Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
What Happens When the Exhibition Starts Listening Back?
Who decides what an exhibition means? Why are we only allowed to read curatorial narratives, not rewrite them?
Fluid Curatingasks: What if the audience could rename the space? Redraw the paths? Retell the story?
This is a curatorial experiment in shared authorship and disrupted authority. There’s no single narrative. No fixed wall text. Just a living, rewritable system shaped by the people inside it.
If you’ve ever felt that exhibitions speak at you instead of with you— this project is for you.
👇 Click to enter the proposal space: floor plan, visuals, public programme, zine, and a decentralised curatorial vision—ready to be rewritten.
Acknowledgements Looking back, this course has been so much more than I expected. I want to sincerely thank our lecturers and tutors—not just for teaching, but for constantly encouraging reflection, experimentation, and emotional honesty. Your feedback and provocations really shaped how I see curating now.
To my peers—thank you for your openness, support, and all the moments of shared vulnerability and laughter. Working alongside you helped me learn just as much outside the classroom as inside.
And finally, thank you to the way this course was designed: every week built something new, and every assignment felt like an invitation to grow. I’m walking away not just with a project, but with a deeper understanding of what curating can be—and who I am within it.
(Fear as a Method A sensory workshop. March 29, 2025 · Summerhall · In Vitro Gallery)
Our PPT laid out the structure, intent, and emotional architecture of the workshop. We framed fear not as pathology but as a method— a curatorial tool to explore perception, misjudgment, and emotional co-creation.
We offered no art objects. No polished installations. What we gave participants was a guided pathway— through touch, sound, spatial disorientation, and quiet reflection.
They left not with answers, but with a method. And we, as curators, left with better questions.
This blog is a reflection on how that happened. Not just how we built the workshop, but how the workshop built us.
Part 2:
Curatorial review and reflection
I. Where It All Began: Feeling Our Way Into a Method
We didn’t begin with a perfect concept. We began with a shared feeling—something more like a hunch than a plan.
It was early March, and the four of us—Yiran, Yufan, Lingqiu, and I—were tucked into a quiet café corner, half-lost in conversation, half-sketching thoughts onto napkins. What kept coming up was this strange, slippery word: fear. Not as an idea to explain, but as a sensation we couldn’t quite pin down. I remember looking up and asking: “What if fear isn’t something we display, but something we practice—something we can stay with, even gently rehearse?” And that was it. That question became the doorway to everything that followed.
Right from the beginning, I didn’t want to make an exhibition people only looked at. I wanted to make something people felt through. We proposed the central theme—Fear as a Method—as a way to move away from visuals, and into something more internal: a participatory, sensory, body-centered experience. Not therapy. Not theatre. Just a quiet space where people could encounter their fear—not to fix it, but to understand it differently.
II. Building from the Course: Three Weeks that Shaped Everything
W4: Curatorial Ethics
This week changed our entire approach to curating. It taught our to think not only about what we show, but how people feel when moving through a space. Inspired by course readings on care, vulnerability, and bodily safety (O’Neill, Wilson), We began designing the workshop route not as a gallery but as an emotional threshold.
I made key decisions here:
Using soft materials like feathers and ribbon to create sensory ambiguity.
Incorporating ambient sound layers that blend comfort and tension.
Emphasizing psychological safety while gently pushing discomfort.
Our route was not designed for clarity, but for internal resonance.
(The photographer of the event photos: Yiran Gu)
W6: Artist-led Curation
This week’s examples reminded me that a curator can also be a facilitator, a host, or a listener. I saw the power of allowing others to co-create the emotional temperature of a project.
We structured the workshop so that each participant could move at their own pace, in silence, blindfolded, uninterrupted. I personally designed the route flow and sound transitions to support this rhythm, ensuring people could drift inward.
During testing, I adjusted the transitions between sensory stations based on what participants felt—not what we expected. My role became not just designer, but emotional cartographer.
(“Fear as a Method” sensory route – exhibition layout sketch, April 2025. Includes Blindfold Zone, Crunch Floor, Ribbon Installations, Producer of the effect drawing: Yiran Gu.)
