Curatorial process

Curating Turning FACT Inside Out was a collaborative process on many levels. It involved not only both curators (Mike Stubbs and myself) but also the majority of FACT’s programming team, includ- ing Programme Producer Ana Botella, Curatorial Assistant Lesley Taker, Projects Coordinator Julia Youngman, as well as input from the Head of Collaborations Kathryn Dempsey, and Laura Yatesfrom the Tenantspin team, who led on the development of TransEurope Slow, facilitating the process of col- laboration between the artists and local communities. The project by HeHe was co-commissioned by Art Catalyst and Rob La Frenais, Curator at Art Catalyst, was involved in the curatorial and produc- tion process of that particular work. Since the Manifest AR works were originally commissioned as part of FACT’s involvement in the ARtSENSE project, led by Research and Development team, the Head of Research and Development, Roger McKinley played a key role in planning, curating and the development of the Manifest AR projects. The research and development process of Manifest AR work also included scientists from Liverpool John Moores University, who contributed their ex-

63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.

65 Browsing through the Ten Intentions web site, it becomes obvious that most of the comments re- corded on it are laconic, often trivial and irrelevant. See Ten Intentions, 2013. Online. Available at: http:// www.10intentions.co.uk/. Accessed: December 20, 2013.

pertise with respect to the biosensing technology.66 _{The technical team at FACT also played key role} in defining the feasibility of projects, in effect, shaping the exhibition (e.g. it was the technical and production team’s decision that FACTORY – the original proposal by HeHe for Turning FACT Inside Out

– was rejected due to the feasibility issues identified by them).

The processes of curation, production, research and development behind Turning FACT Inside Out

were intertwined and the different roles were difficult to separate. Input from the Curatorial As- sistant and the Programme Producer were crucial for shaping the project, especially at the stage of the re-thinking, and brainstorming ideas for what was effectively a new exhibition at the loss of ARtSENSE funding in November 2012. Turning FACT Inside Out was also the first FACT exhibition in which FACT’s Research and Development team had such significant curatorial input, and presented work – although on a much smaller scale than originally anticipated – developed by the R&D depart- ment. Curators, the Research and Development Manager, and scientists from LJMU worked closely with artists to shape the project and contributed to the development of the software. In this respect the development process of Manifest AR projects can be seen as characteristic for new media pro- duction, where the boundaries between different processes and roles are blurred, and where the curatorial process is often collaborative and the curators are increasingly become content providers as much as context providers,67 _{(as discussed in the contextual review, Section 1.2.3.).}

In case of Turning FACT Inside Out the curatorial emphasis on content rather than context provision was also due to the practical aspects, such as limited time and resources available for the exhibition. Due to the last minute changes in the funding situation and the need to rethink the exhibition in a very short time, the efforts of the entire team were focused on delivering the exhibition, and mak- ing sure that newly commissioned works would be ready on time. Between discussing proposals with artists, checking feasibility with the technical team, debating the financial viability of particular projects, we were contacting potential funders,68 _{checking prices for materials, and planning the ex-} hibition delivery logistics – all of these in close collaboration between all exhibition team members. Constraints of the budget and resources, given the scale and the ambition of the exhibition, shifted the emphasis from curatorial tasks to production and delivery of projects.

The collaborative nature of the curatorial process was also, to some extent, dictated by the nature of the exhibition. As the anniversary show, Turning FACT Inside Out was also a presentation platform for showcasing FACT’s different activities: research and innovation, community engagement, and international collaborations. However, despite many conversations and attempts to work together Collaboration and Engagement were not involved in any significant way in the process of shaping the exhibition, which was the reason for a fair criticism of the curatorial process by Collaboration’s team.69 _{The only – although very important – input from the Collaborations team was leading the} community engagement for the TransEurope Slow project by Laura Yates, from the Tenantspin team.

66 Research and expertise of Prof. Stephen Fairclough and Dr Kiel Gileade (from LJMU) in physiological computing was crucial for the development of ManifestAR projects, especially Biomer Skelter project. 67 Cook, S. ‘2003. Towards a Theory of the Practice of Curating New media Art’. In M. Townsend (ed). 2003.

