Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Practices of Care: On Rehumanization and Curating | WCSCD 2020/21 Annual Lecture Series The curatorial program What Could/Should Curating Do 2020 is proud to continue in 2020 with public program through lecture series The fifth talk in the 2020/21 series is titled: “Practices of Care: On Rehumanization and Curating” By Natasa Petresin-Bachelez Date: January 12, 2020 Time: 12:00 pm Belgrade/ 10:00 pm Melbourne/ 07:00 pm Shanghai/ 6:00 am New York Venue: zoom link Meeting ID: 985 237 3109 Live stream/Facebook link Installation of Sensing Salon, part of the exhibition Not Fully Human, Not Human at All, Kunstverein in Hamburg, 2020, photo Natasa Petresin-Bachelez Natasa Petresin-Bachelez will speak about two of her recent curatorial projects, “Not Fully Human, Not Human at All” (KADIST and Kunstverein in Hamburg, 2020, co-curated with Bettina Steinbrügge) and the Initiative of Practices and Visions of Radical Care that she co-founded with Elena Sorokina in spring 2020. Through them she will trace the questions of (in)compatibility of curatorial and institutional methods with the produced content, and talk about her understanding of the concept of interdependence. photo by Ivana Kalvacheva, jewellery artist ismail Afghan About Speaker Nataša Petrešin-Bachelez is an independent curator, editor and writer, she lives and works in Paris. Among the projects and exhibitions she curated are: Contour Biennale 9: Coltan as Cotton (Mechelen, 2019), Defiant Muses. Delphine Seyrig and Feminist Video Collectives in France in 1970s-1980s at the Museum Reina Sofia, Madrid and museum LaM, Lille (with Giovanna Zapperi, 2019), Let’s Talk about the Weather. Art and Ecology in a Time of Crisis at the Sursock Museum in Beirut (with Nora Razian, 2016), Resilience. Triennial of Contemporary Art in Slovenia at Museum of Contemporary Art (Ljubljana, 2013), and in France Becoming Earthlings. Blackmarket for Useful Knowledge and Non-Knowledge #18 at Musée de l’Homme (with Alexander Klose, Council and Mobile Academy, 2015), Tales of Empathy at Jeu de Paume (2014), The Promises of the Past at the Centre Pompidou (with Christine Macel and Joanna Mytkowska, 2010), Société anonyme at Le Plateau/FRAC Ile-de-France (with Thomas Boutoux and François Piron, 2007). Between 2010 and 2012, she was co-director of Les Laboratoires d’Aubervilliers and co-founder of the European network of small-scale art institutions Cluster. She is a co-organizer and co-founder of the seminar Something You Should Know at EHESS, Paris (with Elisabeth Lebovici and Patricia Falguières), and a member of the research group Travelling Féministe, at Centre audiovisuel Simone de Beauvoir, Paris. She is the chief editor of the publishing platform Versopolis Review, between 2014 and 2017 she was the chief editor of L’Internationale Online, the publishing platform of L’Internationale – the confederation of cultural institutions, and between 2012 and 2014 she was the chief editor of the Manifesta Journal. She contributed to various publications and held lectures and organized seminars in which she presents her ongoing research into situated curatorial practices, empathy and transnational feminism, slow institutions, performative practices in the former Eastern Europe, and engaged artistic practices in the era of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene. In the scholar year 2019-2020 she teaches at the Sint Lucas School of Arts, Antwerpen. WHAT COULD/SHOULD CURATING DO? (WCSCD) WHAT COULD/SHOULD CURATING DO? (WCSCD) was initiated and funded in 2018 in Belgrade as an educational platform around notions of curatorial. From 2020 WCSCD started to initiate its own curatorial inquiries and projects that should unpack above -mentioned complexities keeping educational component as a core to the WCSCD. The WCSCD curatorial program and series of public lectures have been initiated and organized by Biljana Ciric. WCSCD 2020/2021 public program series has been done in collaboration with Division of Arts and Humanities, Duke Kunshan University and they co-stream all public lectures. Strategic media collaboration is done with Seecult and they will co-host all public lecture series. Project Partners Media Partner For more information about the program, please refer to www.wcscd.com Project contacts: what.could.curating.do@gmail.com Follow us: FB: @whatcscdo Instagram: @whatcouldshouldcuratingdo < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

< Back Partner Cells in Co-Immunity 15 Nov 2020 Conversation between Zdenka Badovinac, Director of Moderna Galerija (Ljubljana), Larys Frogier, Director of the Rockbund Art Museum (Shanghai), Nikita Choi, Chief Curator of Times Museum (Guang Zhou), Aigerim Kapar, founder of Artcom platform (Astana) and Biljana Ciric, founder of WCSCD and initiator of As you go…roads under your feet, towards the new future . Conversation conducted through zoom on August 26th, 2020. Robel Temesgen and prof. Sinkneh Eshetu (Addis Ababa) were two partners also intended to be present though were not able to be. A reminder that our basic functionality is not same for all of us within this project, as we continue to learn how to respect urgencies of the cells within their situated context. Even if only through the small gesture, such as this exchange, of finding a way to listen. From where I am sitting, this conversation was conducted very late in the evening. The evening always seems to somehow spell magic for ideas – but being together in a liminal space of existing in an everytime was even better. It was some kind of wonderful to be connected across the globe, to hear these artists, curators and researchers be united over this beautiful mission to find a way to relate their urgencies to one another – and then from themselves to the rest of the globe. The effects of this pandemic, and the urgencies that are now impossible to ignore, have not been lost on any of us. It is clear that a greater efficacy and criticality is required of our modes of working and the conceptual relevancies we will proceed (or be expected) to put forward. This idea of the intimacy of strangers, the power of the small, and the insistent call of unlearning, are perhaps not entirely new ideas, but throughout the life project, has shown itself to be an extended consideration of care that I’ve yet to see be engaged in such a way. Although we are maintaining our communication, we dwell within different modes of existing, and there were those intended to be present but were not able to be. From them, we have requested responses to this transcript. Robel Temesgen and prof. Sinkneh Eshetu were two such parties. Watching Robel intermittently cutting in and out of the call was a very clear indicator that within this digital sphere, sometimes absence is not a choice. Upon asking him to respond to the transcript of the conversation, he generously re-situated himself within the context. I have maintained these above in italics to expand the framing and possibilities of this dialogue. Prof. Sinkneh, who is currently away, I’m sure shall also see his responses make their way into this conversation, expanding the dialogue once more. This interview, and the project at large, is continuously growing. As we adapt to the world, we also adapt to one another, and if indeed we can talk about dreams publicly, then I would like to hope that the strength of this co-immunity transcends the virus that seemed to give birth to it, and lives on in its own working methodology of care and solidarity. – Ed. Biljana Ciric (BC): Since the project started in February 2020, we have been meeting every two weeks, but this is the first time that we are all meeting together afterwards to have [a] conversation [with the] partner institutions I organized in Addis Ababa in February this year. Some of us had a chance, as a partner cells, to spend time together – to walk and work through the Addis that today, seems very far away. During this month, we learned that the partners, or the cells – I call us “cells” of the project – are not only institutions, but [are also] individuals producing differences within the context situated in. Being already half [a] year into the project – [which] was postponed and had very fragile moments – this conversation serves as a platform where we should look at that half year we spent together, [where we] started as a strangers, [to look at] how this intimacy of strangers as cells can become a productive force. Some of the partner cells are private institutions, some public, some are [single] person institutions, but what is very important [is] that being together today within this project is driven by a personal decision of addressing and reflecting on issues that we all find relevant and [hold] in common, rather than repeating professional modes of working within [the] contemporary art world. As I said, we went through half a year of uncertainty and fragility with this project, and we were all strangers within [it]– well my position was slightly different because you [all] came aboard the project upon my invitation – but through sharing and recognising urgencies that I’m trying to address through this project, I’m hoping [we] can create [a] co-immunity in the times to come and the times of separation we are entering. This conversation is meant to help us reflect on the projects: where we are and [on] the pandemic [which has also] shifted the project – but also addressing your own position within the project, and how you see yourself within the group and things like that. Maybe because Zdenka and I are the only ones who [were] together in Addis Ababa, where we established [the] commonalities of the project that we are trying to work through, I would like to ask [Zdenka] to reflect. Zdenka Badovinac (ZB): Oh okay, shall I start? BC: Yes…the conversation is [being] recorded just to let you know. ZB: Oh, okay. So I very [much] like being [a] part of the project, and that our institution, Moderna Galerija can contribute, at least a little, on the Balkans – from how the new economic influences reflects in our culture, [but] also the social and political issues here. [In] the beginning with Biljana, we decided that our roles would be related to our [respective] regions. I also went to Addis Ababa with Biljana [where] we met extremely interesting people: we learnt a lot about this context that is completely different from ours, but at the same time in Ethiopia, we found part of our former country, Yugoslavia. Ethiopia was a