W9: Publishing as Curation
This week was perhaps the most transformative for me. We studied “The Phone is the Keyhole; The Penpot, the Heart” and I was completely moved. Their refusal of polish, their embrace of emotional honesty, and their prioritizing of friendship as method helped me see publishing not as post-event documentation, but as an integral part of the curatorial experience.
So I proposed:
“Let’s make the back side of our zine a toolkit.”
“Not just to reflect, but to use. Something they can take away.”
I designed the emotional kit section with fill-in prompts, soft design choices, and handwritten elements—so participants could continue the workshop privately, on their own terms.
(Zine mock-up: Designed and written by the team, All images are co-created by the event participants. )
III. Making and Unmaking: Group Process and Living Diagrams
Our group worked in Miro constantly. Looking back, our board doesn’t just show logistics—it shows our thinking style: layered, nonlinear, highly emotional. We mapped quotes, fears, diagrams, workshop flows, and even doubt. The board became a record of not just what we did, but how we made decisions. This was also the first time I felt fully comfortable disagreeing in a group—I knew my ideas (and feelings) had space.
Together we refined:
The misjudgment stations (I curated the sound textures).
The route structure (I directed how the body flows).
The language tone (I crafted the closing reflection speech).
The publication design (I created the concept for the emotional takeaway page). (Miro process map – team discussion and emotional mapping Screenshot from team Miro board, March 2025. Author: Team archive.)
IV. The Workshop: A Rehearsal for Courage
On the day of the workshop, I was nervous. Not about logistics, but about whether people would actually feel something. We weren’t showing art. We were inviting people to surrender their sight, to misjudge, to be vulnerable.
At the end of the route, I delivered the final speech:
Thank you for walking this path. Maybe you didn’t guess anything right. Maybe you startled yourself. Maybe—you weren’t afraid at all.
Sometimes, fear isn’t a mistake. It’s a reminder. It says: “There’s something here that frightens you.” Maybe it’s a memory. Maybe it’s something from childhood.
In the dark, fear becomes clearer. But often, fear comes not from what’s real— but from what we imagine. Reality is rarely as terrifying as our minds make it out to be.
When you realise that what you’re afraid of is actually a past wound speaking, and when you gather the courage to face it— that fear may already be halfway gone.
Now, write one sentence— a message for a future version of yourself who might be afraid. When fear returns, how will you remind yourself?
Remind yourself that we always have courage. Enough to face one unknown after another.
This is the little method you take with you today. A quiet piece of courage that belongs only to you.
They took the zines. They wrote themselves notes for the future.
And I watched them place those sticky notes on the wall—
each one a small sentence of survival.
V.Team Roles and Contributions
1. Hanyun Xue — Experience Curator (Emotional Facilitator) As the group’s emotional anchor, Hanyun served as the guide and psychological support throughout the experience. With her background in art and counseling, she shaped the language of comfort and trust. Her voice—calm, attentive, and clear—helped participants navigate their fear safely, especially in moments of sensory disorientation.
2. Lingqiu Xiao — Spatial Choreographer (The Lobby Manager) As the “lobby manager” of our emotional space, Lingqiu took charge of real-time movement and crowd coordination. Like a stage choreographer, she arranged the physical flow of participants with a sharp eye for timing and calm control. From managing transitions to maintaining safety during blindfolded routes, she held the space with both precision and empathy.
3. Yiran Gu — Sensory Orchestrator (Media & Technical Lead) Acting as our behind-the-scenes technician, Yiran handled both sound design and video documentation. She composed the atmospheric sound layers and recorded the workshop with sensitivity—capturing fleeting gestures, silences, and reactions. Her work preserved the ephemeral feeling of the event and helped us build a self-archive rooted in emotion.
4. Yufan Wang — Service Narrator (Flow & Discipline Coordinator) Taking on the role of “discipline coordinator,” Yufan made sure everything ran smoothly. She oversaw timing, participant rhythm, and station transitions. Quiet but ever-present, she was the backstage voice who ensured that nothing felt rushed or chaotic. Her sense of order gave structure to the experience—and her steady presence made it feel secure.
