This week, I further developed critical aspects of my Expanded Cinema project, focusing on audience feedback mechanisms, equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI) and ethics considerations, and a detailed production and public timeline.

Audience Feedback Mechanisms

In The Living Screen exhibition, the audience moves beyond mere participation; they become co-creators of cinematic narratives. To support this agency, I designed the following feedback systems:

• Individual Feedback｜Movement Path Replay
  After completing the experience, visitors can scan a QR code onsite to access a personal interface showcasing their movement paths (such as raising hands, turning, crouching) and the triggered cinematic responses. Each participant can view and download their personalized one-minute short film. This system invites visitors to reflect on how their physical gestures dynamically shaped narrative structures (Proposal, 2025).

• Community Feedback｜Ongoing Narrative Community
  An open online community (e.g., Discord, WeChat) will be established, inviting participants to share their generated short films, creative edits (GIFs, screenshots), and engage in dialogue on topics such as “How does narrative agency change your way of seeing?”. This strategy transforms the project from a one-off exhibition into a growing storytelling ecosystem (Proposal, 2025).

Through these strategies, the feedback system embodies the Expanded Cinema ethos where “behavior itself becomes language” (Youngblood, 1970), and extends the experience into a continuous narrative afterlife (Huhtamo, 2015).

EDI and Ethics Reflection

Informed by ECA’s EDI policy (ECA, 2023), the ethics lecture, and my personal ethics manifesto, the project actively integrates the following considerations:

• Physical Diversity and Accessibility
  All interactive gestures (raising hands, turning, crouching) are intentionally simple and adaptable for diverse physical abilities. Venue layouts guarantee wheelchair accessibility and unblocked pathways (Proposal, 2025).

• Cultural and Linguistic Inclusivity
  All instructional materials combine plain English with universal pictograms to minimize linguistic barriers. Prompt cards use poetic, open-ended language to respect cultural differences and maintain openness (Proposal, 2025).

• Safeguarding Young and Vulnerable Audiences
  Although the project does not specifically target minors, it adheres to safeguarding protocols based on Creating Safety: Child Protection in the Arts guidelines, including procedures for parental consent where needed (Children in Scotland, 2023).

• Respect for Copyright and Intellectual Property
  All media used (video, sound) is either original, properly licensed, or used under educational fair use, with clear crediting. A contingency for licensing fees has been included in the project budget (Proposal, 2025).

The project adheres to a fundamental ethical framework emphasizing voluntary participation, anonymous interaction, and non-punitive engagement, ensuring that immersive interaction remains empowering and respectful (Ascott, 2003).

Project Timeline and Public Schedule

Aligned with production and budgetary planning, the following schedule has been developed (Proposal, 2025):

Public-Facing Schedule:

• 24 May, 14:00–18:00｜Exhibition Opening and Curatorial Introduction

• 25 May, 13:00–15:00｜Workshop: Body as Editor: Gesture and Nonlinear Narrative

• 26 May, 14:00–16:00｜Artist Talk and Q&A Session

• 27–29 May, 11:00–13:00｜Optional Guided Tours

• 30 May, 14:00–16:00｜Closing and Audience Feedback Event

The timeline ensures a balance between setup, audience accessibility, public programming, and sufficient safety margins, fully compliant with University health and safety regulations (Proposal, 2025).

References (Harvard style)

• Ascott, R. (2003) Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness. Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Children in Scotland (2023) Creating Safety: Child Protection in the Arts. Available at: [https://childreninscotland.org.uk/creating-safety-child-protection-in-the-arts/] (Accessed: 28 April 2025).

• Edinburgh College of Art (2023) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policy. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

• Huhtamo, E. (2015) ‘Expanded Cinema’, in Elwes, C. (ed.) Installation and the Moving Image. New York: Columbia University Press, Chapter 9.

• Proposal (2025) The Living Screen: An Expanded Cinema of Behaviour, Jiyun Zhang. Internal project document.

• Youngblood, G. (1970) Expanded Cinema. New York: Dutton.

This week marked a turning point in my curatorial thinking through two key collective activities: our group visit to Summerhall and the peer review session. Both provided critical momentum for the development of my individual project, “The One Behind the Door”, a dynamic Expanded Cinema installation where audiences shape narrative sequences through bodily interaction.

