2012GRADUATE EXHIBITION - School of the Art Institute of Chicago

GUEST CURATOR
Tumelo Mosaka
GRADUATE CURATORIAL FELLOWS
Robyn Farrell, MA, Modern Art History, Theory, and Criticism (2013)
Allison Glenn, Dual MA, Modern Art History, Theory, and Criticism, and Arts Administration and Policy (2012)
Ross Jordan, Dual MA, Modern Art History, Theory, and Criticism, and Arts Administration and Policy (2013)
Elçin Marasli, MA, Visual and Critical Studies (2013)
PARTICIPATING ARTISTS
Ceyda Aykan
Andrew Barco
Jan Christopher Berkson
Ilie Paun Capriel
Julietta Cheung
Andrew CopperSmith
Ron Ewert
Alex Gartelmann
Hannah Givler
Amaris Granado
Angela Hoener
Kitty Huffman
Megan Kalmes
Tony Lewis
Katie Loomis
Robby MacBain
Ivan A. Martinez
Andy Ortmann
Jeff Parrott
Joel Parsons
Shonna Pryor
Josh Reames
Gil Riley
Brian Rush
Caleb Sheridan
Allison Wade
James Wetzel
Jihoon Yoo
© The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
2012GRADUATE
EXHIBITION

Artists’Voices
Curatorial Fellows: The MFA show is
unusual in that you work without knowing
the intended space for your thesis
project. How has the process of the MFA
show affected your method, and how
has it prepared you for the next steps in
your artistic career? What advice would
you offer to future MFA students as they
approach their MFA show?
Ron Ewert: Last semester Terry Myers
explained to me his theory of the "Big
Red Bow Myth." He said that artists in
grad programs often envision presenting
their work as a perfectly finished, definitive
statement, ready for sale and representation,
which is essentially impossible
in an intensive self-critical, two-year program.
Instead he suggested being honest
with oneself and continuing to work
towards the core of your practice, simply
presenting the strongest work at the time
of the show. After all, there will be more
and more important shows in the future.
I tend to look at the MFA show as a celebratory
moment, one in which artists are
inherently vulnerable, showing work on
the precipice of artistic maturity, at a
moment full of potential. Its kind of like
football players dancing in the end zone
after a touchdown: while endlessly entertaining,
it’s better to act like you've been
there before and are confident you'll get
there again.
Ron Ewert
DK, 2012
Acrylic on linen
Angela Hoener: This show prepares one
to react to a real setting by confronting
two opposite forces: projecting fully one's
artistic voice, while considering how your
work might adapt to making a public
statement, being on public view. I think it
is important and vital to temper these
two opposing positions for the longevity
of one’s career. My future advice is to just
stay and be present!
Caleb Sheridan: I would start by saying
not knowing the floor plan for the MFA
show makes an artist consider many different
possibilities in regard to the presentation
format and what work to chose
for the exhibition. It also makes the artist
conscious and considerate of compromises
to help the overall vision of a really
vast group show.
My advice for future MFA candidates
is to create work you believe in and make
a good amount of work, so when changes
in the process occur, you can adapt as
seamlessly as possible. Even though your
work will change through the process, try
to be as clear with your curators about
what you need for the show, spatially, so
they can help you as the individual artist
while formulating the vision for the overall
exhibition. Also, for MFA candidates,
remember that it's your show, so even
though compromises need to be made,
make sure you stick to your vision and
don't let the mass curatorial process completely
dictate your aesthetic and layout.
Allison Wade: Since my work is sitedependent
and not site-specific, not
knowing the particular exhibition space
did not affect the first part of my process:
the making. However, not knowing
became a challenge for the second—
equally significant—part of my process:
the arranging.
I create groups of sculptures and
emphasize particular relationships
through installation, positioning works so
that visual and physical connections
punctuate one’s navigation of space.
Negative space is a critical component of
my compositions, often as important as
the more materially substantial elements.
In a large group show with over one
Allison Wade
Eight Hundred, 2012
mixed media
hundred artists, space of any kind is at a
premium. Advocating for negative space
can be tricky, especially if you don’t have
a final composition in mind, because the
composition will depend on the space—
a bit of a Catch-22.
Since I was coming to the show
without a fixed arrangement, I had to
determine my must-haves in terms of a
final space assignment. For me these
were: enough negative space, the safety
of the objects (since they are so precarious,
which is part of the content), and
certain lighting conditions. My curatorial
fellow listened to these concerns and
came up with a workable solution. So, my
advice to future grads is to know the
absolute essentials for showing your
work, while remaining somewhat flexible.
Plus, keep the dialogue open with your
guest curator and curatorial fellows, as
well as with the artists around you.
Josh Reames: I think the experience has
been a little different for me than it has
been for a lot of others, as based on a
couple years of observing stress levels

