Nina Slejko


Exhibitions	Events	Publications	Contact	Home

		Present
		Upcoming
		back to Past

SLO below		Nina Slejko: It’s Already Been Shown (5 October - 6 October, 2011)
“It’s already Been Shown” consists of a short text and five sculptural installations made of paintings that have already been shown. In her work Nina Slejko (born 1982) continuously examines the art world, the mechanisms of the art market, and the minimalist heritage in art today. Through the years the white monochrome has kept intriguing her and she has done several works that approach this final monument of modernism with both humour and true devotion. In “It's Already Been Shown” she adapts the minimalist sculpture tradition in a similar manner. For the exhibition a small catalogue has been produced. Click HERE for Pdf (2.2Mb) version. More info at: http://www.ninaslejko.com/
Curator: CONNY BLOM One of the biggest challenges for curators today is to find an ethical and responsible relation towards the art and the artists. The amount of curators is increasing and even more so when it comes to freelance curators. This naturally leads to tougher competition, and higher demands, but is it really good for the art? Every curator and institution needs to profile themselves with a relevant and innovative agenda and for this they use art and artists. The emphasis here should unfortunately be on the word “use”. The position of the artist is worse than ever, and their works tend to be chosen for institutional exhibitions to prove curatorial ideas rather than due to the excellence of the pieces. The artists are also the last link in the food chain and only when everyone else has been paid, there is a chance that the artist might get a fee, or at least their expenses refunded. Even many big, international institutions refrain from paying proper fees to exhibiting artists. Exhibitions are no longer about art as much as about promoting institutions and curators. One obvious example is the common curatorial stance to only exhibit works that have not yet been exhibited in the city, region, country, world before (the scale is sliding in relation to the prominence or conceit of the curator). This is of course a strategy to draw attention to the institution and the work of the curator rather than a policy to assure a high quality exhibition programme. The policy is certainly not hinting at any kind of belief in art as something more than a commodity. Is there really nothing more to art than the value of the new? Are there no more timeless values in art than those associated with fashion? Is a work that has been shown elsewhere nothing more than last year’s jeans cut? An artist might work full time on a project for a year or more, and once the project has been shown, it can be difficult to market it further. And then there are the curatorial trends. An institution can always play it safe and follow these currents. This way they will not be in the forefront of the discourse, but no one will laugh at them when they walk around in out-of-fashion jeans either. As long as a curator exhibits work with the right political agendas, they and their institution will be in a favourable position and the funding will keep coming. The quality of the art is secondary.

Where is the curator who dares to show works based solemnly on the assessment of their quality, not hiding behind the theoretic constructions? As I see it, a curator’s work should be to see art, a lot of art, and based on these observations create own curatorial concepts, not, as I fear is happening increasingly, come up with innovative curatorial ideas and then start looking for works of art that will support this idea. Curatorial ideas should be based on developments in art, not the other way around. If one tries to squeeze a chicken into an egg there will surely be a mess. A curator is supposed to be an expert in art, someone who knows what is going on in the art world, and who has his or her tentacles out, constantly searching for the new. At the same time, however, it is virtually impossible for an artist to get to show their work to a curator unless they already belong to the same network. Curating is almost never impartial, and maybe it should not be. Of course one has much better chances to get a deeper insight in works of art one has frequent access to, than works one has briefly seen in a portfolio. What one could wish for is a transparency in the curatorial networks. There are expectations, especially on curators within institutions, to have an objective perspective, but this is of course impossible. It would be better if it was always clearly stated that what is provided in an exhibition is a subjective view. Instead of “this is what is relevant right now” would be “this is what curator x thinks is relevant right now”. These are of course only small changes in words, but it would maybe clarify a lot of the structures in the art world. It is not because artists are objectively exceptional that they succeed. Artistic success has more to do with networks and networking skills, than any objective truths.

SLO

Nina Slejko: Je že bilo razstavljeno

"Je že bilo razstavljeno" je delo, sestavljeno iz kratkega besedila in petih skulpturalnih instalacij narejenih iz slik, ki so že bile razstavljene.