1. Summerhall Visit: Rethinking Space and Audience Behaviour

Visiting Summerhall, with its historically layered, semi-domestic yet labyrinthine spaces, profoundly expanded how I imagined the spatial experience of my project .

Unlike the clinical white cubes often associated with contemporary exhibitions, Summerhall’s warm, unpredictable architecture emphasized how space itself conditions audience movement — an insight crucial to my installation, where bodily motion edits the cinematic flow.

Specifically:

• Observing the informal room transitions and textured surfaces made me realize that my original design of clean-cut projection spaces risked feeling too sterile. Inspired by Summerhall’s spatial intimacy, I now plan to allow subtle architectural irregularities (partial walls, layered fabrics, uneven lighting) to create a more immersive filmic world.
• I also noticed how visitors intuitively explored — lingering at thresholds, peeking through doorways, hesitating before entering darker spaces.

These micro-movements mirror exactly the kind of instinctive bodily “editing” that my installation seeks to trigger. It affirmed that audiences can perform intuitive cinematic thinking without needing explicit instruction, aligning with Grammel’s emphasis on open-ended curatorial structures (Grammel, 2010).

2. Peer Review Session: Critical Feedback on Audience Experience and Narrative Density

During our peer review workshop, I presented the core concept of my project and received valuable feedback from classmates.

Positive Reinforcements:

• Many peers found the concept of the body as the editing tool exciting and immediately graspable without verbal explanation. This validated my commitment to non-verbal Expanded Cinema trusting physical intuition (Mulvey, 2011).
• There was strong support for the idea of a “cold start fragment” — encountering an unresolved cinematic scene on entry — as emotionally engaging.

Critical Challenges:

• Some concerns arose that feedback between action and image might feel too abstract or slow for general audiences. As a result, I plan to embed more immediate audiovisual micro-feedback (small sound cues, flickering subtitles) for even minimal body movements.
• Others questioned whether narrative coherence would be too elusive. Reflecting on suggestions, I aim to structure action-emotion mappings more clearly, inspired by films like The Holy Mountain (1973) for mythic narrative rhythms (Jodorowsky, 1973).

3. The Collective Dynamic: Beyond Individual Reflection

The informal flower arrangement and tarot card sessions also profoundly influenced my thinking.

Watching classmates intuitively collaborate, exchange flowers, and interpret imagery reminded me that audiences often learn from each other in shared spaces. This affirmed my plan for a “Layered Experience Model” in the exhibition: a free exploration zone for peer observation before entering the high-immersion zone.

Thus, collective activities reinforced that:

• Curating designs encounters not only between artworks and individuals, but between individuals themselves (O’Neill, 2012).
• Expanded Cinema can operate both individually and socially — bodies influencing one another’s perception of cinematic space.

Conclusion

In sum, both the visit to Summerhall and the peer review workshop significantly advanced my project by making me rethink the nuances of space, action feedback, and collective behaviours. They demonstrated that meaning in Expanded Cinema emerges not only from technical systems but from the unpredictable, often beautiful ways audiences respond, hesitate, imitate, and act together.

As I continue refining The One Behind the Door, I am committed to designing an experience that is structurally open but emotionally resonant — where audiences co-author their cinematic experiences through their own movements and intuitions.

References

• Grammel, S. (2010) ‘On the Curatorial’, in Curating and the Educational Turn. London: Open Editions.
• Jodorowsky, A. (1973) The Holy Mountain [Film]. Mexico: ABKCO Films.
• Mulvey, L. (2011) ‘Cinematic Time and the Moveable Image’, Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, 52(1), pp. 34-45.
• O’Neill, P. (2012) The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Here is my SICP:

Proposal Jiyun Zhang s2654609

Introduction
Qianhan Pan’s curatorial research demonstrates a thoughtful, critically engaged exploration of material memory and cultural transmission. Her exhibition concept “Trace and Transmission” at Summerhall, alongside the blog development, shows strong alignment with contemporary curatorial practices, and offers a cohesive dialogue between materiality, temporality, and participatory engagement.

Strengths
A significant strength of this project lies in its curatorial clarity and theoretical underpinning. The theme of trace and material memory is consistently developed across the choice of artworks, space design, and audience engagement strategies. Particularly commendable is how the exhibition draws on both traditional crafts and contemporary participatory practices, creating a multi-sensory, historically layered experience.