member of the Non-aligned Movement; and business corporations, artists and cultural workers also went there – there were sculptures all around the city built by Yugoslav sculptors, with traces of this also [in] the architecture. You [begin to really] see how the distant past can somehow make the world smaller again. It isn’t only [the] internet, but also history, which reconnects us. After we came back from Ethiopia, the pandemic started soon after – at least, here in Europe and China, [as] it [was already] happening beforehand. It was also [a] very important lesson for our project, for [the] four of us [to realise] how this small virus could affect the whole world. This is [an] important lesson that is based on economic dominance, but also [a] different kind of communication. [You have] this global world with different powers who fight for dominance, and then suddenly you have [this] small, invisible virus that has an influence [on] the economy, politics, the existing power relation[s] – and this is new. Before the world was globalised, the small and invisible – the local – couldn’t influence the world as heavily as [it does] today. This is [a] very important lesson and Biljana, [along with] all the collaborators, decided [on] how [to] follow the developments [that] resulted from the alternatives. And of course, the pandemic that is everywhere (and I think Biljana was just saying that she’s in Melbourne and [in] lockdown), probably [gives us] more time in this world for [a] different kind of online communication. This is important because she [is also] somehow pushing us – at least like us in Ljubljana, for us/art and apparent normality’s sake but you know, it is only an illusion. We don’t know how long it will last and we need to learn how to stay connected – this is very important – and how to reflect from another perspective: [this] new force which [has] homogenised the world. It is not economic or political, but [instead], comes from nature. Nature that has been affected by humans – the result of the Anthropocene. It is very much about rethink[ing] the forces of different commonalities, and this project is perfect [for] it. [But it’s] also how to reflect [on] the non-human aspect of colonialization. I think here, traditional knowledge [or] pre-modern knowledge, is also important. Because modernity is very much about the fast, about progress; and the virus is, of course [the] result of it. Now here we have different localities very much into something pre-modern, and where we can learn from them. Although these pre-modern aspects are somehow also in danger. So it’s a question [of] how to relate the dialogue without being exotic or without romanticising the past. This is something [that] I [also] think [is] very important. Of course, the Balkans is, at least it was, very distant, from Chinese economic influence – but now, we are living in a completely new global situation. There are also, as in [the] Balkans, former Yugoslavian territory [that] was heavily influenced by [Chinese economic powers]. For example, there are investments from China that [are] in power, in infrastructure (like railway roads, highways), and there is a priority at the moment to connect Greece via Serbia to Europe. In the past this route was via Hungary, not via Croatia or Slovenia, so the former infrastructure between Ljubljana and Belgrade in the times of Yugoslavia which lasted 6 hours, for example, takes 11 hours today, because of the bad condition of the railway. It was not modernized for at least three decades. So you can see how the new economic influence and new powers indirectly organises life in the Balkans. I am very much looking forward to collaborating with all of you [in] the near future, and there will hopefully be a symposium in Ljubljana in Moderna Galerija, in March or April, where all the contributions will be presented and where hopefully, we will [finally] meet in real world. Larys Frogier (LF): I am truly happy and honoured to join this project, that has a lot of meaning, from the Rockbund Art Museum context in Shanghai and China. What I find extremely precious in this research project is the concept of the cells: something small that can grow by connecting with, what we call, strangers – and I think we are all strangers to each other, which I also find very beautiful and very constructive, in a way. The As You go… research project also raises the following question: what is a locality today? In a global remapping of the power structures framed by different forms of occupations, Imperialisms, economical warfare, legal warfare, cultural warfare, we need to reinvent other networks and methodologies of connecting and working with each other…Of course, the current context is very violent, in relation to the above mentioned issues and especially to the pandemic. But because each context has different, [has] layers of histories and very specific contemporary challenges, I am very interested in the small for major changes in the future. Instead of working on and raising a big topic, I truly believe that change today comes from the small – maybe even invisible at the beginning, and on the surface – but extremely incisive and powerful, for implementing possibilities to foresee the future, and invent new forms of solidarities which go beyond the concept of domination or occupation. I also truly believe that this research is a way of curating. That is very important for me working inside an institutional framework (as if we are locked down in a museum). It’s how we can question our own institutions in relation to our local contexts, to broaden [into] escaping dominant areas and narratives. Often from Mainland China, when we talk about the international, we always talk about the relation between the west and the east, but these kinds of dichotomies are very reductive for me; building a lot of stereotypes, generalizations, misunderstandings. That is why this project is crucial in the way we can really raise different problematics and new forms of collaboration; learning from our different localities [of] the violence, the inhumanity, [and] the oppression that each of us are facing from our own context, and in the same taking the risk and the desire to step out of it towards constructive contradictions and the unknown. This requires humility at the same time it requires us to take radical constructive positions. As you go… is very meaningful, because it goes in-between the meta-narratives we can find in the economy, in the politics, but also in the art market. We can thus build a research program that gathers together different practices, individuals, and organizations – which could it be artists, anthropologists, scientists, curators and so on. I truly believe that this kind of format fits the implementation of change and cooperation. I believe that we are all connected in a way, even if we cannot travel. Even if we cannot meet each other. I like the concept and the practice of friction-opposition-contradictions. It means not only trying to endlessly talk about colonisation or big histories, but trying to really create the conditions of how we can infiltrate these big narratives and be critical, engaged, and supportive to each other in such difficult contexts. That’s also why this project is meaningful. Now, about the specific context between Mainland China and the rest of the world: I love this country, I love its people, I love where I’m living. It is just that the political and economic system today is extremely problematic to face, and according to myself, no longer valid. So I think this project can also contribute to bring within China more complex angles and richer perspectives – and at the same time, contribute to real, sincere, and multiple engaged voices to the outside world. I think [it] is important to learn from this and go deeper into [what] the details mean across the various and very specific localities both in Mainland China and globally. For me, localities are made of tradition – that is very important – but it is also a practice that is not only tied to something from the past or to a fixed and frozen context. We need to avoid romanticis[ing] and ideologizing these histories and these localities. [The] Locality is made up of different layers. Multiple on-going combinations. Last but not least, we are trying, here and now, to create something that is very valuable for the art scene, and I also hope the professionals [may] engage closely with more human values – but not like humanism as the west and the new eastern powers used to define what humanism is, with all the violence and the colonialism that it engaged with. Art has the power to remake histories, bringing more criticality and more complexity to what we are doing. Nikita Choi (NC): Do I need to have my camera on? BC: It would be great to see you! I haven’t seen you for a long time. NC: Okay…Hello! Okay, so. [We were] interest[ed] to join the As you go project as a cell, largely [inspired by] the project we launched three years ago (the All The Way South Project ) where we worked together with [the] artist to revisit what is currently happening [with] the supply chain between China and the rest of the world (but mostly related to the Souths of the world) [which] was also informed by an early history of trading, even dating back to some colonial history when European empires arrived at the border of [the] country [and at] Canton and Macau. I think [what] would be great is to also expand this trajectory of research, and the geographical imagination related to the migration of labour – but not only restricting [it] to what we think of as objects or materials, colonial goods, or what we are now [calling] consumer products – and what has been underrepresented in history (in other cultural forms or in the arena of contemporary art – this so-called economic purpose of trading). But another thing is [the] trajectory of subaltern migration, and the migration of labourers intertwined with the fluidity of materials, goods, and objects. I think after[wards], in response to the urgency of COVID-19, one thing we [will] probably have to learn from the ongoing crisis is the vulnerability of our existing structure of globalisation. I think we all know that contemporary, or Chinese contemporary art – or China in general – benefitted from globalisation – [saying this] as a member of this community and as someone whose personal trajectory also actually benefitted from that. But now it’s not going to be the same globalisation we recognise – so