Week 10: Ethics and Identity Identification – JP Martinon Curation a Personal Ethics
On Thursday, the 27th of March, I attended the online talk titled Curation a Personal Ethics by JP Martinon. In this session Martinon described how curators can apply Foucauldian ideas to develop a personal ethics manifesto, shaping the evolution of creative projects with an embedded regard for objective oriented ethics. I found his discussion on the role of aestheticism particularly interesting, imposing a stance against the superficial aesthetic-centric ideology within contemporary curation. In the following question and answer session, an audience member posed the question: ‘how do we curate socially engaged practices whilst avoiding exploitation but maintaining a level of marketability within a capitalist context that offers appropriate exposure to the artists and the idea they represent?’. Martinon answered this in a two-fold response; initially, he stated that to view political, and social themes as something to be aestheticized is to reduce the matter and regard that these ideals deserve. However, a curator exists within a context, and though it is not the work of the creator to overthrow entrenched hegemonies, if we are to engage with an ethical practice, we must avoid perpetuating these narratives. Martinon suggests that in the curation of an exhibition that discusses sensitive/serious points of discussion, such as narratives that pertain to climate change and ecology in the case of my proposed exhibition, the curator must operate within the context spectacle that remains foundational to many exhibitions within the art world. In order to communicate with audiences and give artists the capacity to engage with the public via their art, the curator has a duty to operate in a way that allows the exhibition to publicly succeed. Though, in itself, aestheticizing the climate crisis is reductively unethical, it is, to an extent, necessary.
This is something I have previously contemplated within my own individual speculative project. I previously mentioned how exhibitions that present stories of climate change must not use the voices of artists, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, for the purpose of institutional benefit. Despite this previous reflection, I had not considered the ethical implications that are inherent in contemporary exhibition development. The curator becomes caught between their duty of accessibility to the public, in what Martinon characterizes as the ‘I know that they don’t know’, and representing the message of an exhibition and the voices of artists in an authentic way.
I do not believe that this is an issue that I will be able to resolve in this exhibition. There is an element of reduction that is necessary within the systemic structures of the artworld. To create an exhibition proposal, exhibition layout, and marketing that serves to attract an audience (and therein serve the ethical responsibility in presenting climate themes to a diverse public), an element of aesthetic reduction is unavoidable.
Action:
I believe that the level of aesthetic presentation that I should engage in is dependent on the audience that I am targeting. For example, if I were to target individuals who are already academically familiar with ecology, then I would not have to rely on making an exhibition a spectacle, as investment in climate change narratives would be a given. However, targeting climate-aware individuals with ecological narratives would do little develop their perspective on displayed narratives. Thus, my target audience will be people who live in the local Glasgow city area. Being an urban space, local individuals may have limited access to green spaces, while residing in an area that sees a high density of transport related carbon emissions. This would engage in Strange Field’s (my chosen exhibition space) core values of local public engagement. Additionally, within this parameter, I would hope to engage individuals who are affected by climate change and pollution and who are not familiar with ecological frameworks. As a result of this specification, it will be important to present an exhibition that is compelling to an audience whose interest in nature/ecology is not guaranteed. Reliance on esoteric exhibition narratives should be avoided, and a form of aesthetic reduction may have to be employed to communicate ecological themes to an audience.
Overall, your Blog has real research depth, strong reflective and critical thinking, and evidence of creative and collective investment, very well done so far Harry. Your presentation of Week 6 Peer review feedback is thoroughly informative, well-structured and clear, great work Harry. You give all details, noting it was written out of chronological order for example, and show a capacity to synthesis: contrasting and complimentary skills. As a whole, when I scan through your blog, the headings for posts and pithy and clear, and communicate focus and structure. They could be nuanced further, eg Curatorial Analysis: Fieldwork? Or exhibition title? To distinguish from those focusing on your project.
Your caption is partial “Exhibition Photo (2025), Image taken on location by Harry Mayston” of which exhibition, where, dates? Same for all images.
In Week 8 collective meeting you do not actually discuss the meeting when you use the heading, the commentary is informative, but relates to your SICP. Provide more on the atmosphere, process of the meeting, then the section on your work? Given the debate you have with yourself on ethics, it would be good to link this to research from the course resources and your independent research on the issues you raise, eg Macarena Gomez-Barres in the Extractive Zone on the matter of “the inclusion of these perspectives for capitalistic purposes is just as exploitative as the system that limits their voices in the first place”
You note “This research opens up the possibility of additional curatorial resources within my own curatorial project” in the field trip analysis of the Lover, which is very thoughtful and insightful. But what do you mean by this, expand on leading statements like this, even as a short summary, and justify with a reference from Week 10 Public Programmes for example? There is some excellent content in Week 8 Curatorial Ethics, including “perceived ethics and operative ethics (Schuppert, 2021).” Consider giving short intros for posts, especially useful when content is complex, In this post I examine x, y, z (bullet points, or some other standard formatting?)
The Week 9 post contains some very strong analysis of Trading Zone 2025 and comparison with your own Vessel 2023. However, you could organise the content with clearer headings, repeating conclusion in a post is confusing. Is the purpose a three-way analysis of XYZ, focusing on artworks, layout, et etc? The short intro for posts I mention would help here. It’s not clear which exhibitions the images relate to. Could you create a table to help shape the content/overview of this post (not essential, it can be done narratively, with formatting eg bullet points and sub-headings). The post on the Collective from Week 8 contains some useful info, but suffers from a problem that is common, the block coloured screenshot of planning does not connect with the bits of commentary after, which feel fragmented, and have no such definition/shape. Consider editing this information/formatting in other ways to communicate more of flow from the before, during, after of the meeting. Eg make the prep a short written summary with a note to see the image as a support at the end, then have structure sub-headings on main meeting content.
There is some excellent analysis in Week 10 on ethics Harry, great to hear you attended the talk. You draw a lot from it. Aim for shorter paragraphs to keep it more journalistic. Add additional research on key ideas from Martinon eg “Though, in itself, aestheticizing the climate crisis is reductively unethical, it is, to an extent, necessary.” Consider another heading than Action : application of ideas to SICP, then a clear set of the ideas?