The integration of artists such as Geyi Huang and Ayaan Ahmed demonstrates an astute curatorial eye for material processes and social narratives. Moreover, the layout plan, ethical considerations, and public programming (e.g., Daily Artist Sharing) indicate a well-rounded understanding of audience experience and inclusivity.

Qianhan’s critical reflection is evident in her independent research, such as references to Mick Wilson and Paul O’Neill’s educational turn, and Brian Hatton’s concept of looping time. This theoretical engagement enriches her curatorial positioning and aligns strongly with Learning Outcome #3.

Suggestions for Development
While the project’s conceptual coherence is strong, there are opportunities to enhance the methodological depth:

• The participatory element around Matree, Patree could be further theorized. How might audience interventions themselves become archival material or traces, extending the project’s conceptual frame?

• The ethical discussion is thoughtful but could benefit from a brief mention of how consent and anonymity will be practically managed during the participatory moments (e.g., signage, guidance for participants).

• The budget is realistic, but public engagement (£400) could be broken down more specifically (e.g., materials for workshops, accessibility accommodations), which would further strengthen feasibility.

In addition, while the proposed publication project is exciting, further clarification on how it might circulate post-exhibition (e.g., digital distribution, community libraries) would strengthen the idea of extending the “trace” beyond the physical exhibition.

Questions for Further Reflection

• How does the curatorial strategy differentiate between preserving memory and actively transforming it?

• In what ways might the traces created during the exhibition (e.g., audience interventions, conversations) themselves become future curatorial material?

Conclusion
Overall, Qianhan Pan presents a deeply reflective and materially sensitive curatorial project. “Trace and Transmission” successfully interweaves historical consciousness with contemporary engagement, offering audiences an intimate and participatory encounter with cultural memory. Minor clarifications in practical delivery could further enhance an already compelling and critically grounded proposal.

Initial Problem Awareness

When planning The One Behind the Door, I quickly encountered a fundamental contradiction:
Cinema is inherently temporal and sequential; exhibition spaces are fluid and open-ended.
This contradiction raised several critical curatorial questions:

• Should visitors enter at specific times to follow the narrative, or can they join freely?

• If multiple visitors are present simultaneously, how should the interactive system prioritize responses? Who is the projection “serving” at any moment?

• Should the space be organized as free-flowing or individual/small-group immersive sessions? Could a hybrid model work?

• How can I control the technical and production budget while ensuring a high-quality immersive experience?

• Which gestures should be recognized? How should interaction trigger narrative fragments and short film generation?

These tensions between conceptual aspirations and operational realities shaped the entire curatorial development process.

Final Space and Experience Model

After multiple rounds of adjustment, I chose a hybrid model, separating the exhibition into different zones, each operating with distinct modes but complementing each other.

📸 Insert suggestion 1: Here you can add a simple space layout sketch (showing A and B zones only after C’s cancellation).

Why a hybrid model?

• A Zone offers depth and reserved immersive experiences.

• B Zone lowers the barrier, enabling spontaneous, lighter engagement.

• C Zone was originally intended to visualize the process, but later removed to maintain focus and save production costs.

• D Zone was merged into A Zone’s entrance to create a natural narrative build-up without needing a separate waiting space.

This arrangement maintains Expanded Cinema’s emphasis on narrative flow while accommodating the unpredictability of exhibition audiences.

Budget and Technical Strategy

Given the project’s limited budget, I designed a strictly controlled and practical technical setup:

📸 Insert suggestion 2: Insert a budget allocation table or a technical equipment schematic (showing camera positions and projection areas).

Additionally, to enhance freshness, the system now switches visual material sets every 5 minutes instead of every 10–15 minutes as initially planned.

Gesture-Triggered Narrative and Short Film Generation

Visitors’ physical gestures trigger specific spatial and narrative responses:

✨ Short films generated based on action patterns:

• Peeking Path (Observation → Exploration → Exposure → Closure)

• Memory Delay Path (Clues emerge → Time fractures → Replay)

• Failed Waiting Path (Approach → No door opens → Dissolution)

• Mirror Replacement Path (Subject appears → Becomes distorted → Is replaced)

Each visitor receives a unique 60–90 second “one-minute movie” output, generated in real-time.

📸 Insert suggestion 3: Insert a gesture-feedback-short film flowchart (already drawn for you).

 Theoretical Inspirations and References

Throughout the development of The One Behind the Door, I drew from both classical theatrical ideas and contemporary immersive staging practices.