Artists’Voices
Jan Christopher Berkson
La Petit Mort, 2012, acrylic on canvas
during MFA show time. Both Ron [Ewert]
and I have approached the show with a
level of flexibility; we know the gist of
what we want to do, but knew going into
it that there were all sorts of contingencies
to maneuver—space, curator's
visions, how our stuff would operate in
proximity with other artist's work, etc. My
best advice is to be as flexible as possible
and make tons of art; then hanging the
show becomes more about selection and
curation.
Katie Loomis: It's an organic process that
allows you to focus your time in the studio
creating work, while the curatorial
team molds and shapes the MFA exhibition.
It's about being receptive and allowing
the work to speak for itself.
Jeff Parrott: To be honest getting ready
for the MFA show has been exciting and
down right frightening. One minute a
painting seems right for the show, only
to be set aside by a newer painting. It's a
battle, constantly cycling, never to be
satisfied with what’s been created, but
rather satisfied only when creating and in
the moment of not-really-sure-what-is-
being-painted-is-really-even-worth-showing
for this big show. It's as if one would
be ready only when the deadline of
installing one’s work hits, and this obsessive
cycle of constantly working will get
silenced within. Even then, one still might
never be satisfied with the work created
to show the public. But in the end what
one has learned is maybe a better understanding
of one’s own intuition or even
new painting techniques. This once-in-alifetime
experience—preparing for the
MFA show—boils down to one notion as
an artist: "I know nothing and in this nothing
is all."
Jan Christopher Berkson: At first I was a
little anxious not knowing where or how
much space I would have and, of course,
everyone wants to be in a highly visible
spot. But within the first couple meetings
with the curatorial team, I decided they
had my best interests in mind, so I was
going to try and not worry, but instead
keep painting until the last possible
moment. As shifts in my work occurred I
kept my curatorial fellows apprised, so
any possible adjustments could be made
within the limitations of the gallery and in
Jihoon Yoo
still from Rehearsal #1-2, 2012, 3D animation
relation to the other artists nearby. With
advice from the team, I felt free to continue
to pursue what I was interested in, but
knew that it might affect placement of
the work. This made me more mindful of
which direction to go when it came to
putting in works/creating more works
that would be in conversation with each
other. I think this experience has influenced
me to be more thoughtful in terms
of the interrelatedness of developing
work and curating. This is a good thing to
think about when working towards a
graduate exhibition.
Jihoon Yoo: In order to be an artist, you
must be open and willing to experiment
with many unique possibilities. Being
unfamiliar with the space allowed me to
focus more on my project and less on its
surroundings. Artists should treat their
work like an organic entity, enabling it to
adapt to its surroundings.

Studio Visits
In-Between Spaces of Experience
by Elçin Marasli
A dialogue on the artist’s studio, first and
foremost, demands an unconventional
definition of the word “space.” While
ideas tend to plant seeds inside the
artist’s mind, the work itself needs physical
recognition inside a space—be it an
art object, a digital projection, or a performative
event. The studio is where the
artist delivers the art, and where the art,
manifests its existence. The resulting
definition of the studio space, therefore,
constructs an aesthetic/theoretical entity;
it is a space in-between.
The studio visits we scheduled on the
second weekend of February consisted of
highly energized exchanges between
curatorial voices and artistic needs. Under
the insightful guidance of our guest curator
Tumelo Mosaka, our well-organized
team visited each of our thirty artists and
turned a sunny weekend into three full
days of constructive exchange inside their
studio spaces. While we were walking in
and out of each studio, with notebooks in
our hands and expectations on our minds,
our artists also carried with them snippets
Julietta Cheung
sketch of proposed installation for An Index of Material Moments, 2012
of curious anxiety. Some were hesitant to
talk to us in detail about their works,
while some were more courageous in
directing their questions at us, challenging
us with definitions of curatorial
practice. It did not take too long, however,
for the first few minutes of each visit
to transition from formal introductions
into friendly dialogue. Throughout the
curatorial process each of the fellows
followed up with their artist-subgroups,
making studio visits to keep communications
open. By entering the artists’
spaces, we were able to bridge connections
between their personalities, their
artistic philosophies and techniques, and
their expectations and needs. It was
only this idea of the studio as a space
in-between that allowed the curatorial
perspective to merge into the artistic
experience, and vice versa.
Having studio visits as the primary
building block of our process of putting
together the MFA exhibition, allowed
us to match our curatorial tasks to
the innovative methodologies of studio
Spreadsheet showing schedule of the curatorial
team’s studio visits
Image: Ross Jordan