what [becomes of] our position? We also realised, by working with artists and other researchers over the years – heard a lot of individual stories, and precarious voices – [that] local or empirical knowledge can also be filtered by ideological constructs and power relations. Part of it, [and] I also agree with Larys’ critique of [the] institution itself, is the lack of critique about the Euro-American canons of institutions or exhibition-making in China; and we have to further interrogate the dominance of art markets after the shock of the pandemic. As an institutional practitioners and cultural makers, we should think beyond the current hegemony and divide, and really try to stay connected with people. The last thing is about the crisis of exhibitions and what curating means. What we used to think of as the norms of curating might not be possible. So how do we think of other disciplines, or what curating might be? What about audiences and communities? What is the relationship between locality and physical proximity? Can we also cross media or disciplines, and reach out to other kinds of communities and audiences? BC: Aigerim? Aigerim Kapar (AK): Thank you. So actually, the Artcom platform and I just joined the project and I’m very glad that we have this opportunity to participate in something so interesting. I’m very interested to see how the project can really develop through our collaborations, and the way Biljana noticed the way strangers can become partners. Especially in this difficult and incomprehensible time, [which has] on the one hand divided [us], and on the other hand, made [us] closer through the online sphere and zoom meetings. It is really important for me that during the pandemic we stay connected and somehow productive. My interest in this project is immense due to [how] the ecological situation in Kazakhstan in Central Asia, and around the world is becoming more and more complicated and aggravated. This pandemic is also the result of these unresolved problems and [poses] a big challenge for all of us. Economical and transport projects and initiatives, like the BRI, will increasingly have an influence on the ecological and environmental situation. Significant for me within the project, is to focus on how art practitioners (artists, curators, researchers) can contribute to understanding or rethinking – or even creating – change, and finding ways to solve social, environmental challenges posed by our political and economic situations and frames. Robel Temesgen (RT): I also would like to say that, this project came in time for Ethiopia. As you have all witnessed, the connection with China is vivid but there hasn’t been a deeper analysis or intervention – especially within the cultural field (at least from what I know). So when I hear about the circumferences of the project from Biljana, it excites me for two major reasons. One is that this is not a sole intervention to investigate Ethiopia and China. This encompasses a broader range to cross check and learn from each other. With that, we all have to remember that it is not an institution, but rather an independent interest that has brought us all together. That is power. This has also been my sub-conscious interest to look into, though I never took action. Of course, there are many more motivations, but two is enough to mention [for now]. BC: Thanks. I mean, this project is actually [the] first curatorial inquiry of What Could/Should Curating Do, [which] is a small institution that I founded in Belgrade three years ago. It started as [an] educational institution running [a] curatorial program for artists and curators [who] focus on looking at curatorial practices on [the] margins of the global. Many of you today who are partner cells actually participated and shared your knowledge during these workshops. So the plan is to try to work throughout [this] inquiry on a longer term. To actually start [to] try [and] propose establishing different forms of relationships through slow modes of working. But what is really interesting within this, [is] that most of our contemporary art practices – and I think Nikita mentioned this a bit, specifically from [the] context of China which is very much Western European and American oriented – [is that] there has been very little contact with other parts of the world. I think it’s [also] the same with many countries within [the] Balkans, except specific cases like Moderna Galerija and the way Zdenka and her team work. Most of the contemporary art communication is through very short-term exhibitions, and [is] very much funding structure oriented – that again, I would say, is related to Western Europe. I think before we established this working platform, we actually knew very little about each other’s local contexts and the local practices, because there was actually no channel to do [so] – even though some really fragmented channels throughout history existed through Non-aligned Movements or early connections during [the] 60s and 70s. But one other thing that came out during our meetings, and maybe we can talk about this, is the aspect of visibility. What does that mean [for] the project? Because [this] project does kind of give visibility to certain local contexts in [a] different way and ambiguity of that visibility., even in times of unrest, and this is what we try to do through our online journal – reflecting on unrest that [has] happened in different places where the project is situated. So maybe if you have any notes to add about [the] importance of this aspect of visibility? Through the projects, especially in this time of the pandemic. ZB: I also think that we think visibility is positive thing. That we need to make more visible the marginal place: marginalised places, marginalised histories, neglected artists, subjects and so on. But like most other things, visibility also has [another] side. This visibility can also be something that, after certain types of art or cultural production has been somewhere, let’s say protected from instruments of the dominant art system, [that] it has more autonomy – at least in regard to broader power networks – in a way. As soon as something becomes more visible, it becomes also [a part of the] market. [The] market prioritises specific content, enforces the dominant epistemologies, artists, curators….And I think our group has this potential: to avoid the problems related to visibility, [since] we are of very different institutions [and] none of our institutions are [at] the centre of power. But I would say at the same time that we must all sustain critical thinking. The international art world is very much orientated to the unknown, so of course we will contribute to the visibility of our context, artists, and topics, but at the same time, I think we should be aware of the possible instrumentalization later. NC: I – Can I-? BC: Go ahead. NC: I also think as museums, institutions, or curators, [we might need to] shift from focusing on visibility to thinking about our roles in mediating the production and circulation of common knowledge. The divide of [the] infosphere, physical and ideological borders, makes it even more difficult and challenging for cultural makers to claim that, “something happened [in] a far-away community or [to] a strange individual, [and it] has something to do with me.” It’s becoming more difficult for people to think, “we are related,” even with the development of technology. That’s why we have to keep saying that we are all part of [this], even though [we’re] confronting the reality of isolation and separation. That was something I also recently picked up from a podcast between several young Chinese scholars, and how they think of the role of public knowledge. One of the interlocuters said [that] if you don’t try and provide a different perspective, other cultural products, such as soap operas or [other forms of] mainstream media, will occupy that vacancy of discourse, or manipulate people’s ideas – or as Zdenka said, use history as a tool. LF: To the question of visibility I would answer by one of invisibility… Indeed I strongly believe it is very precious and important to cultivate active strategies of invisibility today. As Nikita and Zdkena were saying, by promoting extra visibility we are either appropriated by the market, or we go into a formatted way of thinking and curating. Invisibility is a huge paradox, especially when you are working with art in a museum to curate exhibitions, to showcase artists, to display artworks, to promote art projects. But I truly believe today, in a society of extra surveillance, permanent self and political propaganda, overloaded mega art industries and markets, the most interesting artists and researchers today are the ones trying to dig deeper – escaping the surface of art and social media, exploring micro-dimensions, creating the conditions for new forms of creating and experiencing art. For our project, I think it is very important to raise questions and challenges that can challenge the dominant discourses and institutions: going step-by-step, learning deeper, not compromising, but also taking radical and decisive positions… Invisibility today is not to be inexistent, but is exactly the contrary. It is an act, a choice, a practice, a strategy of resistance and opposition that allows other forms of action and visibility. Invisibility today also touches the crucial notion and practice of time. It is no longer enough to only be visible once and then disappear (like many big exhibitions curated all over the world). Time is also linked to the practice of caring. This concept of caring is important to develop in this project that makes artworks and texts, and for me, is also related to sounds. I’m very engaged [with] music production in different parts of the world, and I look very closely [at] what is happening in the arts in different localities – to not only look from a Western or Chinese perspective. For example, if we take the momentum of Black Lives Matter (that is a very big topic at the moment), I think it is much more important to listen to artists like Robel [Temesgen], who are literally invisible within the political and art scene, but who are interrogating similar, if not much more important, forms of violence that are never talked [about] on the media. It’s the same when you see and listen to some people like the Aural Archipelago in Indonesia. They are going [to] different islands and archipelagos to record traditional instruments – because Indonesia is not only one