First, Shakespeare’s “All the world’s a stage” from As You Like It provided a profound conceptual framework.
In the A Zone, the audience is no longer a passive observer; each visitor’s physical action shapes and propels the narrative, embodying their role within an unfolding world. As Shakespeare writes:

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.”
(Shakespeare, 2005)

This perspective aligned perfectly with the Expanded Cinema goal of dissolving the boundaries between audience and screen.

Second, I was inspired by the National Theatre’s recent practices of immersive and sectional staging, notably in productions like Network and The Lehman Trilogy.
Rather than strict proscenium divisions, they allow audiences to move through fragmented spaces and experience narrative fluidity.
This led me to design The One Behind the Door with parallel modes: structured narrative immersion (A Zone) alongside free movement and discovery (B Zone), encouraging visitors to shift between the roles of participant and observer.

“In immersive staging, the audience is both spectator and participant; they inhabit the story’s world while observing its unfolding.”
(National Theatre, 2018)

These references helped solidify the project’s curatorial direction, ensuring that each visitor not only witnesses the story but becomes a co-creator of its evolving cinematic experience.

📚 References

• Shakespeare, W., 2005. As You Like It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• National Theatre, 2018. Innovations in Immersive Staging. London: National Theatre Publishing.

This week, building on Adam Benmakhlouf’s lecture on Publishing as Curatorial Practice, I reconsidered my Expanded Cinema project’s conceptual foundation. Rather than treating my exhibition as a fixed presentation of cinematic content, I am increasingly approaching the space as a dynamic, participatory publication—a site where spectators continuously generate ephemeral narratives through embodied interaction.

Drawing from Benmakhlouf’s discussion, publishing extends curatorial influence beyond the immediate exhibition timeframe, creating a “new impression on the skin of the social” (Ahmed, 2006). Publications—whether material or digital—become curatorial acts that reshape relationships between works, audiences, and contexts. My project aims to activate similar mechanisms by designing a space where light, sound, and projected images form an unstable environment that evolves with each visitor’s movements.

Spatial Pre-setting: Building a Cinematic Atmosphere

In order to immerse visitors immediately into a “cinematic world”, I structured the exhibition space with several strategies:

• Unified Visual Language: High-contrast lighting, narrow spotlights, and dark zones replicate a filmic atmosphere. Projections use actual cinematic footage rather than abstract animations to reinforce narrative realism.

• Cold Start Fragment: Upon entry, spectators encounter a fragmented video sequence suggesting an unfinished narrative—broken shots of landscapes, distant figures, or drifting objects—prompting the sense of entering the middle of an ongoing story.

• Cinematic Soundscape: Ambient sounds (distant traffic, whispers, gusts of wind) create an enveloping sound environment. Interactive video fragments are tightly synchronised with corresponding sound effects, reinforcing emotional immediacy.

Through this multisensory setup, the space itself communicates the curatorial premise without verbal explanation: You are now inside a film, but your role and story remain unknown.

From Actions to Narrative: Avoiding Simple Action Mapping

To deepen the experience, I focused on designing action triggers that generate cinematic fragments, not mere animations:

• Each interaction—gesture, movement, pause—activates a pre-recorded cinematic sequence following filmic grammar: zoom-in for close-up intimacy, pull-back for expansive distance, fast cuts for conflict, slow-motion for emotional resonance.

• Triggers are organised into scene fragments rather than discrete effects. For example, waving might trigger the beginning of a chase scene; turning around might open a dream sequence.

This approach aligns with Gilbert’s argument that publishing today shifts from presenting artefacts to orchestrating processes and practices (Gilbert, 2016). Similarly, my project foregrounds spectators’ bodily processes as the medium through which narrative emerges.

Table 1. Mapping Audience Actions to Cinematic Techniques

The table summarises how specific audience actions are mapped to cinematic camera movements and editing techniques within the Expanded Cinema project, reinforcing narrative immersion through filmic language rather than game-based interaction.

Theorising the Space: Simulacra, Reality, and the Constructed Experience

In expanding the conceptual framework, I revisited Jean Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra (1981). Baudrillard argues that in contemporary media culture, images and representations no longer reference a stable reality; instead, they constitute a hyperreality, where the distinction between original and copy dissolves.