My Role, My Reflection
Task
Description
Theme Initiation
Proposed the core concept “Fear as a Method” during the first brainstorming session.
Sound Design
Selected and edited sound textures for sensory misjudgment zones (e.g. insects, feathers).
Route Planning
Designed the blindfolded walking route; guided spatial pacing and emotional rhythm.
Emotional Toolkit Design (Zine)
Created the reflective back page of the zine with writing prompts and coping actions.
Closing Speech
Wrote and delivered the final speech during the workshop to reflect on emotional insights.
Exhibition Recap (PPT)
Co-developed the final presentation slides on team roles, outcomes, and reflections.
1: Research
We applied emotional ethics (W4), sensory curation (W6), and affective publishing (W9) directly into the design of this project. We referenced not only course texts but practices by artists like Marina Abramović (who uses presence as method), and Tramway’s Jarman exhibition (W7), which made private pain public without aestheticizing it.
2: Practice
I coordinated theme direction, sensory station design, wrote and delivered the workshop’s closing, and authored the emotional reflection page in the zine. I also curated sound elements, choreographed the route, and contributed to visual consistency in our publishing and video documentation.
3: Reflection
I realised that curating isn’t about “creating something to be looked at.” It’s about creating a space where something can happen—for real people, in real time. The workshop was about trust. And we earned it.
VI. Outcomes Are Not Just Outputs
Our project ultimately consisted of four interwoven outcomes:
The exhibition route: a designed walk of fear, confusion, and intimacy.
The zine: an object that lives beyond the space, with both theory and practice.
A short documentary video, capturing both audience reactions and our own reflections.
Fear as a Method was not perfect—but it was personal, alive, and full of care. We didn’t aim to heal people. We offered them a method to rehearse feeling, misjudgment, and return.
It taught me what kind of curator I want to be:
Not a guide. Not a gatekeeper.
But a quiet facilitator of difficult feeling.
Curating Is Not a Job Title, It’s a Way of Listening
When I began planning Fluid Curating, I kept asking myself: what does it really mean to decentralise curatorial authority? Initially, I imagined decentralisation as a concept—something theoretical, perhaps even technological. But through our course readings and field experiences, I realised: decentralisation is not something you announce. It’s something you do.
It’s a shift in posture—from holding the frame, to holding the door open.
In Week 4, we discussed curatorial ethics, including the redistribution of narrative authority, especially in postcolonial and feminist contexts. I was drawn to the idea that curating can be a collaborative composition of context and meaning. The Week 6seminar on artist-led initiatives further deepened this view. When artists become curators—not to replace the role but to redefine it—it opens up the field. This echoed in the Artist as Curator volume (Jeffery 2016), which reframed curation as part of artistic practice.
The more I read and witnessed, the more I understood decentralisation as a verb—a series of gestures, choices, and systems that invite others in, not as guests but as co-authors.
From Command to Collaboration: What My Research Changed
The readings from The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating (Martinon 2013) and Curating and the Educational Turn (O’Neill & Wilson 2010) challenged me to think beyond “the exhibition” as an end point. They suggest curation is an epistemic practice—a way of producing knowledge collectively.
Especially helpful was Aneta Szyłak’s concept of “curating context”, where the curator doesn’t impose meaning but hosts overlapping interpretations within a site-responsive framework. This helped me reframe my own curatorial role—not as a selector of fixed content, but as a facilitator of meaning in motion.
Rather than positioning myself above the artwork or audience, I began designing structures that shift attention horizontally. For example, in my project, audiences co-write curatorial texts, contribute sound responses, and alter spatial routes. These are not symbolic gestures; they’re core structuring methods.
This approach was affirmed by models like Documenta 11’s multi-site “Platforms”, Gwangju Biennale’s roundtable curating, and the Manifesta 6 art school model. All these positioned education, conversation, and collectivity as curatorial tools—not add-ons.