country. [It] is made [up] of thousands of islands with different cultures, and these very small, tiny [communities] and contexts. So I think it is important to be invisible to embrace the multiplicity. But at the same time, of course, it is our responsibility find another modes of visibility as professionals working within institutions, or as independent curators and researchers. I just think it is important to keep ourselves safe from the big façade (or what we call here in China the “good face”). Frankly speaking, I just don’t care at all about this. My priority is to step out from this system in order to show the real face of the people [ laughs ]. It’s also the about the importance of trying to unveil and reveal our own monstrosity as individuals and societies, because we need to face this. As you go… has the capacity to reveal what is constructive [within] these unexpected interconnections between different people and areas that we are trying to understand, to learn from, and to develop. I believe this is also something that will make a change. Not in a spectacular way, but in [the] long-term. Such [a] project can decisively contribute to a better understanding and constructive way of working in the art field. RT: I view this aspect of visibility (for the sake of this conversation), as a person living in Ethiopia. [A] few weeks back, [the] internet was shut down throughout the entire country and it made me realise, even in somewhere as unexposed as Ethiopia, that little visibility still matters. It made me realise how important it is to be passively visible and seen. I was so focused on how I was missing out on what was going on around the world, but [I realised] to be visible and maintain accessibility to others, plays a great role when it comes to artistic production and interactions at large. BC: Aigerim, would you like to add something? AK: Yeah, maybe some small things. Art, artists and curators are less visible in Kazakhstan – our voices do not sound from the main news or information platforms. Kazakhstan, and the entire Central Asia region as a whole, are not visible in the world. Especially today, when it is completely impossible through [the] news and media, or social media, to clearly understand what is really going on somewhere. Visibility is becoming a challenge. There is so much online, [that the] noise of information does not allow [us] to put together a reliable picture. The online journal As you go… and our meetings made it possible for me to establish a connection with regions and localities involved in the project through these alternative ways, to see your situations and hear the voices of local people and communities. AK: And there are always both sides : positive and negative. Visibility also entails [a] manipulation of information, and sometimes it is really destructive. BC: Larys, do you want to say something? LF: I am just interested in knowing how each of us can engage [as] we are developing this research. Because for me at the beginning, to take the metaphor of water again, it was [a sort of] “floating” process. But I also like this feeling of not knowing what the big topic or big question is. The more I delve into this project, the more I’m excited [by it], the denser and richer it becomes. So I just want to [understand] the feelings of each of you – how do you believe in this project? ZB: That’s a nice question for the end. BC: Beautiful end [laughs]. ZB: I think it has its own life, this project, and I always like projects that are not too structured in the beginning. That [are] informed by social experiences, and changes within its own duration, and this is what is happening with our project. The pandemic happened during the project, and so what would [it] be if this started with a very structured frame? We would lose very important historical moments. It’s very exciting to be part of it, and who knows where the project [will] lead us. It’s very unpredictable, and I am very happy to be a part of it. LF: Yes. NC: I think for me, being part of the project is really to unlearn what we have learned. Especially because the majority of the education that I had within China’s educational system [made me] aware of how uneven, or asymmetrical the narrative of history [is] and how it is dictated by national ideology, and all [of] that. So it’s really important for me to unlearn that. But also in terms of curating and what we think of contemporary infrastructure – I myself don’t know much. Don’t know enough…beyond Euro-American contacts and references, so it’s very inspiring for me to go outside of our usual comfort zone. Another thing is to find a way out [of] this trap of [contemporary art], because contemporary art [has] always had this cosmopolitan vision – but how to do we, especially now after this pandemic, navigate a way between this dichotomy of the universality and the particularity? And what has also probably been mentioned before: globalisation and the global. The global and the local used to be such an important or heated topic, I think in the 90s and early 2000s, but the context has [now] changed. This optimism, and what we are now negotiating within…we should remind ourselves not to fall into the traps. So that’s why I believe in being [a] part of the project: it will open up different paths. AK: I’m also excited by this project and inspired by our way of working. I have a deep interest in the regions which are connecting through this project. I really believe in these aims of knowledge production, and how we will think about our commonalities and features, and futures. RT: The belief in this project from my side also came from a short, but physical, conversation I had with Biljana. I wonder if I would have been equally interested or as happy to be involved if the initial conversation was virtual (or at least textual). Because for me, what I see in this project is that there is also (to an extent) emotion. That is the drive I believe in to help structure the ‘bigger question’ within this independent and collective interest. BC: What about you Larys? LF: We don’t know where we are going, but at least we are going out. We are stepping out of something. So it’s a very constructive way for me as an individual, and also [as] someone who is in charge of curatorial projects. I think this research program is also about substance, right? It’s about what we call substance, today. It isn’t only [about] a program of exhibitions. It’s not just a program of education activities. It’s something that is much more related to its content, and brings us together today. [It’s] about how can we have a voice. Yes, we talked about invisibility, but this project also has the capacity to raise multiple voices from those who are often forgotten, or excluded and invisible. This makes it very important work, at least from my own position. It’s something that is very precious for me [with]in the institution: to try and develop this other way of working and thinking, to actively try and support artist’s projects. But I believe nowadays, even artists are not enough anymore. This [project] is also about people looking [at] climate change, or [a] female working in Asia related to agriculture – all developing new projects that very much remain invisible. All [of] this for me is very important. BC: Yes. I mean of course these long-term projects are about establishing deeper relationships and connections, but [it’s] also [a] steady dynamic in response to the world and change, and how [the] world truly [has] greatly changed in a last half a year. There is a big structure [in] three years, but what I am hoping is maybe we [can] have this exercise: of three years of knowing [each other] and understanding each other’s urgencies, to establish a long-term relationship and [a] different horizontality [of] how we can work together within the places that we’re situated in. [In] the back of my [mind], there is this great example that Zdenka initiated in the LInternationale European museum confederation , linked to this unity [that had been] successful for ten years and produced some really important knowledge, as a contribution to the global from their own specific contexts. My dream, if we can talk about dreams publicly, is to walk towards [the] possibility of working together through our set of different commonalities and [this] established network. BC: But this is [for] something that is after three years, let’s say – after [the end of the] project. NC: I think three years is a beautiful commitment. Based, or working, in China, it’s really hard trying to imagine such [a] long-term commitment. So I like that thought. BC: Yes. I know…for all of us, I think it’s hard to imagine what will happen in the next three years, no? LF: Yes. BC: I guess we have to – NC: But when you…the age thing also. When you were younger it’s easier to imagine. You’d think, “oh! [I] know what’s going to happen ten years later!” [ laughs ] BC: [ smiles ]. Okay, I think we should call it an end here, but thank-you for your time today (it’s been very long). Sinkneh Eshetu: When this conversation happened, I was in the Gamo Highlands celebrating maskala – a pre-Christian holiday (New Year) – of the indigenous Gamo People. It is labelled, however, as a Christian holiday: Maskal (the finding of the true cross). This is how easily naming can lead or mislead, denote identity or deny voice. The landscape is as ancient and natural as the holiday. Upon first sight you would be sure you could breathe freely out there. The political turmoil agitating the government and the people in Addis seem to be very far away. Concerns over Coronavirus and the over-saturation of information seems to be non-existent here. Not seeing anybody observe the officially enforced anti-Corona procedures (that once used to send you to prison for not wearing a mask when walking alone), would almost lead you to suspect that no one here had heard of the virus. When you start to breathe free and deep, however, some thoughts begin to infiltrate your soul and disturb your peace. You have heard and seen that churches and houses are being built on the sacred lands androutes of indigenous communities. You have also seen a sacred tree, considered the node of the Gamo universe, dried up, with the people denied permission to replace it. You have heard that there is a huge drive to urbanize these places, mainly to keep the transient political machine humming. Mobile phones and Coca-Cola drinks are becoming part of the people’s everyday life. All of these make you