Applying this to my project, I recognise that:

1. The cinematic fragments triggered by audience actions do not refer to a fixed “real world”; they construct a new reality within the space.

2. Visitors are not decoding prewritten stories but co-producing layers of experience through their interactions.

3. The exhibition becomes a fourth-order simulacrum: a system of signs generating its own internal logic of meaning, independent of external referents.

Thus, the Expanded Cinema space operates as an ephemeral publication: an ever-changing script authored by the visitors’ gestures, within an environment where simulation replaces representation.

Reflecting on Tutor Feedback: Enhancing Feasibility, Research Breadth, and Thematic Coherence

This week’s developments are also shaped by my tutor’s feedback from earlier blog entries:

• Feasibility and Budget: Recognising concerns about the project’s realism within a £10,000 budget, I have scaled the technical ambition. The system focuses on pre-edited video fragments with simple motion-sensor triggers, avoiding expensive live rendering or complex AI systems.

• Expanding References: In response to advice to diversify my readings, I incorporated new sources beyond earlier references, including Publishing as Artistic Practice (Gilbert, 2016), Give Birth to Me Tomorrow (Benmakhlouf and Taal, 2021), How We Hold (Khalaf et al., 2022), and Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation (1981).

• Linking to Weekly Themes: I made conscious efforts to connect this week’s thinking not only to the Publishing lecture but also back to earlier themes around space, embodiment, and curatorial ethics, ensuring thematic continuity across blog posts.

This reflection process reinforces my commitment to developing an achievable, critically grounded, and theoretically informed final project.

Conclusion

Through integrating this week’s publishing frameworks and Baudrillard’s notions of simulation, I have refined my understanding of the Expanded Cinema project.
Rather than presenting a curated filmic experience, the exhibition operates as a live publication—a participatory, unstable, and ephemeral work authored collectively by audience bodies and movements.
In doing so, it aspires to transcend traditional spectatorship and invite visitors to inhabit, co-create, and momentarily rewrite a cinematic reality that exists only in their lived experience.

References

Ahmed, S. (2006) Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. Paris: Éditions Galilée.

Benmakhlouf, A. and Taal, T. (2021) Give Birth to Me Tomorrow. Glasgow: LUX Scotland.

Gilbert, A. (ed.) (2016) Publishing as Artistic Practice. Berlin: Sternberg Press.

Khalaf, A., Thorp, A., Graham, E., Gatens, L. and Egan, J. (2022) How We Hold: Rehearsals for Art and Social Change. London: Serpentine Galleries.

Project Background and Curatorial Motivation

what if the audience does not merely choose a story, but generates narrative through movement itself?

Through my ongoing research into the theory of Expanded Cinema, I have increasingly realised that a truly immersive moving image experience does not lie in offering audiences more choices, but in fundamentally dissolving the boundaries between viewer and image. Inspired by Claire Bishop’s writings on participatory art (Bishop, 2012) and practices such as teamLab’s spatial installations, I posed a fundamental question: what if the audience does not merely choose a story, but generates narrative through movement itself?

This line of thought led to the development of my current curatorial project: a generative installation where audiences actively edit and activate moving images through bodily gestures in real time.

From Theory to Practice: Embodying the Logic of Expanded Cinema

In developing the curatorial framework, I intentionally rejected button-based interactivity — like that of Bandersnatch — which merely shifts control while maintaining a centralised narrative logic. Instead, I proposed a model where the audience’s body movements become the initiating force of cinematic language.

In this installation, Expanded Cinema is not simply about technological expansion but becomes a methodology:

• Decentralised storytelling;

• De-structured viewing processes;

• Open-ended narrative experiences.

The space becomes an editing suite, and the audience becomes the real-time director, using their bodies as tools of cinematic language.

Project Concept and Installation Design

In summary:

Here, you do not merely watch the film — you become the film.

Technical Implementation

Real-World Inspiration: Encountering The Banality of Evil

During the MA CAT CURATING & MA SITES Workshop in March 2025, I encountered Xudong’s interactive installation The Banality of Evil. This piece used TouchDesigner to track facial recognition data and generated a dynamic ‘evil flower’ that opened and closed in response to the number of viewers present.

What profoundly impressed me was the realisation — through conversations with Xudong — that the project was created under a zero-budget condition.
This encounter solidified two key insights:

• Powerful narrative experiences do not necessarily require expensive technology;

• Curatorial success hinges more on narrative precision and experiential design than on technological sophistication.

