About Knowledge

This week, through a workshop led by James Clegg (curator at Talbot Rice Gallery), we experienced the challenge of planning an exhibition. The session also included a lecture on Curatorial Ethics delivered by Gabi. Overall, the learning content focused on two major themes: curatorial decision-making under fast-paced practice, and the ethical framework behind curatorial work.

James’ workshop was really interesting — he asked us to quickly devise an exhibition plan, considering goals, budget, venue layout, and promotional strategy all in one go. This kind of fast-paced exercise made me realize that curating is not just about “thinking slowly”; it is also a form of decision-making training, about making the best choices under limited resources. Meanwhile, in Gabi’s lecture on curatorial ethics, I was introduced more systematically for the first time to Jean-Paul Martinon’s concept of Curating as Ethics and Maura Reilly’s call for Curatorial Activism. Curating is not merely about organizing exhibitions; it also means responding consciously to social and political environments.

About the Discussion

One thing that struck me deeply in the class discussion was the idea that “curating is not an irresponsible choice.”
I used to think that as long as the artworks were good and the exhibitions looked nice, that would be enough. But through this week’s learning, I started to reflect on questions like:

• Who are we ignoring or prioritizing during the curatorial process?

• Are we unconsciously reinforcing certain structures of cultural power?

• Are there hidden injustices in the use of public resources?

About Our Group

In the end, our group was named 11:11, which I think is a pretty nice name — probably. But I still want to record here in my blog the group name I had secretly thought of (not because I didn’t have the courage to say it out loud at the time, but because I genuinely cracked myself up with it).

My group name proposal was: F-artworld.

After all, we are all in the artworld, and F could stand for many things: Fictional, Fantastic, Feminist, Free, Fine… but together with “artworld” it would spell Fartworld* ! Of course, I would never have seriously proposed such a vulgar name in public — but it felt too funny not to immortalize it somewhere, like here in my blog.

About My Project

This week, I had my first relatively practical imagination of what my Individual Curatorial Project could look like. James’ workshop really gave me a reminder.
I decided to abandon my previous idea of a “two-person room” concept, because the legal risks and operational difficulties were too high, and it carried an unavoidable manipulative aspect. Although some argue that curating should present conflict and discomfort rather than smoothing them over (Rogoff, 2008), I felt that this project would have too much potential to cause harm to participants, which doesn’t align with what I hope to achieve.

I want to take a more feasible, more conservative curatorial approach.
Right now, I am thinking about curating an exhibition related to video games. They are naturally interactive — I could simply place the machines there and let visitors play. But I still want to maintain a critical perspective: video games don’t always bring pure joy; their development is also tied to negative expressions, unhealthy mechanisms, and extreme ideologies.

Budget is a concern. But I feel that listing out a budget won’t be too difficult. Many vintage consoles are still available on eBay, and maybe rental could even be an option?

—–

Reference

• Rogoff, I. (2008). Turning. In P. O’Neill & M. Wilson (Eds.), Curating and the Educational Turn (pp. 88-92). Open Editions.

About Knowledge

This week’s class focused on further refining our curatorial directions. The lecturer emphasized that it was not necessary to finalize our projects immediately, but rather to express our current state of thinking and identify existing problems and gaps. During the lecture, particular attention was given to the potential ethical issues that may arise when participatory or relational curatorial practices involve vulnerable communities. We were encouraged to think critically about the nature of interaction, the design of spaces, and the psychological changes participants might experience in different situations. Claire Bishop’s article Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics was recommended as an important reference for understanding the tensions between artistic intention and real-world interactions.

About the Discussion

During the discussion, I noticed that many classmates, including myself, are still in the exploratory stage of developing our curatorial projects. Yiran Gu proposed a project focused on the West District of Edinburgh, which I found interesting, as it overlaps with some of the core concerns in my own project. However, I also noticed a potential flaw in his plan: by organizing visits to homeless shelters, the original sense of “danger” might be neutralized. The psychological experience of entering alone is completely different from entering as part of an organized group. As Lefebvre points out, space is practiced through bodily experience, and different modes of entry shape distinct perceptions and emotions (Lefebvre 1991). Adam also raised potential ethical issues, suggesting that the project could cause emotional distress for the homeless community. Both of these points made me reconsider similar challenges that might arise in my own curatorial plan. Sarah suggested that I refer to Marina Abramović’s projects, while Adam recommended I learn about Gregor Schneider. Based on my initial understanding, Abramović tends to create provocative situations, while Schneider focuses more on the construction of the space itself. Perhaps I could try to combine both approaches, which would also align with some of the ideas I formed during Week 1.