worry over how long tradition will be able to preserve itself. When I was preparing to travel to the Gamo Highlands, I had imagined Wi-Fi would be unthinkable there (which I communicated to Bilijana). However, I saw an Oxford professor who was accompanying us, one of the few Gamo people who were able to access an education, order a Huawei Wi-Fi router in a town there. The drive to modernize is very aggressive. It’s making life, politics, and the economy transient. You can see the impact of this transiency on the environment as well as the culture. But whatever the change and whoever its author, you can’t help but see it as a threat, for speed is often alien to the natural flow of things. You want to act fast and speak loudly to make people aware of what is at stake, but with everyone caught in their urgency to have a voice and be heard, the noise becomes deafening. Humanly and ecologically sensible songs and poems can easily go unheard. This makes artistic endeavours such as As you go …, and the curatorial inquiry that birthed it, very crucial. It gives you the confidence that, although alone you are a chirping cricket whose song is swallowed by the croaks and crows everywhere, together we are roaring lions who could move slumbering hearts. Alone, you are a helpless breath that could hardly flip a dried leaf. Together we are the surging wave of an ocean that could move mountains. The symbolism of the cell makes so much sense with this regard, for it is with other cells that you can become a recognizable organism. I was fortunate to be present when Biljana and other “cells” of this project gave a presentation at Guramayne Art Gallery in Addis. I must admit I didn’t quite understand it. However, I had an opportunity to meet the group again and discuss the project at Zoma Park the next day. That gave me the chance to learn more about the project and think aloud on how I could be a part of it. Perceiving this is as an art project, I was proposing ideas that I thought were “art-like”. I guess then, the ideas I raised did not fall in line with the objective of As you go… During our break, I was walking with Biljana in the park when I mentioned my concern over the river restoration project that our Prime Minster initiated. That caught Biljana’s interest and it was then I easily became a part of As you go… However, it made me wonder, and I am still wondering, how that research project could be art. This marks the second time I am part of an art project. The first was for the Travelling Communique on the Non-aligned movement, organized by the Dutch Art Institute and Belgrade History Museum. I remember then that I did not feel I was making art. I just wrote a proposal. I have the same feeling this time, too. I am so busy with my personal projects that I am finding it hard to focus on this project to the extent that it remains inspiring and enjoyable. “Is that my fault or the nature of the project?” I wonder. Still, I see the importance of being a part of As you go … for I believe it will enable the research we are doing to be heard – to influence future decisions locally and globally, saving river ecosystems from irreversible destruction. I hope that with my research partners, Aziza and Berhanu, whilst adjusting the communication and other issues within our work, that we may ultimately deliver on our objectives. This response was written following the original conversation on the 16th Oct 2020. Click to read Russian and Kazakh version of the conversion. Previous Next

Open Call | The Unlearning Curriculum 2024 Application deadline: June 20, 2024 Inform of selected participants: July 10-15, 2024 Intensive dates: August 17-23, 2024 The Unlearning Curriculum in 2024 is a five-day intensive conceived for cultural workers, artists, curators, writers and researchers who share interest in practicing different methodologies of working within art and culture. It aims at exploring methodologies based on decolonial principles, and ways of knowing that engage not only mind but also our whole body and a variety of senses. It is a process of co-learning and un-learning, and of challenging the divide of culture, nature and human. By “staying with the trouble”, as Donna Haraway states, we may recuperate alternative literacy, tools and relations to cultivate an ecology oriented to the future. We will spend days and nights together by sharing common space and time through learning, reflecting, making, listening led mentors but also all the participants. During these five days we will decentralize our position as urban dwellers, and address the eco-social crisis from the perspectives of practical hope, to recover the collective input of local community and knowledge. The intensive is situated in an old village nearby Taishan in Guangdong province of China. The building has been renovated and sustained by Huan Jiajun, who is an activist of conserving the local culture. Taishan is historically home for a lot of overseas Chinese, who emigrated to north America to work as indentured workers in plantations, mines and railways in late 19th century and early 20th century. The architecture of the village preserves such diasporic history in its synthetic style. * The intensive is conceived and initiated by Biljana Ciric and Nikita Yingqian Cai; organized by Guangdong Times Museum and “What Should/Could Curating do?”; and generously supported by De Ying Foundation. This intensive is a greate opportunity, if you are: Interested in learning from others and from nature, and generous in sharing; Willing to engage in disciplines and conversations beyond your educational or academic training; Willing to share your insights and specialties with others, including but not restricted to yoga, knowledge of nature, craft-making, cooking etc. Requirements: A short bio including your educational background and recent experiences in cultural or social projects; A short intention letter (less than 500 words) which states what you would like to learn and unlearn with others; Your contact info including email, mobile and social media account. Fee: 3800 RMB or 490 EUR (The fee includes meals and accommodation of the five days; transportation from your city of residence to Taishan/China is not included） Please be noted: The Unearning Curriculum is open for local and international participants; The intensive will take place at Tosen’s Garden, Paobu Village, Taishan City, Guangdong, P.R. of China ; The working language is English; All participants are expected to arrive no later than August 17th and to commit to the whole duration; Further information about international or domestic travel will be provided after your enrollment is confirmed; Detailed information on day-by-day activities will be notified once all participants are confirmed. Tasks for preparations will be shared and discussed by zoom meeting in July; After the intensive in Taishan, additional visits to independent spaces, studios and institutions in Guangzhou will be organized in the following 2 days. The visits are not part of the curriculum, and you need to plan your stay and cover your own expences in Guangzhou. Please apply by submitting the following materials to contact@timesmuseum.org by June 20, 2024 and visit www.timesmuseum.org for further information. About mentors Amelie Aranguren (she/her) has been a member of Inland since 2011. Campo Adentro/Inland is an association and collaborative project that approaches rural issues from an artistic perspective while addressing significant social issues and advocating for the reconnection between rural areas and cities as a basis for sustainable development strategies. She is currently the director of the Center for the Approach to the Rural, a space in Madrid where creators, curators, researchers, and rural agents can engage in production and investigative residencies, and experiment with art forms linked to social contexts and ecological perspectives. Aranguren, along with a team of nine other collaborators, has recently initiated a new association, Paisanaje Project , which explores the capacity of artistic practices in order to address the eco-social crises and inequalities generated from these issues. Aranguren has worked before in institutions as Museo Reina Sofía Madrid, Federico García Lorca Foundation, Madrid and Jeu de Paume, Paris. Nikita Yingqian Cai lives and works in Guangzhou, where she is Deputy Director and Chief Curator of Guangdong Times Museum. She has curated such exhibitions as Times Heterotopia Trilogy (2011, 2014, 2017), Jiang Zhi: If This is a Man (2012), Roman Ondák: Storyboard (2015), Big Tail Elephants: One Hour, No Room, Five Shows (2016) , Pan Yuliang: A Journey to Silence (Villa Vassilieff in Paris and Guangdong Times Museum, 2017), Omer Fast: The Invisible Hand (2018), Neither Black/Red/Yellow Nor Woman (Times Art Center Belin, 2019), Zhou Tao: The Ridge in the Bronze Mirror (2019) and Candice Lin: Pigs and Poison (2021). She initiated the para-curatorial series in 2012 as a paratactic mode of thinking and working, which connects the curated contents of art and culture with pop-up modules of critical inquiry and field curriculum. She has maintained and expanded the research network of “All the Way South” and is the co-editor of On Our Times. She was the participant of de Appel Curatorial Programme (2009-2010) and was awarded the Asian Cultural Council Fellowship in 2019. Her writings have been published by Bard College and the MIT Press, Sternberg Press, Black Dog Publishing, Yishu, Artforum and e-flux. She is the co-editor of Active Withdrawals: Life and Death of Institutional Critique and No Ground Underneath; Curating on the Nexus of Changes. Biljana Ciric is an interdependent curator. She is curator of the Pavilion of Republic of Serbia at 59th Venice Biennale in 2022 presenting with Walking with Water Solo exhibition of Vladimir Nikolic. She is conceiving inquiry for first Trans- Southeast Asian Triennial in Guangzhou Repetition as a Gesture Towards Deep Listening (2021/2022). She was the co-curator of the 3rd Ural Industrial Biennale for Contemporary Art (Yekaterinburg, 2015), curator in residency at Kadist Art Foundation (Paris, 2015), and a research fellow at Henie Onstad Kunstsenter (Høvikodden, 2016). Her recent exhibitions include An Inquiry: Modes of Encounter presented by Times Museum, Guangzhou (2019); When the Other Meets the Other Other presented by Cultural Center Belgrade (2017); Proposals for Surrender presented by McAM in Shanghai (2016/2017); and This exhibition Will Tell