Studio Visits
In-Between Spaces of Experience
by Elçin Marasli
production. It was not surprising to watch
the curatorial process successfully unfold
only after having the opportunity to
understand our artists as individuals
inside their studios, and later to communicate
with them about their particular
needs as they evolved from within their
private spaces into the public gallery. In
her essay “Live/Work,” Katy Siegel utilizes
the metaphor of an “apartment” to refer
to an artist’s studio. 1 This made me think
that one creative way for audiences to
approach the MFA exhibition would be to
realize it as an experiential site for
viewing and living art. Our curatorial task
has been along these lines—bridging
communities and allowing them to share
and live between spaces of experience.
Fully embracing what this show has to
offer, we can enter into an experience of
the work that has been created inside the
artist’s studio; we can analyze the work in
the gallery setting; and we can live the
experience that will only keep growing in
between these two spaces of studio and
exhibition.
1 Katy Siegel, “Live/Work,” in The Studio Reader: On the
Space of Artists, ed. Mary Jane Jacob and Michelle
Grabner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)
Curatorial Fellow Elçin Marasli at studio visit
with artist Julietta Cheung
Photo: Robyn Farrell

Studio Visits
Role Play
by Ross Jordan
All studio visits pretty much start with
someone, visitor or invitee, asking, “So,
I’m not sure what you want me to do?” or
“It’s good to see you, why are we
talking?” It seems too presumptuous and
forward to begin with, “So let’s see some
art!”—as if being on a first date and
suggesting that dinner be skipped for the
delights of dessert. Is it rare that something
so important is so poorly understood?
Studio visits are like sketch
comedies: everyone has a role (artist,
curator), but no one knows what is
happening until someone just decides
what should happen. But even so, the
roles need to be ironed out. The studio
visits for the MFA show are the process
of young curators and artists getting to
know their roles. As a burgeoning curator,
I immediately feel like I needed to say
something important that conveys my
presumed talent in my role. But I have
found I usually have little to say as I listen
to an artist talk about nascent ideas,
referring to sketches and prototypes.
Nine times out of ten, so many things
rush into my head that I’m frozen. When
looking at art in someone’s studio many
connections, threads of thought, and
eureka moments are available. It’s hard to
know where to start. I want to give the
right advice, as well as posing criticism
and questions. I also don’t want to let on
that I have no idea what I’m doing.
I freeze because I realize nothing
I have done after four years of undergraduate
sculpture and a-year-and-a-half
of graduate school has prepared me to
give advice about the creation of
artworks. This is a curious moment,
because shouldn’t something so important
to curatorial practice at least
have a lecture series or a half-credit
course where I could think about what a
good studio visit should be like? Instead
I’m learning my role through direct
experience by performing my role. I’m
flying by the seat of my pants.
The artist has fulfilled their role and
made art and shared it with me. Now
I have to be courageous myself, play my
part, and tell them exactly what I think.
Curatorial Fellow Ross Jordan at studio visit with artist Tony Lewis
Photo: David Derish
Tony Lewis in his studio
Photo: Ross Jordan