Razstavo spremlja majhen katalog. Kliknite TU za pdf verzijo(2.2Mb)

Več o umetnici in delu na: http://www.ninaslejko.com/

Kurator: Conny Blom

Kuratorjem danes predstavlja največji izziv iskanje etičnega in odgovornega odnosa do umetnosti in umetnika. Število kuratorjev narašča in še toliko bolj, ko gre za “freelance”, samostojne kuratorje. To samo po sebi vodi do močnejše konkurence in večjih zahtev, vendar ali res tudi koristi umetnosti?
Vsak kurator in institucija se morata profilirati s pomembnim in inovativnim programom in za doseganje tega uporabljajo umetnost in umetnike. Tukaj mora biti na žalost poudarek na besedi ”uporabljajo”. Pozicija umetnika je slabša kot kdajkoli in njihova dela so izbrana, ker zmorejo podkrepiti kuratorske ideje, raje kot na podlagi odličnosti del. Umetniki so tudi zadnji člen v prehrambeni verigi in šele, ko dobijo plačilo vsi ostali sodelujoči, obstaja možnost, da bo lahko morda tudi umetnik plačan, ali da mu bodo vsaj povrnjeni stroški. Celo mnoge velike mednarodne institucije se izogibajo plačilu razstavljajočih umetnikov.
Razstave se ne postavljajo več toliko za to, da bi prikazovale umetnost, kot za to, da bi promovirale institucije in kuratorje. Očiten primer takšnih intenc je pogosta kuratorska drža razstavljati le dela, ki pred tem še niso bila razstavljena v mestu, regiji, državi, na svetu (skala raste skladno s samoljubjem kuratorja). To je seveda strategija, s katero se da pritegniti pozornost na institucijo in na delo kuratorja, raje kot taktika, ki bi želela zagotoviti visokokakovosten razstavni program. Takšna politika zagotovo ne namiguje na kakršnokoli verjetje v umetnost kot v nekaj več kot le prodajno blago. Nima umetnost res nobene druge kvalitete, kot le vrednosti novega? Ni v umetnosti res nobenih večjih brezčasnih kvalitet od tistih, ki jih povezujemo z modo? Ni umetniško delo, ki je že bilo razstavljeno drugje, res nič drugega, kot lanskoletni kroj kavbojk? Umetnik lahko dela na projektu leto ali več, a se zlahka zgodi, da ga bo uspel razstaviti le enkrat.
Obstajajo pa tudi kuratorski trendi. Institucija lahko vedno igra na varno žogo in sledi tem tendencam. Tako verjetno ne bodo v ospredju razprav, vendar se jim tudi ne bo nihče smejal, ko bodo hodili naokoli v kavbojkah, ki so šle iz mode že prejšnjo sezono. Vse dokler kurator razstavlja dela s pravimi političnimi usmeritvami, bosta on in njegova institucija v ugodnem položaju in pritok denarnih sredstev se bo nadaljeval. Kvaliteta umetniških del je manj važna.

Kje je kurator, ki bi si upal predstaviti dela izbrana izključno na podlagi njihove kvalitete, brez da bi se skrival za teoretičnimi konstrukti? Kot to razumem sam, bi moral kurator opazovati umetnost, in temelječ na ugotovitvah sestaviti kuratorske koncepte. Ne pa, kot se dogaja vse pogosteje, si najprej zamisliti vse mogoče inovativne kuratorske ideje in nato iskati umetniška dela, ki jih bodo podprla. Kuratorske ideje bi morale bazirati na razvoju v umetnosti, in ne obratno. Če skušaš stlačiti jajce v kokoš, bo gotovo nastala godlja.
Kurator naj bi bil ekspert umetnosti, nekdo, ki ve, kaj se dogaja v umetnostnem svetu in ki ima razprostrte tipalke na vse strani, stalno iskaje novosti. Istočasno je sicer praktično nemogoče, da bi lahko umetnik predstavil svoja dela kuratorju s komer ne sodita v isti krog poznanstev. Kuriranje ni skoraj nikoli nepristransko, in morda tudi ne bi smelo biti. Seveda je mnogo lažje dobro poznati in razumeti umetnikovo delo, če smo z njim v pogostih stikih in si ga lahko pogosto ogledamo, kot pa če ga le na hitro vidimo v portfoliu. Tisto, česar bi si bilo želeti, je transparentnost kuratorskih vezi. Obstajajo pričakovanja po objektivnih perspektivah, še posebej pri kuratorjih znotraj institucij, vendar tega ni mogoče resnično doseči. Bolje bi bilo, če bi bilo jasno navedeno, da je tisto, kar je postavljeno na ogled, subjektiven pogled kuratorja. Namesto ”to je tisto, kar je sedaj relevantno”, bi bilo treba izjaviti ”kurator x meni, da je to tisto, kar je sedaj relevantno”. Seveda so to majhne spremembe v besedah, vendar bi morda razjasnile mnogo struktur znotraj umetniškega sveta. Umetniki ne uspejo zato, ker so objektivno izjemni. Umetniški uspehi slonijo veliko bolj na vezah in poznanstvu ter spretnem mreženju, kot na kakršnihkoli objektivnih resnicah.




supported by