You Everything About FY Art Foundations in FY Art Foundation space in Shenzhen (2017). In 2013, Ciric initiated the seminar platform From a History of Exhibitions Towards a Future of Exhibition Making with focus on China and Southeast Asia. The assembly platform was hosted by St Paul St Gallery, AUT, New Zealand (2013), Rockbund Art Museum, Shanghai (2018), Times Museum, Guangzhou (2019). The book with the same name was published by Sternberg Press in 2019 and was awarded best art publication in China in 2020. Her research on artists organized exhibitions in Shanghai was published in the book History in Making; Shanghai: 1979-2006 published by CFCCA; and Life and Deaths of Institutional Critique , co-edited by Nikita Yingqian Cai and published by Black Dog Publishing, among others. In 2018 she established the educational platform What Could/Should Curating Do? where different formats of instituting are tested and imagined through collective processes. Since 2023 WCSCD entered transition merging rural and urban taking over custodianship of the piece of land in rural Serbia. She was nominated for the ICI Independent Vision Curatorial Award (2012). Ciric initiated a long-term project reflecting on China’s Belt and Road Initiative titled As you go . . . the roads under your feet, towards a new future . She is undertaking practice based PhD in Curatorial Practice at Monash University, Melbourne. She is currently developing retrospective of Vietnamese artist Tran Luong that will open in Jameel Art Center, Dubai in 2024 and tour to AGWA(Perth), Govett Brewster Art Gallery (New Plymouth, NZ), Guang Zhou Fine Arts Academy Contemporary Art Museum among others. About Tosen's Garden The project is located in Taishan City, Guangdong Province, which is known as the hometown of overseas Chinese. This is an ancient historical village built a hundred years ago by overseas Chinese in Myanmar. There are woods behind the village and fish ponds in front of the village, which preserves good natural ecology. There are seven residential houses built by overseas Chinese in the village, all of which are well preserved. In the first phase of the project, a 400-square-meter historic property was restored. Visitors can stay in the historic house and experience the local life more than a hundred years ago. There is an organic vegetable garden and orchard which provide local specialties. About De Ying Foundation De Ying Foundation (DYF) is a charitable organisation that supports contemporary art in China and internationally. We believe that contemporary art has an essential place in today’s China, and are committed to widening access to the highest standards of arts programming. We take a patient, long-term approach that is collaborative and open-minded, supporting and learning from other organisations that share our aims and values, as well as launching our own initiatives when we feel there is a need. Arts education is especially important to us, since we believe both in its inherent value and in its potential for transformative impact. While our core focus as a foundation is on greater China, we also work with international partners whose work inspires us, and hope to engender and to be part of a genuine artistic dialogue between China and the rest of the world. De Ying Foundation has provided long-term sponsorship for the De Ying Associate Curator, Visual Arts, at M+. The foundation is Founding Patron of the Shanghai Centre of Photography and a key sponsor of the Hangzhou Triennial of Fiber Art at China Academy of Art. De Ying was a sponsor of the Beijing-based artist Cao Fei’s first major solo exhibition in China, “Staging the Era”, 2021, presented at UCCA, Beijing, as well as, the UCCA leg of “Who is He?”, the historical retrospective of Geng Jianyi, one of China’s pioneering conceptual artists in 2023. De Ying is the main supporter for Glen Ligon’s first UK solo exhibition “All Over the Place”, 2024, at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. In 2018, we were also particularly excited to be early supporters of Steve McQueen’s Year 3 Project at Tate Britain. De Ying Foundation also provided support in 2019 for the production of the catalogue accompanying Cecily Brown's acclaimed survey exhibition “Where, When, How Often and With Whom” at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Denmark. Village in Taishan, Guangdong Province of China.

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Project launch and lecture by Niels Van Tomme / The Walking Institution Saša Tkačenko, Flags from the WCSCD series, 2018. Photo by Ivan Zupanc In collaboration with the Museum of Contemporary Art Belgrade, the first lecture within the series of public programs about contemporary curatorial practices will be held by Niels Van Tomme (director and chief curator at De Appel – an Amsterdam-based contemporary art institution with a pioneering curatorial program) and will serve as a preface to the curatorial course WCSCD. The final list of enrollees will be publicly announced on the day of the presentation, as well as more information about the workshop, program, and international and local mentors. In the ever-evolving presentation “The Walking Institution”, Niels Van Tomme considers his work at De Appel as an act of curatorial care, and as an ongoing process of thinking alternative ways of instituting, both on an ethical and structural level. On the occasion of the launch of What Could/Should Curating Do?, Van Tomme will elaborate on the prominent role the Curatorial Programme takes within De Appel’s institutional context since 1994. On this occasion Niels Van Tomme answers the question – What Could/Should Curating Do? “In curating one plus one should equal three. Curating departs from a what if, which it firmly positions towards what is. Curating takes scientific methods such as speculation and experimentation as its ruling principles, even though it is not a science. Curating is that which happens when something is about to become known. Yet it should always be done with the full knowledge that it might get things wrong.” ABOUT THE LECTURER: Niels Van Tomme is the director and chief curator at De Appel in Amsterdam. As a curator, lecturer and critic, he works at the intersections of contemporary culture and critical awareness. His exhibitions and events have been presented at The Kitchen (New York), Akademie der Künste (Berlin), Contemporary Arts Center (New Orleans), Gallery 400 (Chicago), National Gallery of Art (Washington, DC), and P! (New York). In 2016 he curated the Bucharest Biennale 7: What are we building down there? He is a contributing editor at Art Papers magazine. His texts, in which he connects contemporary art, popular culture, literature, and music to broader societal issues and cultural contexts, are published in Art in America, The Wire, Camera Austria, Afterimage, and Metropolis M, among others. He has published the books Where Do We Migrate To? (2011), Visibility Machines: Harun Farocki and Trevor Paglen (2014), Aesthetic Justice: Intersecting Artistic and Moral Perspectives (2015) and Muntadas: About Academia: Activating Artifacts (2017). Together with film scholar Sonja Simonyi, he is the parent of two young children: Jens and Nico. The WCSCD curatorial course and series of public lectures are initiated and organized by Biljana Ciric together with Supervizuelna. The lecture by Niels Van Tomme is made possible with the help of MoCAB and the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the additional support of Zepter Museum and Zepter Hotel. Project partners: The Museum of Contemporary Art Belgrade; GRAD—European Center for Culture and Debate; EVA International – Ireland’s Biennial, ’Novi Sad 2021 – European Capital of Culture’ Foundation and Zepter Museum. The project is supported by: the Goethe Institute in Belgrade; Istituto Italiano di Cultura Belgrado; the Embassy of Sweden; the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; the Embassy of Ireland in Greece; the Embassy of Indonesia; the EU Info Centre; Pro Helvetia – Swiss Art Council; and galleries Eugster || Belgrade, HESTIA Art Residency & Exhibitions Bureau, and Zepter Hotel, Royal Inn Hotel and CAR:GO. Media partners: EUNIC Serbia, RTS3. < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

Events Lecture Series Participant Activities Only One Thing Worse Than Awkward Silence: Small Talk [i] * Originally published on Supervizuelna – online magazine for contemporary art Dear Reader, This letter launches the curatorial journal that accompanies WCSCD featured as part of Supervizuelna’s online magazine. The journal is structured as a platform for the critical reflections of the curators participating in the course. These reflections will thus enter the public realm and create an open dialogue in relation to curatorial practices ¾ as title beautifully teases at, which is borrowed from a work by Saša Tkačenko. On June 27, 2018, we hosted the launch of the project with a public lecture by the director and chief curator of De Appel Niels Van Tomme at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, which was very important for our small team. This present form of address, the letter, is inspired by Niels Van Tomme’s talk and his transformation of the De Appel newsletter into a letter format, which offers a more personal note to the publication. We hope this journal will likewise invite a more personal connection to its readers and followers, as well as with and between its contributors. The idea to invite Van Tomme to speak about De Appel came naturally, since De Appel has been educating multiple generations of curators since 1994, many of whom are now running institutions around the world today. Furthermore, Van Tomme’s direction and vision of the institution represents an important and highly relevant shift in terms of how we think about institutions that warrants further reflection and engagement. In many ways it goes against the mainstream logic of institutional visions, which are geared towards the speed of consumption of the institutional program. One of the most important takeaways from Van Tomme’s talk was the constant reminder that institutions today should remain dynamic, as the world around us is also constantly on the move. So, the journal launches with Whispers by Niels Van Tomme; whispers about institutions and the possibilities and impossibilities for their self-reflection. The act of whispering was a crucial part of Van Tomme’s public talk and as a result I invited him to edit an iteration