artist to create a piece about moving toward paradise as a symbol of investigating
the blurry and uncertain area whereby a curated exhibition may also be seen as a work of art. This is an important
way for me to attempt to understand my professional trajectory because it forces me to look more closely at how the
methods I use correspond to the practices I claim to occupy. If the methods used to situate my practice are within the
margins of the curatorial and the artistic, then it is important for me to illustrate that position.

!14

Fig. 3. Mixed media painting by Edmund Li of Lauren Marsden filming in my studio.
!15

CONCLUSION
My graduate work is an attempt to explore the ethics of using artists’ work to make exhibitions that can be
seen, in and of themselves, as works of art. In this scenario, what responsibility do I have to the artists that I work
with? At what point is this responsibility compromised and to what effect? Can curatorial practice be seen as an artistic practice? Outside of my studies, I am employed by a nonprofit artist-run centre as an executive director. Within
this context, I take the issue of responsibility very seriously, and always seek to support, credit, and interpret the
work of artists for the benefit of cultural advancement through the mandated functions of publicly supported institutions. As I have mentioned, Bishop argues that the curator’s ethical obligation to institutions is what differentiates
them from artists. My thesis project complicates this position and raises questions that would be difficult for me to
address outside of an art school environment. Curators have a responsibility and by no means do I want to abdicate
that responsibility; however, there is a fundamental shift that has been happening away from the caretaker origins of
the word curator whereby some contemporary curators present their own creative interests by using the work of
other artists. This supports Richter’s claim that the curator and artist now imitate each other’s position (O’Neill 252).
I’m interested in how a curator can maintain the caretaking responsibilities of art and artists and at the same time
fulfill their own creative drives. The conundrum is that there seems to be no clear delineation as to where these creative drives intersect, and there is no term that adequately describes such a practice, nor is there any clear structure
for doing so. I believe that curators as who operate as akin to lead artists can simultaneously make exhibitions that
function as works of art while respecting the interests of the artists they collaborate with. This is a vague area to
theorize, as it can affect individual artworks differently depending on the situation and the exhibition; however, I
think there is value in the notion that curated exhibitions and art installations are not always mutually exclusive. Although many have investigated this terrain from both a theoretical and practical perspective, a resolution has not yet
been found. Making exhibitions as an artistic practice is challenging. Thoughtful attention has to be taken to not
compromise the individual artworks and artists that are presented. My interest is in pushing the boundaries between
these positions to see the type of work that can emerge, and to reveal any uncertainty and disorientation in the process.

!16

WORKS CITED
Balzar, David. Curationism: How Curating Took Over the Art World and Everything Else. Toronto: Coach House
Books. 2014. Print.
Bishop, Claire. What is a Curator? Idea: Arta + Societate. 2007. Web. 2 February 2016.
Ferrante, Joan. The Political Vision of the Divine Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1984. Print.
Fox, Dan. Being Curated. Frieze. 13 April 2013. Web. 3 December 2016.
Groys, Boris. “Multiple Authorship”. The Manifesta Decade: Debates on Contemporary Exhibitions and Biennials.
Ed. Filipovic, Elena, and Barbara Vanderlinden. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2006. Print.
Haq, Nav. “Around the World in Eighty Days.” Review of Around the World in Eighty Days, curated by Jens Hoffmann, Bidoun: Issue #8, 1 October 2006. Web. 3 December 2016.
Hoffmann, Jens. Theatre of Exhibitions. Berlin: Sternberg Press. 2015. Print.
Hoffmann, Jens. Yes, but ... Jens Hoffmann answers back. The Guardian. 7 June 2006. Web. 3 December 2016.
Hoffmann, Jens, and Maria Lind. To Show or Not to Show. Mousse: Issue #31. 11 November 2011. Web. 3 December 2016.
Hubbard, Sue. “A Global Tour Going Nowhere.” Review of Around the World in Eighty Days, curated by Jens
Hoffmann, The Independent, 1 June 2006. Web. 3 December 2016.
Judah, Hettie. Has the World Had Enough of ‘Curators’?. Artnet News. 15 November 2016. Web. 2 December
2016.
Laurence, Robin. “Geoffrey Farmer fêted in new Vancouver Art Gallery show.” Review of How Do I Fit This Ghost
in My Mouth?, retrospective exhibition of artwork by Geoffrey Farmer. The Georgia Straight. 27 May
2015. Web. 11 December 2015.
Levi Strauss, David. The Bias of the World: Curating After Szeemann & Hopps. The Brooklyn Rail. 8 December
2006. Web. 17 April 2017.
O’Neill, Paul. “The Curatorial Turn: From Practice to Discourse”. The Biennial Reader. Ed. Filipovic, Marieke van
Hal, and Solveig Ovstebo. Bergen: Bergen Kunsthall/Hatje Kantz. 2010. Print.

!17

WORKS CONSULTED
Armstrong, John. “Andrew Hunter: A Rec Room Requiem.” C International Contemporary Art 01 Nov. 1997:
56-57. Print.
Bismarck, Beatrice von, Rike Frank, Benjamin Meyer-Krahmer, Jörn Schafaff, and Thomas Weski. Timing: On the
Temporal Dimension of Exhibiting. Ed. Beatrice von Bismarck, Rike Frank, Benjamin Meyer-Krahmer,
Jörn Schafaff, and Thomas Weski. Berlin: Sternberg Press. 2014. 8-10. Print.
Borthwick, Ben, Natasha Hoare, Coline Milliard, Rafal Niemojewski, and Jonathan Watkins. The New Curator.
London: Laurence King Publishing. 2016. Print.
Bourcheix-Laporte, Marianne. “Interrogating the ‘Artist-Curator-as-Artist’ in After Finitude.” Review of After Finitude, curated by Eli Bornowsky, Decoy Magazine, 2 April 2013. Web. 3 August 2016.
Doubtfire, Joseph, and Ranchetti, Giulia. Curator as Artist as Curator. Curating the Contemporary. 30 April 2015.
Web. 16 October 2016.
Hoffman, Jens and Joan Jonas. Artworks Perform. New York: Thames and Hudson. 2005. Print.
Jeffery, Celina. The Artist as Curator. Bristol: Intellect. 2015. Print.
Lubar, Steven. “Curator as Auteur.” The Public Historian 01 Feb. 2014: 71-76. Print.
Neuendorf, Henri. Francesco Bonami Says Curators Are ‘Self-Delusional’ and ‘Irrelevant’ in Today’s Art World?.
Artnet News. 7 June 2016. Web. 2 December 2016.
O’Neill, Paul. The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s). Cambridge: MIT Press. 2012. Print.
O’Neill, Paul. Curating Subjects. London: Open Editions. 2007. Print.
Roos-Brown, Erinn. Is the Role of the Curator Evolving?. ArtsFwd. 16 May 2013. Web. 1 December 2016.
Sigler, Jeremy. “Other Primary Structures at the Jewish Museum, Curated by Jens Hoffmann.” Review of Other
Primary Structures, curated by Jens Hoffmann, Tablet, 7 July 2014. Web. 10 December 2016.
Steeds, Lucy. Exhibition: Documents of Contemporary Art. London: Whitechapel Gallery. 2014. Print.
Ulrich Obrist, Hans. Ways of Curating. London: Penguin Books. 2014. Print.

!18