Beyond the Box, Diverging Curatorial Practices. Banff: Banff Centre Press. p. 174.

68 For example from The Polish Cultural Institute, and the Adam Mickiewicz Institute, which were successful and we managed to raise additional funds (£ 8,000) for Katarzyna Krakowiak’s piece.

69 During one of the programme meetings the exhibition planning process was criticized for having not involved the Collaborations’ team in any sustained way, despite claiming that the curatorial process was open and collaborative. (Krzemien Barkley, A. 2012. ‘Turning FACT Inside Out Curatorial Meeting Notes, December 7, FACT.’ [no pagination]).

One of the reasons for the lack of involvement of some parts of the programming is very pragmatic, that is the Collaboration and Engagement programme have a small budget for projects allocated to them, and since the Turning FACT Inside Out had already proven to be very expensive, there was no additional funding left to develop the engagement process. Collaboration and Engagement often have to fundraise and it takes much longer to secure funding for their projects. The loss of ARtSENSE funding and the resulting last minute changes to the shape of the exhibition also meant that the exhibition development took place very late in comparison to the usual exhibition production time- frames making it difficult for Collaboration and Engagement to propose projects and contribute to the exhibition. Even though the exhibition offered potential for additional community engagement and educational projects (i.e. educational workshops around Manifest AR projects or community de- bates in relation to the Ten Intentions piece) the late blooming of the exhibition development meant that the Collaboration and Engagement contribution would have been merely to deliver activities within an already finished exhibition, which is in conflict with the way in which they prefer to operate. Despite lack of significant contributions from the Collaboration’s team, the curatorial process for

Turning FACT Inside Out was inherently collaborative and distributed across the team working on the exhibition. According to Stubbs, the curatorial process for Turning FACT Inside Out, was an example of how the Producer Model, which FACT is moving towards, might work.70 _{The Producer Model, as dis-} cussed earlier (Section 2.3.), proposes creating project teams, whereby specialists (curators, academ- ics, developers) join the FACT team on a freelance or associated basis to work on specific projects. The projects are led and managed by FACT producers, with the specialists playing the crucial role in the development of the projects. The Producer Model is also envisaged as providing a framework and a mode of working within which the different areas of FACT programming can be integrated. The example of the curatorial and production processes behind Turning FACT Inside Out, provides a basis for discussing the advantages and limitations of the Producer Model and collaborative ways of working that underpin it. The exhibition brought together different programming areas at FACT (Research and Development, Exhibitions), and involved substantial external contributions from sci- entists from LJMU and from co-curators – Rob La Frenais from the Art Catalyst and myself– drawing in knowledge, skills and expertise. Working in a highly collaborative mode, especially in new me- dia production context, where the curatorial, production and development roles are intertwined, means that the curatorial control and authorship is distributed across the team.

However, this can also pose certain problems. With the curatorial process being so distributed, the authorial claim and responsibility for the final shape of the show is weakened as exemplified by the struggles over the meaning of Turning FACT Inside Out. The position of adjunct, or external curator not grounded in the organisation, can also be rather weak. The collective curatorial team work, without a strong curatorial steer, can sometimes lead to a lack of clarity in defining the ideas of the exhibition or a project, which in turn causes problems with communicating the programme to the public. Additionally, the curatorial framework for Turning FACT Inside Out was proposed to be very open, which on one hand was not too prescriptive and resisted closure – the exhibition was akin to an experiment, bringing together artists, artwork and audience together, allowing for the exhibition to unfold. On the other hand, the openness deepened the lack of clarity in messaging around the exhibition, which resulted from the already complex curatorial negotiations of mean- ing happening behind the scenes.

It is important to note that the show was not accompanied by any larger curatorial or critical text. This was to do with the difficulties of agreeing on a clear narrative about the show, but it is also symp- tomatic of a more general decrease in the numbers of catalogues, curatorial texts, and FACT’s critical contextualisation of its own practices.71 _{With no significant authorial claim over the exhibition, the} messaging around Turning FACT Inside Out was more focused on promoting FACT as activist, risky, controversial – a ‘safe space for risky conversations’72 _{in the process of self-fashioning and branding.}