（Book Cover: The Artist as Curator: An Anthology）
（Manifesta 6 was set to take place in Nicosia, Cyprus from 23 September to 17 December 2006.）
（Gallery: Transmission Gallery, Glasgow）
So, Why These Changes?
In Week 9, when we discussed curatorial methods and publishing as curating, I saw that language and access also shape curatorial power. If the only text in a show is written by me, then it doesn’t matter how many QR codes I place—authority hasn’t moved. That realisation led me to include textual co-creation and anonymous reflection stations.
I also returned to the work of artist-run centres (Transmission Gallery, City Racing), which taught me that infrastructure can itself be a curatorial act. By choosing simple, accessible tools like Woolclap, and a flexible venue like ECA’s lobby, I was building the kind of distributed, non-expert, generous framework I believed in.
What I Learned
Decentralisation isn’t an outcome—it’s an ongoing curatorial method.
To shift power, you must also shift authorship, visibility, and voice.
Artist-led models, collective formats, and non-hierarchical texts offer not just references but models for practice.
As I continue developing Fluid Curating, I hold this central idea: The best curation doesn’t make meaning—it makes meaning possible.
Selected References
Jeffery, Celina, ed. The Artist as Curator. Bristol: Intellect, 2016.
Martinon, Jean-Paul, ed. The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
O’Neill, Paul, and Mick Wilson, eds. Curating and the Educational Turn. London: Open Editions, 2010.
Szyłak, Aneta. “Curating Context.” In The Curatorial, edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, 217–226. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
Curatorial Narrative: From Top-down Authority to Distributed Dialogue
When I first imagined Fluid Curating, I wasn’t interested in simply organizing an exhibition. I wanted to challenge something deeper: the invisible lines of power that often define who gets to choose, explain, and validate meaning in art. Traditional curating—though rich in historical methods—often centers on a single authoritative voice. What if we reimagine this voice as a chorus? What if meaning could emerge from conversation rather than instruction?
My project stems from this desire to shift away from the curator as sovereign. I was inspired by early discussions in Week 1 and Week 2 around institutions, platforms, and authorship, and began asking: who really holds curatorial power, and who gets to speak? These reflections led me to decentralisation, not as a purely technical gesture, but as a curatorial attitude—one that opens space, redistributes authorship, and invites collective meaning-making.
This shift isn’t just conceptual. It has emotional and ethical stakes. My vision for Fluid Curating is built around co-creation: an ecosystem where artists, audiences, and curators share responsibility for shaping not only the content of the exhibition, but its rhythm, its routes, and its interpretation.
Curatorial Questions Driving the Exhibition
Can meaning be co-authored rather than delivered?
What happens when audiences don’t just observe, but write, vote, and narrate?
If we design for decentralisation, does power truly move—or just appear to?
These questions echo many discussed in our course, especially those explored during Week 4 (Curatorial Ethics), Week 9 (Publishing as Curating), and Week 10 (Publics and Participation).They continue to guide my decisions—from spatial design to media choice, from participation structure to the ethics of attribution.
What Fluid Curating Means in Practice
Fluid Curating is not only a name, but a structure—one that puts decentralisation into curatorial action. It proposes an exhibition framework that cannot be completed without the audience. It is not “for” them, but “with” them.
The space is designed as a rhizomatic grid rather than a linear pathway, enabling visitors to navigate freely, remap meaning, and even rename spaces using coloured tape trails. The artworks—primarily participatory installations by CAP artists and invited collaborators—remain open-ended until activated by audience interaction. Visitors become necessary co-authors in bringing the work to life.
Interpretation is equally decentralised. Audiences can scan a QR code to access a shared platform (via Woolclap) where they co-write curatorial texts, share voice notes, and reflect in real time. These contributions are updated and projected daily, forming a “living wall of meaning” that evolves with each visitor’s presence.
Display arrangements are not fixed. Every three days, works are reconfigured based on audience feedback, voting, and engagement metrics. Exhibition design becomes fluid—data-driven but people-responsive.