of the journal around this idea. At the same time, I also invited Neva Lukić to contribute a text. Lukić is a curator based between Zagreb and Rotterdam and is one of the curators of the WCSCD course in 2018. I have invited Lukić to provide critical reflection and try to somehow situate the talk by Van Tomme within the local context. Thankfully, the very frustrating period of constantly thinking and rethinking how to make the WCSCD course happen is behind us now, especially from the perspective of fundraising, as this is an independent project. There was also a lot of work to be done in terms of formulating the institutional vision at the outset, which will serve for future years to come and help guide team building. We can tell you in a whisper that we have a clear vision for now, but of course we will also remain dynamic and on the move! Our curatorial colleagues who will be attending the course begin arriving next week in Belgrade (starting September 7, 2018) where they will be situated for three months and will also be contributors to the journal. In fact, their functions are many as they will also serve as tutors, give public talks, and hold closed door workshops for the curators in the course. The next letter for this journal will be a critical reflection from WCSCD curators related to the October Salon, the first thematic unit of the course for early September, followed by a number of other foci that will attempt to avoid small talk, and instead provide more critical reflection on curatorial practices for public consideration. Sincerely, Biljana Ćirić Founder of What Could Should Curating Do curatorial course < Mentors Educational Program How to Apply >

REACHING OUT TO THE MARGINS Once we start questioning the infrastructure of art, the first thing that stands out is the centralisation of institutional activity - be that geographical dislocation, distribution of finances and resources, and last but not least, the narrow focus on the actors and beneficiaries of the ‘art machine’. Peripheral city districts, vulnerable social groups, ecologically fragile and otherwise problematic areas - are generally at the bottom of the list. Although art can be the tool to highlight and empower particular discourses, the discourse of the ‘marginal’ still stays on the margin, and is of interest to few artists and institutions. In this section we propose to look away from the center, step outside the institutional walls and frameworks, and go exploring the periphery. This block is curated by Anastasia Albokrinova, artist, researcher and curator. BLOCK 5.1 Intro REACHING OUT TO THE MARGINS: A GLANCE AROUND Let us first define the notion of ‘margin’. This simple exercise is not only a question of understanding, but also a tool to situate yourself in the center-periphery model and a possible key to reinvent it. How do you define what is marginal/peripheral? Is ‘margin’ a place/ a social group/ a practice? Are you part of a margin/what margin you belong to? What is a margin? Make a list ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Task Reaching out to the margins can be something outstanding to your daily experience and arouses a number of questions. How to act? What to pay attention to? How to talk with people? How to not just gather information, but build action based on reciprocity? You can continue the list. Think of a margin you can reach. Choose a time to visit it. Make this first encounter open-ended. Try to gather maximum information and welcome any experience, but don’t forget to take care of yourself and be careful towards others. Remember: your margin visit might be only for this exercise, but what we actually need is establishing a long-term relationship. So you will need to find a way to come back. And this coming back should be with purpose. During your journey you will need to discover what is your purpose other than the visitor. Take this set of words as a departure point to tell about your ‘margin’ experience. Navigate through them, stopping and expanding those that were of use to you in your journey. Add new notions that you find important. intuition improvisation limitation risk trust autonomy collaboration confrontation curiosity exchange exhaustion affective labor Use visual + text format to document and reflect on your journey. You can be free in the choice of visual approach - it can be a photographic image, a drawing, a collage, etc. Additional materials In this journey we will draw inspiration from the practice of Skart, an art collective founded in 1990 by two students at the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade - Dragan Protic and Dorde Balmazovic, also known as Prota and Zole. Their story throughout 3 decades is told by Sea Yildiz in a book “Building Human Relations Through Art. Skart collective (Belgrade) > from 1990 to present” published by ONOMATOPEE 224 IN 2022. SKART_Error as a trace of humanity Self-feedback At this point you can stop and reflect on what was done. Here are some questions that may help: What were your spontaneous impulses? Where were you driven? What scared you away? Did you surprise yourself? Did you face your limitations? What will you do the next time you come back? BLOCK 5.2 Intro REACHING OUT TO THE MARGINS: A GESTURE You’ve found your ‘margin’. First time you went with an empty head and empty hands, now you can come back having something in both. But what is this ‘something’? It lies in the narrow gap between the ‘possible’ and the ‘visionary’, the ‘banal’ and the ‘weird’, the ‘caring’ and ‘cautious’. Task Draw a line. On the left end write the smallest, simplest or funniest gesture you could do at your margin. Now turn to the right end of the line and dream big: what could you do if you had unlimited resources? Now start filling the line on its sequence. What would be your gesture if you had ‘this’ or ‘that’? What could you do if you united forces, found allies? What could be done if you partnered with an institution? Select a point on this line that sounds doable. Make a ‘to-do’ list to make this gesture happen. Now think of your gesture in the paradigm of time. Is it a one-time intervention or a structural approach? Is it spectacular or non-spectacular? What change it may bring, how may it impact the established infrastructure? May it hurt? May it heal? Being aware and prepared, reach out to the margin again and make your gesture. Additional materials SKART_The beauty of working together Self-feedback Now is time to estimate your actions: What went as planned, where you had to improvise, what appeared to be unrealistic? What would you change if you did it again? Finally, how could you implement this exercise in your structural thinking about profession? Let’s also zoom out and think institution-wise: What would you propose to do for the institutions to be more sensitive / aware of the margins? Would that be a program/ a structural change, a staff member proposal? What resources would that require?

WHAT COULD SHOULD CURATING DO I would like to start this session with question What Could/Should Curating Do We propose this question in order to engage with practices and encourage curating to stay dynamic and responsive in the world around me, anchored in caring with . We understand curatorial practice as walking with . We mean walking not as a way of getting somewhere, but walking with , as sharing time and creating space for unevenness to co-exist. When writing about walking, Canadian geographer Juanita Sundberg separates this into two steps. The first step is positioning that i believe you already did in first part, which is locating my body-knowledge in relation to the existing paths I know and walk. Sundberg defines the second step as walking with . “Walking with means ‘reciprocal respect for the autonomy and independence of organizations’ involved in the struggle; in other words, respect for the multiplicity of life worlds. Step two, then, involves learning to learn about multiplicity.” BLOCK 2.1 An input for this task is provided by Biljana Ciric, WSCSD program initiator. Intro We understand curating as caring with or walking with. It doesn't only reflect curatorial work. These prompts may help you to approach the topic: Can you define how you care through your practice? Caring with / caring for/ caring below? how does you care influence the future Whose vision of the future you are living in? What could you do? Thinking about deep time? How? What would you like to have as your legacy? Task Through this exercise try to build connections of your practice of care and relationships you are entangled with. You can use your own writing format or you can use the format that we propose. Make your first steps by finishing sentences "I care for/ with/ about/ beyond _______" Try to think of your life but also your practice as part of your everyday through writing. If writing is not your format of expression then use another format of comfort for 10 minutes. Additional materials Listen to “Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung” podcast by AHALI Conversations w/ Can Altay https://www.ahali.space/episodes/episode-15-bonaventure Read the “Dispatch” conceptual score by Candice Hopkins and Raven Chacon https://disclaimer.org.au/contents/unsettling-scores/dispatch Self-feedback Did the notion of ‘care’ change or unfold in an unexpected way during this exercise? What appeared to be most problematic to formulate? Why? BLOCK 2.2 Intro How care is performed through the institutional structure you are entangled with? What are possible practices of care through institutions? What could you do within these structures? How can an institution perform deep time in its practice of care? We continue this exercise on care asking you to map some of your aspects reflected in personal writing in relation to care and the way it could be affecting larger social/political contexts. Task We would like to invite you to do this as a collective exercise with other peers in the program. Below is the link to a collective Miro board. We propose you to start filling it. Put main tags you came up with during individual exercise. Take some time and see what others add. If the map is not empty - initially place your tags in relation to others. Connect the tags, add questions and comments that occur during their juxtaposition. Access collective Miro map Self-feedback Did the inputs of other participants open new ways for thinking/ questioning for you? What were the hardest parts in mapping? What do you feel is still most problematic?

