Who is in control? Models like the public institutions (e.g. incarcerations, museums and malls) as well as systems (like collaboration in curating) are forms of control in the socio-cultural industry of the society. In view thereof, a question on who is in control is critically raised. This critical question is an attempt to briefly elicit and probe appropriate answers in connection to the discourses associated on the said issue. Hence, according to Sarah Drury in her online article, “Being in control is generally a desirable aspect of any communication.”1 Case in point - that control is one desirable factor in communication but other than this particular observation lies in the aspect of power relative with control or manipulation as communicated through a given institution or system. In Tony Bennets’ article – The Exhibitionary Complex, he mentioned that the constituent institutions “sought also to allow the people to know and thence to regulate themselves; to become, in seeing themselves from the side of power, both the subjects and objects of knowledge, knowing power and what power knows, and knowing themselves as (ideally) known by power, interiorizing its gaze as a principle of self-surveillance and, hence, self-regulation.”2 In this way, it generates an impression that the establishment of these institutions introduces the society to become better. And in becoming a better society vis-à-vis a better member of the society, starts with the introduction of gainful knowledge which eventually results to progress and a sense of power. In analysis, the institutions became effective “apparatuses” of the state and its sovereign in demonstrating power in the guise of control instruments of instilling knowledge and discipline (including internal surveillance) among the society. Moreover systems like the collaborative approach in curatorship (as a shift fromtraditional or institutional curatorial practice) is often seen as an emergent transition of hierarchical mode to collaborative curatorship. Therefore as a transition, the collaborative practice is not insulated from the issue of control and power. The collaborative curatorial practice in this sense is two pronged; the artist-led activity and the audience-led activity. In a closer look at both leading activity, each surface its “hidden” control and power brand. A good example is in the aspects of “self-institutionalization”4 and “Informal network.”5 As a mode of practice within the curatorial field, self-institutionalization is a system that artists create which is not physically bound but instead a strategy in assuming other practices. By doing so, the range of institutions it emulate becomes more varied, resulting to a “copy paste”6 practice. Where the networks’ project becomes more of individual than collaborative. While informal network is an audience-led activity where the system is based on “inner-circles” or commonly known as “friendship.”7 As a collaborative curatorial practice, the systems’ strength is on its idea of more than one collaborator network of friends in realizing a project and its capacity of sharing resources. Hence an impressive character of the system. However the difficulty in informal network is in bringing new players in the system, it is about “working with a small group of friends which is not always perceived as fair and equal business practice.”8 As such, there is a tendency (to control) for the inner-circle to exclude few possible new partners. With these surfacing concepts on control and power through the different discourses on institutions and practices in the cultural industry, one can’t help but to become critical and may ask the question on who is in control. And the answer may be varied and relative according the how the issue is perceived. 1. Drury, Sarah. Who’s in Control? Issues in Interactive Media Art. nyu.edu/its/pubs/connect/archives/99fall/drurymediaart.html [email protected]. isc.temple.edu/sdrury/ Posted October 14, 1999, p 3. 2. Bennet, Tony. New formations – The Exhibtionary Complex, number 4. 1998, p. 76. 3. Cook, Sarah and Graham, Beryl. Rethinking Curating: After New Media, 247. 4. Ibid, 259. 5. Ibid, 272. 6. Ibid, 260. 7. Ibid, 272. 8. Ibid, 273 Bibliography Bennet, Tony. New formations – The Exhibtionary Complex, number 4. 1998. Cook, Sarah and Graham, Beryl. Rethinking Curating: After New Media. Drury, Sarah. Who’s in Control? Issues in Interactive Media Art. nyu.edu/its/pubs/connect/archives/99fall/drurymediaart.html [email protected]. isc.temple.edu/sdrury/ Posted October 14, 1999.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:57:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015