art-e-conomy _ reader - marko stamenkovic

As it is now evident and possible to set up a basic hypothesis, curating (at first
sight) has almost nothing to do with art. This, however, is not a negative hypothesis:
it helps us understand the side-axis of art in its most actual line of development,
and with regard to supposedly non-artistic frameworks that are being constitutive for
the significance of theoretical and practical acting in the field of contemporary art
today. By pointing out at this side-axis (the framework simultaneously generating and
surrounding the values of contemporary art today), I particularly mean: the conditions
that generate, produce, articulate, and influence both the theoretical discourses and
practical involvement in the sphere of art, and especially - in the sphere of contemporary
visual art. This distinction between ‘art’ and ‘contemporary art’ is necessary to
accentuate, because of the inevitability to accept the following fact: although each
and every involvement with art today must be defined as ‘contemporary’ or at least
as ‘belonging to (a certain) value of contemporaneity’, not all the protagonists of the
contemporary art world are willing to accept it or admit it. This results in their conscious
or less conscious refusing of the fact that the art of today is being based upon and
developed through the overall contemporary conditions of (cultural) production.
Nevertheless, it is important to stress that even the attitude of refusing one’s own
contemporaneity is being conditioned by and/or is reflecting (being reactive toward)
the very same object of refusal (i.e. that very “contemporaneity”); this finally and
paradoxically positions all those ‘outcasts and misfits’ alongside and together with
their counterparts (who overtly accept the actual moment as the constitutive one for
their life and work) - in the same sphere of contemporary world and contemporary
art world. The notion of the frame (framework, context, environment) is here to be
considered as the first step in encountering the previous (non-artistic) significance
of curating with the most actual significance of (contemporary art) curating. It also
explains the fundamental difference between the Western and Eastern concepts /
systems of art: rather than being determined by a market-driven and profit-oriented
logic of capitalist consumerist societies in the West, it is within the framework of a
certain discursive political / ideological order that socialist systems used in order to
produce (artistic) value, and it is this framework (condition) that, generally speaking,
still distinguishes the comprehension of Eastern and Western approaches toward
the issues of art (Boris Groys).
TOWARD A CURATORIAL DISCOURSE
OF (EASTERN) EUROPEAN (POST-) SOCIALISM
In her essay “Brokering Identities: Art Curators and the Politics of Cultural
Representation”[4] Mari Carmen Ramírez analyzes how the dynamics of identity
politics, at both the transnational (global) and the local (multicultural) levels, have
impacted on curatorial practice.[5] For her, the case of Latin American art in the
United States presents an ideal starting point from which to chart this significant
transformation of curatorial agency. She points out that “since the mid-eighties, we
have seen a steady rise in the number of exhibitions setting forth particular notions
of identity for Latin American art, as well as a proliferation of exhibition catalogues
13