Studio Visits
An Interview with the Curatorial Fellows
by Ron Ewert and Josh Reames
Ron Ewert and Josh Reames: When
choosing artists or work for an
exhibition, do you look for things that
confirm your ideas or do you allow the
larger practice of an artist to lead you
to specific pieces?
Robyn Farrell: Organizing an exhibition is
a very organic experience. A show can
build from a singular idea or evolve from
a conversation at a studio visit. Other
times the two modes naturally form a
dialogue where the curator’s initial
concept and an artist’s practice coalesce.
As a curator, I feel it is important to allow
the natural process to progress through
research and conversation. I think the
MFA show is a perfect example of this
approach. Over one hundred artists are
divided among four curators each with
four curatorial fellows. All these voices
enter into this exhibition with a diverse
set of ideas and an incredible range of
artworks. The attempt to harness such
material is a dubious task, especially if
approached from a curatorial idea vs.
artwork point of view.
Led by our guest curator, Tumelo
Mosaka, our team’s curatorial discussion
did not begin until we had visited every
artist in our group. After seeing nearly
thirty artists and talking about their work,
we sat down to discuss our thoughts and
identify potential lines of connection.
As the months of preparation continued
we revisited our ideas, as well as the work
itself, finding relational patterns that
would build to a cohesive visual
experience. Allowing intuition and pragmatics
to work together—instead of in
opposition to on another—proved to be a
successful mode for curating the MFA
show. The experience confirmed the
strength of this approach, letting both
idea and art progress without conformity.
RE and JR: What is your ideal space
to work with? How do you view the
white cube in relation to public spaces,
and alternative exhibition models?
Allison Glenn: I prefer to create a dialogue
between multiple environments,
Josh Reames and Ron Ewert
sketch of proposed exhibition installation, 2012
including the white cube and more
non-traditional spaces. When considering
what defines public space, I think it’s
important to look beyond public art,
toward other platforms like the web,
print, and the space of public programming.
You have to do diligence to an
artist’s work and concepts with the
correct placement of their object(s),
which often times may not be within a
gallery. Fracturing the site of the exhibition
into these multiple forms makes
for a much more effective approach. We
had a few artists in the MFA exhibition
this year who were creating work that
could have existed in a powerful way
outside of the confines of the Sullivan
Galleries. Alas, the desire to be placed
into the galleries drove their projects in a
new direction, when indeed the concept
could have come first. I am not prescribing
this approach for every instance or
opportunity to exhibit that an artist may
have, but merely noting how crucial
site is to the overall project. The proper
execution of an idea requires the proper
placement. Web-based media may work
better on the internet, and some works
are better suited for an environment
outside of the confines of the white cube.
Looking forward, I do believe the
framework exists for a new institutional
model, which challenges arts practitioners
to rethink the way that we approach
artworks, objects, and collections. The
priority shift from one of collecting to
exhibiting is, for me, rather exciting. With
complete respect to the traditional model,
my interest in mid-level, non-collecting
establishments has developed around
themes of institutional and artistic collaboration,
new technological developments,
satellite galleries for new audience development,
and a cutting-edge approach to
curatorial practice that allows for a closer
relationship between the artist and the
audience.
RE and JR: The MFA show always has the
air of being chaotic. Did you come into
this process aware of this? Was your
approach to curating to help bring about
some sort of cohesion and flow? How did
you make decisions to create harmony?
Ross Jordan: Organizing the show and
giving it cohesion, thoughtfulness, and
harmony is certainly the most difficult
part. Usually the curatorial process begins
with a theme, and if an artist does not fit
the theme, then they would be cut. With
the MFA show it is reverse engineering—
we begin with a set group of artists and
look for themes. Our themes were basic,
such as dark palette or structural forms,
and some were more conceptual, like
language as a system or domesticity. Yet,
the themes are not just about the visuals
of the artwork. Sometimes the way two
artists talked about their work created
a likely grouping, or the artistic process
shared between two artists made them a