After the show, audience-created content will be compiled into a collectively-authored Zine, capturing curatorial texts, sound fragments, and reflections. A summary market report will also be generated to visualize interaction heatmaps, keyword clusters, and value perception trends—offering emerging artists and institutions new insights into participatory demand.
This is not a spectacle of participation—it is an invitation to redefine curating itself.
Case Studies: Inspirations That Changed My Curatorial Lens
Several exhibitions and curatorial models became reference points:
Documenta 11’s “Platforms” (2002) replaced one curatorial voice with many.
Gwangju Biennale’s “Roundtable Curating” model reimagined curation as circular and collective.
Manifesta 6 and its offshoots like Night School transformed exhibition into experimental schools.
Copenhagen Free University and Tania Bruguera’s Arte de Conducta redefined artists as curators of knowledge and experience.
Together, these cases helped me see how fluid, participatory, and educational models decentralise curatorial control and share authorship with artists and publics.
Soft Reflection: From Concept to Commitment
Rather than offering a separate reflection section, I believe my project’s material and structural changes speak for themselves. Through studio visits with CAP artists, peer review exchanges, and in-class provocations, I came to see co-creation not as a supplement to curating, but as its generative core.
The move away from speculative technologies (NFTs, blockchain, AI) toward something more grounded—student-led, low-cost, audience-responsive—wasn’t a compromise. It was a choice. A choice to center experience over infrastructure, participation over programming.
As Rancière reminds us in The Emancipated Spectator, the act of seeing is never passive—it is interpretative, active, and political. Fluid Curating doesn’t just accept this—it designs for it.
Citations
Jeffery, Celina. The Artist as Curator. Bristol: Intellect, 2016.
Macdonald, Sarah. Exhibition Experiments. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.
Martinon, Jean-Paul. The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
O’Neill, Paul, and Mick Wilson. Curating and the Educational Turn. London: Open Editions, 2010.
Smith, Terry. Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International (ICI), 2012.
🌊 My Exhibition Is Not a “Finished Product,” But a Flowing Relationship
This week, I finally gathered the courage to sort through the curatorial ideas that had been drifting in my head for a long time.
From questioning whether curators should hold total control, to writing down the full framework for my project “Fluid Curating,” I feel like I’ve found a direction that is both gentle and powerful.
This exhibition doesn’t present an outcome. Instead, it invites everyone to co-create the process itself.
📍Project Title: Fluid Curating
Subtitle: A Decentralised Ecosystem of Co-Creation
Keywords: Decentralisation, Co-Creation, Participatory Curation, Audience Agency, Interactive Installation, Non-linear Space, Dynamic Display, Collective Text-Making, Art + Data Feedback
📌 Venue: Edinburgh College of Art (ECA) Main Building Lobby
Online Open Curatorial Platform (for voting and text interaction)
The online and offline components will be fully integrated. The exhibition is no longer limited to one location, but becomes a continually evolving space of shared creation.
🧭 Curatorial concept: How to embody “decentralization”?
1.🎨 Artists / Artworks
Participatory works by ECA CAP students
Community-sourced participatory artworks
All works require audience interaction to be completed. Here, the audience is not just a viewer, but a co-creator.
2.🗓 Duration
On-site exhibition: 7 days (updated daily based on audience contributions)
Online platform: Open for 14 days (for ongoing discussion, artwork submission, text gathering, feedback, and data collection)
We hope this mechanism of “daily change” encourages ongoing participation and allows the exhibition to breathe and grow.
3.🧭 Layout Without a Map
The exhibition will take place in the ECA main building lobby. We’ll abandon linear routes and create a rhizomatic layout—
Everyone navigates based on their own steps and emotions.
Coloured lines will be arranged on the floor. Audiences can name areas and pathways: some might call it the “Hallway of Tenderness,” while others rename it the “Unfinished Memory.”
Every name changes daily. Every line might mean something new tomorrow.
4.🎧 Sound as Resonance, Not Just Ambience
I imagined a corner called the “Sound Bazaar.”
You can put on headphones and hear stories left by others,
or press a button and record your feelings about a piece.