The Artist Is Present, Marina Abramović(2010)

About My Project

This week’s discussion on experimental spaces and the relationship with audience psychology provided me with new insights. My current curatorial idea is to design a small room that can only accommodate two people, with a set locking time. People nearby would be invited to bring strangers into the room, where free drinks would be provided. Each participant would be informed that there are individuals nearby with histories of violent crimes, who have already served their sentences, and their crime summaries would be displayed in the exhibition area. In other words, the strangers participants invite could potentially include these ex-offenders.
Through this setup, I hope to construct an experimental space that oscillates between trust and unease, encouraging participants to reflect on issues of social acceptance, violent crime, and the criminal justice system within a highly intimate yet psychologically tense environment. This design attempts to respond to the class discussion about how spatial environments impact psychological states, and reminds me that I must pay special attention to how the exhibition setting influences audience emotions and reactions.
At present, I am not entirely certain whether this project fully meets the final assessment requirements. However, to make the curatorial plan more specific, I can start with the following research:

1.  How can I find ex-offenders willing to participate? How can I convince them?

2. What legal risks might be involved? Are there any ethical concerns?

3. How should the small room mechanism be designed? Is the incentive to enter sufficient? Can the scene be effectively visualized?

—–

References (Chicago Author-Date style)

• Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell.

• Schneider, Gregor. 2001. Totes Haus u r (Dead House u r). Exhibition, German Pavilion, 49th Venice Biennale.

• Abramović, Marina. 2010. The Artist Is Present. Exhibition, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

About Knowledge

This week, the course introduced the concept of Mapping the Field in curatorial practice. The content focused on how to understand power structures and historical narratives within contemporary curatorial practice, particularly exploring the Centre-Periphery model, the importance of Collectives, and ways to critically assess different art organisations and platforms. The class also continued the idea of “authentic learning” introduced in Week 1: emphasising that curating is not just an individual artistic conception, but a process that requires social interaction and collective decision-making.

About Discussion

In the class discussion, Emily pointed out the importance of individual equality, which sparked a lot of reflection for me. Many of my former classmates and colleagues were admirers of Max Weber. We were used to a leader-member structure. Usually, in the institutions I worked for in China, the more formal the organisation, the more obvious the hierarchy — leadership often combined elements of tradition, legal authority, and charisma.

This kind of self-organisation could quickly mobilise resources to push tasks forward. Younger people, however, seem more willing to accept what Uhl-Bien, Mary (2017) describes as relational leadership. From my own life experience, I believe that responsibility does not have to be equally distributed — if you are willing to take on more responsibility, you gain more power, and thus become a leader.
But Scottish society seems to have a broader social contract, placing stronger emphasis on keeping rights and responsibilities as equal as possible. Reflecting on my past experiences in collective collaboration, I realised that although traditional hierarchical systems can improve efficiency to some extent — for example, by resolving disputes through quick decision-making — in the context of Edinburgh, where inclusion and dialogue are valued, creating an open and equal space for discussion better fits contemporary curatorial ideals.
Perhaps leadership is not a position but a dynamic process constantly generated through social interaction, highlighting collaborative networks rather than hierarchical commands (Raelin, Joseph A, 2016).
This made me feel a bit uneasy, because I was afraid that using my old way of thinking might offend others — especially since most of my group members are women (it’s… very subtle).

This model, which does not rely on constructing order but is based on real feedback, made me realise that Collaborative Learning itself is a small anti-capitalist practice — exchanging labour directly for labour, instead of trading through power or prestige.
It seems built upon: Collective Working, Visual Collaboration, and Reflective Feedback.
So when Adam set up a shared document on Miro, I thought it was a great idea.

About My Project

This week, I gained a clearer foundational understanding of my future Individual Curatorial Project. Through reading and class discussions, I confirmed that I now grasp the difference between Contemporary Curating and traditional museum exhibitions.
However, new questions also came up, such as:
Do I need to consider funding, resources, and legal issues for my curatorial plan?
I am not Scottish, nor do I have British nationality — am I even eligible to carry out a curatorial project here?
When applying for funding, will I face particular restrictions because of my status?
Also, what scale of curatorial project would be considered appropriate for our current stage (student level)?

—–

References

• Enwezor, Okwui. 2002. The Black Box: Documenta 11_Platform5: Exhibition Catalogue. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.

• Herrington, Jan, and Ron Oliver. 2000. “An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning Environments.” Educational Technology Research and Development 48 (3): 23–48.

• Obrist, Hans Ulrich. 2014. Ways of Curating. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Smith, Terry. 2012. Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International.