Josh Reames
no diving, 2012
acrylic on canvas
good paring. With such a large number
of artists many themes tended to arise as
organizing principles. The thirty artists
in our group were split into three larger
themes of which each had five or six
descriptive phrases or words. We were
never lacking for themes or relationships.
The challenge was to find connective
threads between artists across the other
curatorial groups. Of course, there is no
way to know what kind of harmony we
have created until objects begin to be
installed in the space.
RE and JR: When working with a group
of artists, what is the process like for
curators as they reconcile the need to
communicate their vision and their
obligation to present the artists’ work as
intended?
RF: Everything is a negotiation. Curating
to me is a practice in pragmatics and
creative thinking, and the decisionmaking
process is a continual conversation
and collaboration. Identifying shared
terrain, mining spatial needs, and keeping
the intent of the artist and the intended
Hannah Givler
artist’s prototype of modular installation, 2012
public in mind—while staying true to my
vision—is a skillful dance that I am still
learning. The MFA show has provided
a significant experience for me to better
hone acumen for such complexities,
something for which I am incredibly
grateful.
RJ: The relationship between artists and
curators, especially in the MFA show, is
based on a continuous dialogue around
the art objects. Removing one’s self, or
not being committed to that dialogue,
does not contribute to making a good
exhibition. I like the idea of becoming a
temporary expert on someone's art
practice so I can be just as invested as
the artist in the success of the artwork.
And the best way to become an expert is
to be in dialogue with the artist. The
process of the MFA show is interesting for
this exact reason. For the show the
fellows made time to become as informed
as possible so they could make smart
decisions. Sharing openly and building
trust through dialogue are ways toward
getting some great feedback about
artwork. Artists should not shy away.
RE and JR: How do you view the relationship
between writing about work
and curating a show?
AG: Both are to communicate ideas, both
authored and arranged within a certain
formal structure. But there are more
differences than similarities between the
two. When writing, you are setting up a
complex system for your reader, which
includes other people who have written
about this topic, theory, imagery, a
descriptive and/or authoritative tone.
The traditional, linear narrative style
allows the reader much less agency than
within an exhibition. When curating a
show, you are choosing one or two key
ideas, and selecting work that you think is
in dialogue together and within the overall
conceptual framework. While I enjoy
the differences between the two, I prefer
an exhibition setting where the viewer
has the agency to explore ideas and
create their own narrative, not one that is
prescribed. Curatorial points of interest
or themes within an exhibition act like
punctuation in a sentence. A discrete,
well-placed comma can go a long way.
Elçin Marasli: I have been thinking about
this since we began working on the MFA
exhibition. Personally, I find the concept
of rhetoric a key element in bridging
thought processes in both writing and
curating. Rhetoric stands for eloquence
and command of language. Writing is
only strong when it flows well; a show can
similarly be successful in the fluidity of its
conceptual and visual organization.
Writing also plays a big role in the critical
understanding of individual art works
or artists. It can also provide a keen
understanding on how abstract concepts
and ideas can exist inside a space and
physically manifest themselves through
artworks. A curator's challenge should be
to try to "write" an exhibition that the
viewer can read into.
RE and JR: What are your obligations
to artists and the public, and do these
relationships conflict? How do you
negotiate these different demands?

RF: Addressing the needs of an artist
and a community, and resolving any disjunction
is a great negotiation. That said,
I don’t see these relationships in conflict;
they inform one another. A curator is the
liaison between the artist and the public
with the responsibility to provide a
platform and an experience. The demands
are a navigation of media and interests,
challenging norms while abiding by
budgetary constraints. Upholding the
artist’s voice and installing an engaging
environment fold into educational
programming and public accessibility.
The ideal orchestration results from
empirical thought and realistic practice,
meaning and impact, relevance and
reception. These are inherent to an environment
that engages the relationship
between an artist and the community,
something I strive to produce as a
curator.
RE and JR: Is there a qualitative difference
between exhibitions organized by
artists and specific professional curatorial
projects? How would you describe
that dynamic? Is there a specific ideology
to curation?
RJ: I came to SAIC to fuse my interest
in curating and my art practice. The
tendency is to think that artist-organized
shows are more edgy, dynamic, and
looser than their professional, academic
curated counterparts. But I have visited a
number of artist-organized shows that are
teeming with ideas usually identified with
curatorial practice. Additionally, artists
contribute a particular sensibility and
perspective to curators’ projects—a good
curator can pick up on that and transmit
it into the context of an exhibition.
I don’t think one perspective is mutually
exclusive to the other, especially since
I’m attempting to have the best of both
worlds.
Ideologically or not, curating has its
own histories and languages that need
challenging. This is why artistic perspective,
non-institutional perspectives, and
audience perspectives are all interesting
approaches in dialogue with exhibition
making. Any person, artists or otherwise,
who is developing a curatorial project is
engaging in that historical dialogue.
Embracing and challenging it is far more
interesting than ignoring it.