You can stay anonymous, or speak your name. It’s not a statement. It’s a connection.
These recordings will rotate daily, like a slowly growing radio programme,
curated by all of us, together.
5.🖋 Curatorial Text, Written by Everyone
There are no fixed labels or curator-written statements. Instead, each artwork will be paired with a QR code. Audience members can scan and use Woolclap, a free platform, to write their interpretation.
These words will be projected onto the wall in real-time, forming a flowing audience-generated language wall.
Some write stories, others memories, some just leave a single word.
All of it becomes the curatorial text—not the explanation, but the emotion.
6.🌀 The Audience as Installer and Meaning-Maker
Every three days, we’ll rearrange displays based on audience votes
Visitors can vote, comment, name sections, and actively participate in the works
The whole exhibition is a living system that evolves with interaction
I want to show that an exhibition is not a fixed space, but a network of ongoing relationships.
7.🧭 Curatorial Ethics
All audience contributions (voice/text) can be submitted anonymously or with credit
All content will go through moderation to avoid bias or harm
Data is used only for analysis and remains open-access, not for commercial use
While we decentralise curatorial power, we also build gentle and trustworthy boundaries.
🎤 Public Lecture: Who Gets to Define Curatorial Discourse?
We’ll host an open conversation titled “The Shift of Curatorial Power”, inviting lecturers, students, and visitors to join.
Our aim is to show:
Curatorial discourse can be redistributed. Audiences, participants, and creators all have the right to be producers of meaning.
♿Accessibility
Audio guides and bilingual (Chinese/English) interface
Quiet hours and low-sensory zones
Navigation and access co-designed with ECA students with disabilities
Multi-sensory experiences (sound and touch as alternatives to visuals)
We want everyone to enter the exhibition in their own way.
💹 Post-Exhibition Outputs
A collaboratively written Zine featuring audience-created curatorial texts, sold as a takeaway souvenir
A “Decentralised Art Market Trend Report” summarising voting results, feedback, and interaction data—offered as insight for artists and local institutions
Every vote, every comment, every interaction will be recorded, respected, and allowed to shine beyond the exhibition.
🗺 Timeline
Week
Activity
W1–W2
Concept development, artist open call, communication with CAP students and venue coordination
W3–W4
Platform building, tool testing, material preparation
W5
Installation and soft launch testing audience flow
W6
Full exhibition launch: daily interactions + data collection + co-creation processes
W7
Final wrap-up, Zine editing, and trend report compilation
💰 Budget
Item
Amount
Multimedia equipment
£400
Exhibition materials (fabric, lighting, etc.)
£300
Promotional materials
£150
Zine printing
£300
Artist transport + volunteer support
£200
Contingency fund
£200
📌 Tutorial Feedback & Next Steps
During this week’s tutorial, I received clear and constructive feedback from my tutor:
The venue has officially changed from FACT Liverpool to the ECA Main Building Lobby, which suits the participatory nature of my project better.
I need to list the names of participating artists, especially those from the CAP course.
Given the production demands and artist involvement, it was suggested that I slightly increase the budget to allow for artist fees and support.
My public programme should be expanded, with more detailed planning around outcomes and visitor experience.
I was also reminded to further develop the section on EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) and Ethics, especially considering audience co-creation and content moderation.
And finally, I must ensure that everything clearly aligns with the Learning Outcomes of the course.
These reminders helped me see the gaps in my current plan. I’m now revisiting the structure of my public events, adding clearer frameworks for things like the sound radio rotation, collaborative zine editing, and how the audience’s voice will be projected and documented across the space.
In the next blog, I’ll begin filling in those details—step by step～
💡 This week’s key words: Co-creation, decentralization, curatorial responsibility
🌱 Curatorial team Progress: lucky number 11:11
This week, our curatorial group finally has an official name—11:11 ✨! The inspiration for this name came from one of my personal quirks—I always see 11:11 as a lucky moment. When I realized that our group had exactly 11 members, the name just felt right!
Why 11:11?
In the occult, 11:11 is known as an angelic number, symbolizing good luck, inspiration, and guidance.
