1.Watch tutor Gabi’s reflections and thoughts on the lecture on curatorial ethics
Curatorial ethics are not fixed norms, but rather a sense of judgement and responsibility that is constantly being generated in concrete practice. As an activity that is both practical and theoretical, the ethics of independent curation is always in a state of ‘being formed’. As curator Mirjami Schuppert says: ‘We cannot know what impact our decisions will have on many people. Only a few people are present at the moment a decision is made.’ (Schuppert, 2021, p. 12). This suggests that curating is not an authoritative, one-way process, but a process involving the unknown, negotiation and a sense of responsibility.
Curatorial ethics primarily involve the rights and creative freedom of artists. In her reflection on the unpaid project she once led, Schuppert pointed out: ‘Despite the lack of funding from industry institutions, curators cannot shift all the responsibility to the system and should be responsible for the situation of artists.’ (Schuppert, 2021) This echoes artist Nan Goldin’s protest against the National Portrait Gallery in London’s acceptance of controversial funding. She refused to exhibit her work, questioning how the system conceals exploitative and morally bankrupt partnerships (Walters and Thorpe, 2019).
Second, curatorial ethics also includes consideration of the audience’s physical and perceptual state. Olafur Eliasson’s exhibition at Tate Modern was criticised for the inaccessibility of his mirrored installation Your Helical Perspective to wheelchair users (Shaw, 2019). This revealed an institutional neglect and prompted us to rethink: how does space create exclusion? Do curatorial choices genuinely consider the right of all to see? Can ‘the curator’s choice’ still be an excuse to avoid responsibility?
Moreover, ethics also lie in who and what is represented. Reilly suggests that ‘many curators are developing strategies to respond to the long-suppressed and erased voices of artists.’ (Reilly, 2018, p. 215) This is not ‘affirmative action,’ but ‘intelligent curation.’ It means that curators not only need to show diversity but also reflect on their own role in representation to avoid ‘visual recolonisation.’ In Documenta and the Venice Biennale, curators have included their partners in the exhibition, which has stimulated public debate on the ethics of nepotism and professional boundaries (Perison and Halperin, 2017) – who defines the power of representation and on what basis?
In addition, curatorial ethics are also reflected in ‘reflectiveness’. Curation is about both things and people: it is about emotional labour, collective collaboration and caring mechanisms. As Elke Krasny and Lara Perry put it, ‘curating is caring’, which advocates for curation to be seen as an ethical practice that is anti-capitalist and anti-sexist, a practice that emphasises ‘unifying care and concern.’ (Krasny and Perry, 2023) This is in line with independent curator George Vasey’s statement: ‘All forms of creative practice are interdependent.’ (Vasey, 2020) The subject of curation is not an isolated ‘free individual,’ but a social role that is constantly negotiating and giving feedback.
The institutional embeddedness of curatorial ethics should also not be ignored. Whether it is the controversy over corporate sponsorship by BP or the Sackler family (Siddique, 2023; Walters and Thorpe, 2019) or the resignation of Alistair Hudson over the exhibition ‘Standing with Palestine’ (ArtReview, 2022), it reflects the fact that curators are always faced with the choice between institutional pressure, political risk and moral conviction. As global curating tends towards ‘activism’ and ‘public intervention’, we cannot avoid a fundamental question:
Ethics are never abstract, but always specific to a particular political situation.
Therefore, we should not regard ethics as a set of rules imposed on curating, but rather recognise it as an integral part of curating itself, a fundamental issue in every decision, every communication and every collaboration. Ultimately, curatorial ethics is a way of ‘how we live with others’.
References:
ArtReview (2022) ‘Alistair Hudson moves to ZKM Karlsruhe after forced Whitworth resignation’, ArtReview, 18 July.
Krasny, E. and Perry, L. (2023) ‘Introduction’, in Curating With Care. Oxford: Routledge.
Perison, H. and Halperin, J. (2017) ‘The Curators of Documenta and the Venice Biennale Both Included Their Lovers. Should We Care?’, Artnet News, 18 May.
Reilly, M. (2018) Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics of Curating. London: Thames & Hudson.
Schuppert, M. (2021) ‘Learning to Say No: The Ethics of Artist-Curator Relationships’, Philosophies, 6(16).
Shaw, A. (2019) ‘Wheelchair user blasts Olafur Eliasson show at Tate Modern over rampless work’, The Art Newspaper, 12 August.
Siddique, H. (2023) ‘National Portrait Gallery criticized over the choice of sponsor to replace BP’, The Guardian, 13 November.
Vasey, G. (2020) ‘A brief guide to interdependent curating’, Freelands Foundation, Vimeo, 9 November.
Walters, J. and Thorpe, V. (2019) ‘Nan Goldin threatens London Gallery boycott over £1m gift from Sackler fund’, The Observer, 17 February.
2. Literature research related to the background of my curatorial theme
The double bind of Asian women: family and work
Inspired by these two books,‘ working and Mothering in Asia: Images Ideologies and Identities and ‘Gender and Family in East Asia’, taking East Asian society as an example, in the process of modernisation, women’s educational attainment has improved and their economic independence has increased, but they still face institutional difficulties in marriage, parenting and the workplace. Although the government has attempted to improve women’s work-life balance through social policies (such as birth incentives, parental leave, and childcare services), these policies have reinforced women’s maternal responsibilities rather than liberated them due to the deep-rooted nature of social culture (especially the culture of motherhood).
Policy and culture: maternal responsibilities are institutionalised. Government policies ostensibly support women, but in reality, reinforce maternal responsibilities.
The book ’Gender and Family in East Asia ’ says: ‘The Japanese government has introduced ‘family-friendly’ policies (parental leave, childcare subsidies), but workplace culture has not changed, and women are still expected to take on childcare responsibilities.’ The book ’ Working and Mothering in Asia: Images Ideologies and Identities’ says: ‘Asian governments have tried to increase birth rates through fertility incentives, but have not changed the traditional view that ‘the mother is the primary caregiver.’ This reflects the hypocrisy of government policies. For example, childcare subsidies and childcare services in Japan and South Korea actually encourage women to return to the home, rather than truly promote gender equality. China’s ‘three-child policy’ attempts to increase the birth rate, but the lack of job security puts more pressure on women to bear children. These policies still implicitly assume that ‘childcare is the responsibility of the mother,’ and the absence of men’s family roles reinforces gender inequality. If policies do not challenge patriarchal structures, women will continue to be institutionally pushed back into their maternal roles and will not be able to truly choose their own career development.
Inequality in the workplace: women find it difficult to balance career and family
Motherhood culture has resulted in women’s disadvantaged position in the workplace. According to Gender and Family in East Asia, even though Japanese women are highly educated, they still face wage gender gaps and barriers to promotion in the workplace.
‘working and mothering in Asia’ says that the Asian workplace is still male-centric, and women are forced to take up part-time jobs and lose opportunities for career growth. So how does the ‘glass ceiling’ in the workplace hinder women? First, the trap of part-time work: many Asian women are forced to take part-time jobs (such as Japan’s ‘contract-based work’) after giving birth, which leads to a stagnation of their career development. There is also the gender pay gap: women’s wages are much lower than men’s in the long run because they have to take time out of the work force due to childcare responsibilities. Then there is the motherhood penalty: even if a childcare leave system exists, workplace culture still believes that women’s work ability decreases after giving birth, and they are reluctant to promote them. For example, in Japan, 60% of women are forced to quit their jobs and switch to part-time work after giving birth (data from ‘Gender and Family in East Asia’). Women in South Korea face a serious glass ceiling, and the proportion of women in management is much lower than in European and American countries. Although parental leave exists in China, there is widespread discrimination against ‘women of childbearing age’ in the workplace, making it difficult for them to find stable jobs.
Motherhood, capitalism and unpaid labour: women are exploited
How does capitalism exploit the culture of motherhood to make women ‘invisible workers’? ‘Gender and Family in East Asia’ argues that Japanese mothers are expected to raise ‘high-quality children’ and that the cost of family education is almost entirely privatised. ‘working and mothering in Asia: images ideologies and identities’ says that Asian women’s ‘unpaid family labour’ is taken for granted, but is actually a capitalist exploitation strategy. So how is motherly labour exploited by the economic system?First, there is the invisible exploitation of unpaid labour: women shoulder a large amount of domestic labour (housekeeping, childcare), but this is never factored into the economic system. Second, there is the investment in education and the ‘maternal duty’: mothers are expected to invest a lot of resources in their children’s education, which reduces their economic independence. Third, there is the collaboration between capitalism and patriarchy: by strengthening the ‘maternal culture’, the capitalist system can continue to exploit female labour without providing any economic compensation.
References:
Devasahayam, Theresa W., and Brenda SA Yeoh, eds. Working and mothering in Asia: Images, ideologies and identities. No. 1. Nus Press, 2007.
Tam, Siumi Maria, Wai Ching Angela Wong, and Danning Wang. Gender and family in East Asia. Routledge, 2014.
Leave a Reply