This real-world example greatly encouraged me to pursue a lightweight, minimalist technical solution for my Expanded Cinema project while maintaining conceptual complexity.

Theoretical Connection: This Week’s Lecture and Contemporary Curatorial Thought

In Marcus Jack’s lecture Media and Time this week, we explored how Expanded Cinema differs fundamentally from traditional screen-based narratives. Expanded Cinema, as discussed, introduces spatial narrative and demands the activation of the spectator within a dynamic environment (Jack, 2025).

This directly resonates with my curatorial model:

• Audiences do not passively sit within a cinematic black box;

• Instead, through bodily movement, pauses, and gestures, they edit their own moving image experience in real time.

Thus, the role of the curator shifts — from being the storyteller to becoming the architect of a narrative language environment.

This Week’s Extended Theoretical Reflection: Spectacle and Simulacra

Additionally, through this week’s independent research, I engaged with Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Debord, 1967) and Jean Baudrillard’s writings on simulacra (Baudrillard, 1981).

Debord argues that modern society is saturated with “spectacles” where mediated images replace genuine social relations. Baudrillard extends this by proposing that reality itself becomes layered with simulations, leaving us only able to interact with hyperreal “copies” rather than any authentic real.

In reflecting upon my project:

✅ Although the installation generates new spectacles through audience movement, these spectacles are not passively consumed but actively generated.
✅ The moving images are transient, fluid, and incomplete — they form personalised simulacra created through individual bodily presence.

As I describe in the project statement:

“Facing the layered realities described by Debord and Baudrillard, this project seeks to break the traditional one-way relationship between image and viewer, allowing the ‘spectacle’ to emerge through action, and remain permanently unfinished and in flux.”

Conclusion

By combining Expanded Cinema theory, spatial narrative strategies, bodily activation, and critical reflections on spectacle and simulacra, this project aims to create a truly generative moving image environment.
Curation, here, is no longer about constructing a finished story but about building a living language system — one where audiences themselves become the authors of their moving image experiences.

References

• Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. Paris: Éditions Galilée.

• Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: BBC and Penguin Books.

• Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso.

• Debord, G. (1967) The Society of the Spectacle. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.

• Jack, M. (2025) Media and Time Lecture, MA Contemporary Art Theory: Curating, University of Edinburgh.

Peer review is a valuable process that benefits me in both giving and receiving feedback. When I review my peers’ work, it helps me develop critical thinking skills, articulate my thoughts clearly, and engage with different perspectives. Providing constructive feedback allows me to analyze and reflect on ideas, which in turn helps me improve my own writing and curatorial thinking.

At the same time, receiving feedback from my peers is just as important. It gives me insight into how others interpret my work, highlights areas I may have overlooked, and encourages me to refine my approach. Seeing my work through someone else’s perspective often challenges my assumptions and pushes me to think more critically.

Here are two comments I wrote for Emily Geary’s blog:

• The title of the first blog post is: “A Change of Heart continued…”, A Change of Heart continued… – Emily Geary / Curating (2024-2025)[SEM2]
• Here is my comment:

Your project presents a compelling and deeply rooted exploration of Irish mythology, indigenous wisdom, and environmental concerns, particularly in relation to Ash Dieback. The intertwining of folklore with contemporary ecological issues adds a profound layer of meaning, making it not only relevant but also culturally significant.

One of the strongest aspects of your proposal is the use of site-specificity. Positioning the project in Athlone—considered the heart of Ireland—adds symbolic depth, reinforcing the sacred role of Ash trees in Irish tradition. Additionally, referencing Queen Meadhbh as the land’s protector enhances the connection between mythology and environmental conservation.

The inclusion of workshops and storytelling sessions through Seanachoiche is an excellent addition, fostering public engagement and reviving oral traditions. However, it might be worth considering whether these workshops could extend beyond storytelling—perhaps including guided walks, ritualistic planting of new Ash trees, or even interactive art sessions where participants could respond creatively to the themes of loss and renewal.

One area that might benefit from further exploration is the role of digital engagement. While you mention an online archive, expanding on how it will function (e.g., including audio recordings of folklore, interactive maps, or a digital forum for shared stories) could make the exhibition’s reach more enduring.