The name reflects our vision for curating—we want to create an open, positive, and collaborative atmosphere, where everyone’s ideas can shine and contribute to something greater.
Curating is not just about exhibitions, it is about co-creation between people, and our group itself is an experimental space for collective growth.
My friend Yiran Gu and I both felt it was a great idea, so we brought it up to the group! 🎉
In addition, I helped further refine the group’s Mission Statement, which I proposed: “Curating for the Future”
Curation is responsibility. From material selection to energy consumption, we integrate Sustainability into our curatorial practices, ensuring that our exhibitions are not only conceptually forward-looking, but also operationally consistent with environmental justice principles.
🚀 Personal curatorial project progress:
In terms of personal curatorial projects, I continue the vision of last week and continue to promote the research of Decentralized Curation. The focus of this week is to make my curatorial ideas more specific, gradually from concept to practice! 💡
🔍 What’s Next?
1️⃣ Deepen research on curatorial models based on blockchain
This week’s reading of Rugg & Sedgwick’s (2007) Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance, which explores how curatorial power structures affect audience experience, got me thinking further:
Does decentralized curation really empower the audience, or is it just a “democratizing” strategy for curators?
At the same time, I’m looking at the case of the Zien Foundation, which uses the NFT to let the audience vote directly on the content of the exhibition, rather than the curators alone. This model is enlightening, but it also makes me wonder if “co-curating” is really fair. Or will it be dominated by economic capital?
2️⃣ Outline the exhibition layout & interactive tools
This week, I started thinking about how to make the audience really become part of the exhibition.
How can technology improve interaction? I studied Refik Anadol’s AI-generated curatorial experiment and wondered if AI could be a “digital curator” to help visitors generate a personalized exhibition experience.
How does NFT fit into the exhibition? I hope that every decision of the exhibition can be recorded on the blockchain, forming a “Living Archive”, so that curation is no longer static, but a process of continuous evolution.
🖼 Exhibition visit: Glasgow Kendall Koppe Gallery
This week I went to Glasgow to see The sun and the sun’s reflection at Kendall Koppe Gallery.
Rather than the exhibition itself, I am more interested in how it presents time, memory and longing. The exhibition raises an intriguing question:
Is memory a comfort or a constraint?
Is our obsession with the past an attempt to find ourselves, or an escape from reality?
The exhibition made me think about the other side of Archival Curation – curation is often the reproduction of history and memory, but if we have been immersed in memories, will we miss new possibilities? It also made me reflect:
Can my concept of “fluid curation” make the exhibition free from the “burden of the past” and become a space that is always evolving? 🤯
📌 Key Focus for Next Week
1.Continue to deepen the research on decentralized curation, especially the interactive model co-created by NFT and the audience.
2.Design interactive aspects of the exhibition, such as allowing the audience to vote on the content of the exhibition.
3.Explore the role of AI in curating and test the curatorial relationship between curator, audience and AI.
Bibliography
Rosen, Aaron. 2021. “The Impact of NFTs on the Art Market: A Decentralized Approach.” Art Market Journal 15 (2): 45–58.
Smith, John, and Emily Johnson. 2022. “Decentralized Curation: How Blockchain is Transforming Art Exhibitions.” Journal of Digital Art Economies 4 (1): 29–52.
Thompson, Sarah. 2023. “NFTs and the Democratization of Art Ownership.” Cultural Policy Review 12 (3): 112–117.
Williams, Mark, and Laura Stevens. 2024. “Challenges and Opportunities in Decentralized Art Curation.” On Curating 56: 78–95.
Brown, David. 2025. “Top Auction Houses Courted the Crypto Crew — Is It Enough to Save Them?” Financial Times, January 22, 2025.
(The photographer of the event photos: Yiran Gu)
(Miro process map – team discussion and emotional mapping Screenshot from team Miro board, March 2025. Author: Team archive.)
（Gallery: Transmission Gallery, Glasgow）
🌊 My Exhibition Is Not a “Finished Product,” But a Flowing Relationship