Studio Visits
An Interview with Guest Curator Tumelo Mosaka
by the Curatorial Fellows
Robyn Farrell: What were your expectations
as guest curator for the 2012 MFA
show, and how did they change throughout
the curatorial process? How were
you able to apply aspects of your own
curatorial practice to such a diverse
range of students and material?
Tumelo Mosaka: It’s really hard to know
what you’re signing up for until you’re in
it. I was inspired by the previous MFA
show and had given a presentation to the
2011 curatorial fellows. It looked like an
exciting opportunity to be working with
fellows interested in exhibition making.
The scale was both daunting and, at the
same time, challenging to have a team
working with so many students. I’ve
mostly worked with art students, so the
opportunity to work with students who
were not artists and interested in curatorial
practice was a new experience. It was
also an opportunity to collaborate in ways
that I would normally not. Throughout
this process, I’ve learned a lot, especially
from you, the curatorial fellows. Your
passions, interests, and professionalism
have been very impressive. I don’t think
I was this way when I first began.
As to the second part of your question
about my approach, I think I was very
clear from the beginning that I wanted
the fellows to take ownership. With this
in mind, I saw my role as a mentor or
advisor. I was keen on having you establish
relationships with the artists and build
trust, so that the exchange could be
genuine. This usually requires time, which
we didn’t have, but we made the best
of it. The process for me was really about
working through you, the fellows.
Elçin Marasli: What are some of the
biggest challenges you have come across
while orchestrating multiple voices in the
formation of a group exhibition, both as
one of the guest curators and as a team
manager of your fellows?
TM: Every project has its challenges and
part of our work is finding solutions. This
means being able to negotiate, multi-task,
Brian Rush
works in progress, 2012
and listen. It’s not always the case that
you’re just working with artworks. You
also have to deal with personalities—
sometimes this is where your patience is
pushed—but is also where subtleties of
meaning can be found. One of the more
frustrating challenges has been the thirdparty
influence on student work. This at
times has left students either confused or
convinced about what work to submit for
the show. Other challenges include, the
workings of guest curators with very
different ideas. All this, fortunately, has
been well managed. Critical to this
process was finding common ground and
having respect for each other’s views.
So, yes, endurance pays off and I think
working with you guys has made this
experience worthwhile.
Allison Glenn: Can you tell us a bit about
your background and experience leading
up to this point? What experiences
helped shape your professional development,
and what are your aspirations for
the future?
TM: This follows nicely from what I said
before about collaboration. My first
curatorial experience was at the 1st
Johannesburg Biennale in 1995. I began
as trainee curator working with an
independent curator Octavio Zaya based
in New York. From our first encounter,
I remember him saying to me, “Find your
voice and believe in what you do.” That
sounded great then, but what exactly did
it mean? It took me some time to understand
that curating was about putting
forward your vision. It is about creating
a narrative informed by your experience
of the world. Having grown up in a very
politicized country— South Africa—most
of my work involves inserting into the
mainstream those marginal voices that
are critical of dominant historical
perspectives. I work a lot with emerging
artists and am interested in making
connections across ethnic, racial, gender,
and geographical boundaries. At least
that is what I always have in mind, but it
also changes depending on where I am.
So you have to be flexible and sometimes
you don’t have much choice.

Studio Visits
Interview with Guest Curator Tumelo Mosaka
by the Curatorial Fellows
Ross Jordan: How is your role as guest
curator different or similar to your other
curatorial experiences?
TM: Well, I can assure you that this is very
different compared to how it works in the
real world. Since I work for a museum,
I’m always thinking about audiences and
finding ways to engage them. This
requires understanding of your local context
and art production. I enjoy spending
time with artists and learning about
where new ideas are circulating and how
artists are thinking about their practice.
Once the work is selected for an exhibition,
the challenge is how to make it
accessible to various publics. This is
something we all struggle with as curators;
sometimes it’s not enough that only
few people get to experience the work.
At my museum, we usually plan at
least two years in advance; this is
standard practice in the museum field.
It allows one enough time to develop
knowledge on the subject and also to
Andrew Barco
sketch of proposed exhibition installation, 2012
publish scholarly research. For the MFA
exhibition, we had about four months,
which seems crazy given the comparison.
The advantage though was that students
were already making works towards this
grand finale presentation. Our role was to
engage and, hopefully, to influence their
way of thinking and making. Having the
opportunity to visit so many students’
studios, gave us the chance to connect
some thematic threads in the works.
However, this will also change because
the space requirements dictate a different
logic. So you have to be open to constant
change and have a lot of patience. As the
role of curating continues to expand, it’s
important to keep in mind that art is
always in the process of becoming. In the
same spirit, curating is always in the process
of self-defining. My role constantly
changes as I work on different projects.
RJ: What lessons are you taking away
from this experience working with MA
and MFA students?
TM: Without distance, it’s hard to say,
but I can say it has been an intense and
enjoyable experience. Your hard work
is what has kept me engaged and I look
forward to seeing how the curatorial
fellows will impact the field of curating.
Joel Parsons
artist’s studio, 2012
Photo: Elçin Marasli