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.
Hanyun Xue / Curating (2024-2025)[SEM2]

Tag: Decentralisation

Blog 6 – Ethics & Inclusion | Whose Voices Count?

By

On 13 April 2025

In ✨ Individual Curatorial Project: Fluid Curating

W4 (Curatorial Ethics), W9 (Methods), W10 (Publics)

I started with a question:
Whose voices do we trust enough to let them shape the exhibition?

Consent, Not Contribution

In participatory curation, asking for input isn’t enough. We need to ask: how is that input used, attributed, stored, reshaped?

Visitors to Fluid Curating can share interpretations through the Woolclap platform, leave voice notes at the sound wall, or write directly onto the co-authored curatorial wall. But before any of these are made public—whether projected, printed, or posted—I offer clear options for anonymity, attribution, and withdrawal.
No voice enters the archive without its owner’s choice.

This principle draws on Gevers’ idea of “curating as context” (2013), where creating interpretive space includes creating consent space. It’s not about gathering stories for effect—it’s about constructing frameworks where stories can live with dignity and on their own terms.

Inclusion Isn’t Atmosphere—It’s Infrastructure

Too often, exhibitions proclaim inclusivity as a tone.
I wanted mine to reflect it in the structure.

Following the lessons of Fletcher and Pierce’s Paraeducation Department (2010), I’ve looked at Fluid Curating as a platform where knowledge doesn’t flow in one direction. Working with students in TESOL, Inclusive Design, and Art Education, we’ve translated key exhibition content into multiple languages, created tactile signage, and provided verbal cue cards for blind or low-vision participants.

We also installed “quiet time”—pathways with minimal audio and movement, to allow neurodivergent visitors more time and space. Participation isn’t timed by the exhibition’s speed; it unfolds at the visitor’s own rhythm. As DisplayCult (2016) argue, affective experience is a form of labour. So this exhibition makes space for rest, silence, and slower modes of meaning-making.

Home [www.victoriesnautism.com]

( Example of multilingual verbal cue cards)

Publics Are Not Pre-Defined

Simon Sheikh (2010) reminds us that exhibitions don’t merely reflect publics—they produce them. This idea reframed how I saw my responsibility.

Rather than trying to imagine one singular “ideal audience,” I thought about what it means to hold space for unplanned publics: the passerby, the hesitant, the first-timer, the child, the migrant visitor.

Each contribution is a potential act of authorship—not simply commentary. And that shifts the ethics. If we honour those inputs, we also honour the role of the curator as listener, not just organiser. That’s why I built Woolclap around anonymous entries and multilingual response portals. These aren’t decoration. They are architecture.

Why This Matters

Martinon (2013) describes the role of curators as those who refuse to totalise meaning. That’s the ethics I’m drawn to—not just inclusion as presence, but inclusion as epistemic permission.

So in Fluid Curating, every ethical decision—whether it’s signage design or story ownership—emerges from one belief:
No voice should have to ask for permission to be part of the conversation.

Citations

  • Beech, Dave. 2010. “Weberian Lessons: Art, Pedagogy and Managerialism.” In Curating and the Educational Turn, edited by Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson, 47–60. London: Open Editions / Amsterdam: De Appel.

  • DisplayCult (Jim Drobnick and Jennifer Fisher). 2016. “Curating the City: Collectioneering and the Affects of Display.” In The Artist as Curator, edited by Celina Jeffery, 151–68. Bristol: Intellect.

  • Fletcher, Annie, and Sarah Pierce. 2010. “Introduction to The Paraeducation Department.” In Curating and the Educational Turn, edited by Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson, 198–99. London: Open Editions / Amsterdam: De Appel.

  • Gevers, Ine. 2013. “Curating: The Art of Creating Contexts.” In The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating, edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, 217–26. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Jeffery, Celina. 2016. “Introduction: The Artist as Curator.” In The Artist as Curator, edited by Celina Jeffery, 1–20. Bristol: Intellect.

  • Martinon, Jean-Paul. 2013. “Becoming-Curator.” In The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating, edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, 69–81. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • O’Neill, Paul, and Mick Wilson, eds. 2015. Curating and the Educational Turn. London: Black Dog Publishing.

  • Sheikh, Simon. 2010. “Letter to Jane (Investigation of a Function).” In Curating and the Educational Turn, edited by Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson, 70–71. London: Open Editions / Amsterdam: De Appel.

Blog 2 – Curatorial Thinking & Theoretical Framework｜Decentralisation Is a Practice, Not a Concept

By

On 12 April 2025

In ✨ Individual Curatorial Project: Fluid Curating

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 6 seminar 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.

The Artist as Curator: An Anthology – Almine Rech Editions

（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.

Blog 1 – Project Title & Narrative｜From Authority to Co-Creation: Why I Curate “Fluidly”

By

On 12 April 2025

In ✨ Individual Curatorial Project: Fluid Curating

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.

Week 10（2） | Expanding the Concept of “Fluid Curating” 

By

On 30 March 2025

In ✨ Individual Curatorial Project: Fluid Curating

🌊 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～

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel