tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4621724410138089963.post6832795873794437395..comments2023-06-13T08:06:01.018-07:00Comments on Curating Discourse: MFA Curating 2007/09http://www.blogger.com/profile/07469991764391380083noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4621724410138089963.post-54511835758390612542007-11-08T09:54:00.000-08:002007-11-08T09:54:00.000-08:00This is a comment that relates to your opinions on...This is a comment that relates to your opinions on the Barbican show Sinead rather than a direct look at your actual review. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you hole-heartidly on several key points throughout this review. <BR/><BR/>I am about the post my review on the show at the Barbican and can only but sympathise with the lack lustre curating, the obvious comparisons (unlike you I think that even by placing Cunningham above the Greek Marble is still too forumalic) and in general the over whelming syncronization of the show. <BR/><BR/>I was left abandoned and annoyed at what could have potentially been a very interesting and insightful show. <BR/><BR/>If you get the time please read what I have to say about the show. I'll post it now.<BR/><BR/>SophieMFA Curating 2007/09https://www.blogger.com/profile/07469991764391380083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4621724410138089963.post-1547156022032772362007-11-08T09:48:00.000-08:002007-11-08T09:48:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.MFA Curating 2007/09https://www.blogger.com/profile/07469991764391380083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4621724410138089963.post-11089986038637417342007-10-31T04:33:00.000-07:002007-10-31T04:33:00.000-07:00As means of a reply. There are a few first points ...As means of a reply. There are a few first points to note. The text begins well, the first paragraph is elegant and precise, although i would be concerned about the assumption of didactacism, remember this is more a museological/historical endeavour not one with a contemporary curatorial slant. Although you seem to get to grips with the failings in the exhibition i fear that the arguments played out in this review don't come to fruition. As such the process of reading seems to echo the criticism you made of the exhibition itself; the short sentances and backward forward motion of your thought is in danger of becoming repetetive itself. What may have been more interesting is if you had focussed on a particular moment in the exhibition that you felt didn't work and really teased apart the reasons for this. If you had paid more attention for example to the interesting dichotomy you setup about the appropriateness of gazing on the inapropriate. Rather than writing it off as a mistake, maybe you could deal with the implications of this move. The exhibition sounds truly dreadful, but what a mammoth task the curators took on; to survey sex in art over 2000 years is perhaps a mistake, but then these large exhibitions often fall into the trap of over simplification in order to 'seduce' or justify their raison d'etre. <BR/><BR/>You clearly have the ability to write in a precise and articulate way, although maybe your train of thought wanders from time to time. Perhaps a more focussed review would allow you to concentrate your abilities on one specific argument and thus allow a stimulating process to evolve. <BR/><BR/>I hope this helps.<BR/><BR/>xTom TrevattMFA Curating 2007/09https://www.blogger.com/profile/07469991764391380083noreply@blogger.com