• The title of the second blog post is: Seating arrangements, Seating arrangements – Emily Geary / Curating (2024-2025)[SEM2]
• Here is my comment:

Your reflections on Claire Jackson’s talk at Tramway provide a compelling insight into the interplay between curators, estates, and exhibition layouts—something that is often overlooked. It’s particularly interesting that you challenge the assumption that curators have full autonomy over the final arrangement. The negotiation process you mention adds an important dimension to curatorial practice, highlighting how multiple stakeholders shape an exhibition.

Your reference to Fran Cottell’s Pentagon Petal adds another layer to this discussion. The idea of a modular, multi-functional structure that accommodates simultaneous conversations is particularly relevant to your project. It suggests that seating is not just functional but can be conceptually and socially significant, shaping the way people interact within an exhibition.

As you explore seating arrangements for your installation of ash sculptures, you might consider how form affects function. Should the seating be strictly circular to reflect Irish storytelling traditions? Or should it be more open-ended, like the continuous bench or Cottell’s Pentagon Petal, to encourage a broader range of interactions?

I would like to say that your post is thoughtful and well-connected to both curatorial practice and your own project. I look forward to seeing how your exploration of seating design shapes the final concept of your installation!

Here are two comments I wrote for Zihan Fu’s blog:

• The title of the first blog post is: “Spells, Wild Spaces, and the Reconstruction of Intimacy—From Anne Hardy’s Survival Spells to Curating Intimacy in the Globalized Era”, Spells, Wild Spaces, and the Reconstruction of Intimacy—From Anne Hardy’s Survival Spells to Curating Intimacy in the Globalized Era – Zihan Fu / Curating (2024-2025)[SEM2]
• Here is my comment:

Your post presents a deeply engaging and intellectually rich exploration of intimacy, power structures, and curatorial intervention, weaving together theories from Anne Hardy, Homi Bhabha, and Claire Bishop to reframe exhibition-making as a dynamic, participatory process. Your concept of “critical intimacy”—where emotional experience serves as a means of exposing structural conditions—is particularly compelling, as it challenges traditional, sentimentalized notions of intimacy and instead positions it as an unstable, contested space.

he proposed shift in “Open or Closed?” from static relationship mapping to an interactive, spell-based engagement is an exciting development. Using sensor-based installations and material interactions (glowing threads, ambient noise, and sculptural elements) to materialize the fragility and tensions of intimacy makes for a much more immersive, sensorial experience. Your reference to cross-cultural acoustic compression—where the plastic-bag sculpture triggers the sound of Scottish bagpipes—is a particularly striking idea. This unexpected juxtaposition forces visitors to confront the weight of care, the friction of expectations, and the persistence of cultural memory, making intangible emotional labor physically and sonically present.

Your reflections demonstrate a refined shift from critiquing intimacy’s structure to an experimental, ritualistic curatorial approach. This transition—from observation to participatory “spellcasting”—reimagines exhibitions as sites that create, not just display, intimacy. I look forward to seeing how this evolves in your final framework.

• The title of the second blog post is: Curating Intimacy: Experimental Models and Critical Reflections, Week 3 Post – Zihan Fu / Curating (2024-2025)[SEM2]
• Here is my comment:

Your post thoughtfully explores the evolving concept of intimacy in your curatorial research. Initially focused on romantic relationships, your shift toward a broader understanding—including familial bonds, friendships, and even brief encounters between strangers—adds layers of complexity to your approach. Your recognition that intimacy is not just a personal experience but also shaped by social, cultural, and institutional frameworks strengthens your curatorial perspective, making it more expansive and critically engaged.

“Time Capsule of Intimacy” invites participants to contribute objects representing significant relationships, alongside letters to their future selves. This project cleverly explores the temporality of intimacy—which emotions endure, and which fade over time? Your reference to Sophie Calle’s Take Care of Yourself is relevant, as it similarly transforms personal experiences into public artifacts, raising the question: Does exhibiting intimacy strip it of its private essence?

“Silent Dialogues” borrows from Marina Abramović’s The Artist Is Present but reframes it within the context of non-verbal communication as a foundation of intimacy. Your questions—Can intimacy exist without language? Does presence alone establish a connection?—are compelling, as they challenge conventional ideas about how relationships are formed. This experiment could evoke a range of emotions in participants, from deep connection to discomfort, highlighting the tension between mutual engagement and the potential unease of forced emotional participation.

One possible avenue for further exploration is the cultural variability of intimacy. Western societies often emphasize individualized expressions of intimacy, while many Asian cultures prioritize collective and familial bonds. Could your exhibition introduce a cross-cultural perspective, encouraging audiences to reflect on the diverse ways intimacy is experienced across different societies?

Reflecting on our field trip, it becomes clear that exhibition curation is not merely about the selection and arrangement of artworks but also about the underlying narratives, power structures, and institutional intentions that shape audience engagement. While each institution we visited employed distinct curatorial methodologies, they also revealed broader issues related to representation, accessibility, and the politics of display.

A Powerful Tool or the Risk of Aestheticizing Trauma?

Walking through The Hunterian’s exhibition on Jarman, I was struck by the way archival materials—newspaper clippings, photographs, and personal writings—were used to frame his work. The display was undeniably powerful; the juxtaposition of media sensationalism with deeply personal narratives created an emotional and intellectual tension that made me reflect on how history is told and whose voices are amplified. The choice to present Jarman’s activism through an archival lens gave the exhibition a strong historical grounding, reinforcing his political fight against AIDS stigma and LGBTQ+ marginalization. However, it also raised a more complex question for me: does presenting trauma through carefully curated archives risk making suffering an aesthetic experience for audiences removed from that reality?

Hal Foster (2015) describes archival curation as “a form of counter-memory,” challenging dominant narratives by foregrounding marginalized perspectives. This was evident in how the exhibition placed Jarman’s work in direct conversation with the media’s representation of AIDS in the late 20th century. Yet, as I moved through the space, I couldn’t help but question whether the very act of exhibiting these materials—placing deeply personal pain within a gallery setting—could distance audiences from the urgency of the issues they represent. Bennett (2022) warns that while such presentations can be deeply moving, they can also risk turning political struggles into consumable, academic objects rather than calls to action.

This tension between historical documentation and emotional engagement left me reflecting on the role of archival curation in contemporary exhibitions. While it is a powerful tool for reclaiming suppressed histories, it also requires careful consideration to avoid aestheticizing trauma.

Curatorial Reflections on Ethnography and Artistic Representation

This semester, in addition to my curatorial studies, I have been taking an Anthropology course, where we explored ethnography as a way of studying and representing different cultures. This made me think more deeply about how exhibitions like Maud Sulter’s are framed in institutional spaces. Sulter’s work celebrates Black female identity through powerful visual and textual storytelling, making it a strong example of cultural resistance. However, as Nash (2020) points out, museums and galleries often present Black artists in ways that focus mainly on their identity rather than their artistic style or concepts.

In anthropology, we discussed how ethnography has historically been used by Western researchers to study other cultures, sometimes reinforcing stereotypes or treating communities as “subjects” rather than equals (Clifford & Marcus, 2010). This connects to curatorial practice because exhibitions can sometimes unintentionally create the same effect—positioning artists like Sulter in a way that highlights their racial or cultural background more than their artistic innovation. This made me question: does curating work about race and identity in an institutional space risk making it seem like a cultural study rather than appreciating it as an artistic statement?

This reflection made me realize that representation in museums is not just about including diverse voices, but also about how those voices are framed. As Butler and Athanasiou (2013) suggest, identity is not a fixed category but is shaped by the way it is positioned within institutional and social structures. This highlights an important curatorial responsibility: to create a space where identity is acknowledged but not reduced to a singular narrative, allowing for more layered and complex engagements with the work.

This field trip deepened my awareness that curation is not merely about displaying art but rather a form of narrative construction embedded with ideological and historical dimensions. The spatial organization of exhibitions, the logic of presentation, and audience engagement are all shaped by broader institutional frameworks, cultural histories, and societal expectations. As I develop my own project, these reflections prompt me to consider how to balance visual and interactive experiences, how to maintain curatorial intent while allowing room for audience interpretation, and, most importantly, how to avoid unconscious biases in the curatorial process to create a truly multidimensional and open platform for dialogue.

References：

1. Foster, H. (2015) Bad new days : art, criticism, emergency. London ; Verso.

2. Bennett, J. (2022) Empathic vision : affect, trauma, and contemporary art. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

3. Nash, D. (2020). ‘The Ethics of Representation in Contemporary Curating: Institutional Framings and the Politics of Display’, Journal of Curatorial Studies, 9(1), pp. 45–61.