< Back THE CULTURAL INTERWEAVING OF CHINA AND THE BALKANS 15 Feb 2021 Marija Glavaš This text is the first in a series of close studies examining the cultural exchanges between China and the Balkan region under the BRI, taking art [events and exchanges] as its main focal point. In this introductory text I will explain my research process for mapping these activities . I will then present both the ambitions and challenges of intercultural exchanges, using Slovenia as an example. In future texts I will analyse some of these exhibitions I have investigated, with the hope of creating a dialogue around whether these exchanges are living up to their full potential of shifting away from classical national narratives and providing a common ground for different identities. Before I began this project with As you go… the roads under your feet, towards a new future, I only had a basic understanding of what the BRI was. Like many others here in the Balkan region, I have also heard of the ongoing Chinese investments – investments which initially appeared to only occur within the infrastructural sphere. What I have found, however, is that the BRI promised more than that. It promised cultural bonding above mere economic cooperation. Yet, whenever the BRI is mentioned, other spheres, such as culture and art, seem to remain of very little note. As I began my investigation, I realized there was an absence of any systematic research on these topics – gathering data and developing a concise method of collating it, presented itself as the greater concern before even beginning to open up [a] discourse on cultural exchange and interconnection. To begin this dialogue of cultural interweaving, I have decided to focus on cross-institutional artistic exchanges to identify both the frequency and motives of these relationships. For this purpose, I used two methods: the primary method was directly addressing art institutions by sending them a questionnaire, while the other was manually collecting data from the internet for any additional exhibitions. The questionnaire included identifying whether any exhibitions and exchanges were currently underway, what kind of art was being exhibited or exchanged, the motivations behind these collaborations, and if there were any abnormalities across audience engagement and reception. For institutions that did not have any such exchanges, I asked why that was – did they decline them for any reason or were there simply no opportunities (perhaps due to a lack of funding, governmental or structural support, amongst other institutional roadblocks)? This questionnaire was sent to thirty-six [36] institutions from Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Kosovo. Some of the institutions were nationally owned museums and galleries (of both artistic and historical content), while others were privately owned galleries. Of the thirty-six museums and galleries I reached out to, twenty have replied. Following this, I started documenting all available data that was brought to my attention. I encountered several problems during this stage. Firstly, I did not receive responses from all institutions – most notably I received none from privately owned galleries. This could, however, also be due to many things: the ongoing pandemic that has shut down galleries and museums in many places and – as I later came to notice – the fact that most of these exchanges were primarily happening through state owned institutions. The second problem I encountered was that for many of these events and cultural exchanges, I was only provided with sparse data. Thirdly, I was unable to gather any data on audience reception. This last problem proved the most difficult as I was most interested in examining how local audiences perceive not only the Chinese art being exhibited, but also in a broader sense, the cultural interweaving of China within these regions. In the future it would be interesting to focus further on this aspect since there are a lot of discrepancies in opinions on other aspects (such as on the infrastructural and economic investments) of the BRI. While the West seems to be very suspicious of China becoming a global superpower, the Balkan region – which is heavily influenced both by the West and the East – doesn’t have such a narrow perception. Together with other partner cells and the editorial team, we decided it would be interesting to present this collected data on a map . This map provides details on both local cultural events and its connections to China. All exhibitions are also described, accompanied by some images from the exhibitions. The map is intended to be alive and continuously growing – the biggest ambition is currently to expand the scope of this map to encompass Central Asia and other localities participating in the BRI. I approached my research this way to systematically examine the ways in which art under the BRI ought to, on the one hand, deepen the bonds amongst participating countries and on the other, shape their perceptions of one another. Art, besides being a tool of expression, greatly impacts cultures and societies; it is continuously shaping our realities, while also allowing us to more deeply understand the past and the present. This understanding is not only constructed through artistic content at any given time in any specific space, but also through cultural policies and curating. Cultural policies and curatorship prescribes the limits and protocols [within] which art can shape the future, and how the past and present can be understood. Intercultural collaborations within this sphere have a great potential to move away from classical national narratives, which too often look for an enemy – within or outside – as a common denominator, consequently weaponizing audiences against this predetermined opposition. Whether these intercultural collaborations are even possible however, remains in the hands of individual governments and private bureaucracies who choose if, how, and when they will collaborate. For instance, let us look at the current state of art in Slovenia. Ever since Slovenia became a capitalist state, it left art partially in the domain of the government and partially in the domain of the free market. Art in the domain of the predatory free market has its own problems: subjected to competitiveness, artistic objects and practices are placed at the mercy of the logic of profit-driven, capitalist motivations – left to die as soon as its monetary value drops too low. However, since BRI projects are mostly funded and held by state institutions, for now, this stage of the research will focus on this particular domain. Let me preface this by saying that all curating is some form of narrating and mediating meaning(s), though this example will focus on cultural policies which determine in whose hands the curating will be. In Slovenia, state-owned art institutions enjoyed relative autonomy albeit with insufficient financial support – particularly in specific fields – being their main problem. Aside from the prevalent nepotism in funding (and the subsequent responsibility that would attach itself to the beneficiaries), there was not much state intervention into the curating itself. However, this drastically began to change since the undemocratic rise of the 14th government of independent Slovenia, right before the pandemic of 2020. The undemocratically established government is using tactics that have proven detrimental to Poland, Hungary, and Russia. In addition to drastic funding and budget cuts (alongside overall rhetoric and the replacement of leadership roles), [the government] has taken to directly attacking media outlets, research institutions, and museums. Academics who specialize in the fields of Central and South East Europe pointed out in an Open Letter to Janez Janša, Prime Minister of Slovenia in 2020: “The frequency of such interventions and the many clear signals that [are only] more are to come further prove that these are not normal personnel decisions, but rather the first steps in an attempt to curtail the independence of scholars and to place narratives about the past under government control.” [1] This becomes even more evident when we look at which institutions are being attacked: the National Museum of Contemporary History, which holds a permanent exhibition of Slovenia in the 20th century, directly addressing our past as a member state of former Yugoslavia and our gain of independence; [2] the National Gallery, and the Modern Gallery – both some of the most prominent and well-known art institutions in Slovenia. [3] In addition, the government is planning to open the Research Institute of the Venetic theory, [4] which suggests that the origins of Slovenians do not begin with Slav settlements but rather, reach back to ancient times. This theory is widely considered a pseudoscience and has been rejected by scholars. Our prime minister, however, holds yearly meetings for supporters of this theory, and when considering how they like to rewrite our history, it should also raise alarms that they are planning to open the Museum of Independence of Slovenia. [5] The current enemy threat being constructed is our history as a member state of Yugoslavia, the Yugonostalgia many people still feel, non-catholic nations, and anyone who lies left to the [government] on the political compass. Clearly, these are attempts to not only shift the cultural sphere towards a more patriotic and nationalistic narrative, but a narrative that is directly in support of our current prime minister – his role in the battle for independence and his personal beliefs. I would like to argue that these current changes within the cultural and art spheres in Slovenia are what could be considered some of the worst approaches possible. Art in this scenario is not being mobilized, in a romantic sense, to enable a peaceful coexistence of identities, but rather, is being used to annihilate some to push others forward. In the context of intercultural interweaving this could mean a step backwards, since focusing on enemies and weaponizing audiences does not leave much space for a friendly co-existence. In terms of the BRI, we are yet to see where this will place Slovenia. Our prime minister has, in American fashion, began engaging in conspiracy theories about China, where he points to the supposed political interference of China with his opposition. [6] At a fundamental political level, this paranoia doesn’t bring much optimism in relation to the potential of future cultural interweaving and exchanges. Even the connection between Slovenia and Hungary, which our current government considers of utmost importance, is only happening directly through the military, and a mutual support of hate-driven, local news-media. On the other hand, the BRI greatly emphasizes a peaceful coexistence of identities. From what I have gathered in this first phase of my research, it appears that these exchanges are an effort to bring cultures closer together through mutual and empathetic understanding, which has been overtly stated on most of the observed exhibitions. This understanding is being created through a bilateral exchange of artefacts, meanings, technical knowledge, and human resources. In conclusion, intercultural interweaving has a great potential of shifting away from classical national narratives that forge bonds as a response to the presence of a threat. National identity itself is constructed through these mechanisms (ie. the search for a common enemy), so a greater understanding and knowledge of different cultures is needed to look beyond this. Participating countries have already agreed to these processes of interweaving, and as politics and culture remain ever changing, the consideration of current cultural policies and their changes is always necessary. And when considering that to curate is to narrate, another analysis will be needed to betterfully understand exactly what narratives are being told and how much positive potential they actually hold. In the future, I will attempt to do such an analysis of the exhibitions presented on the map. This will, I hope, allow for a deeper discourse and engagement on whether these projects are living up to their full potential of being used as a force for cultural harmony than separation. Marija Glavaš , student of Culturology at the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana [1] A Letter to Janez Janša, Prime Minister of Slovenia. (2020). Available at: https://publiclettertoslovenia.wordpress.com/ [2] Exhibition can be seen here: http://www.muzej-nz.si/si/razstave/stalne-razstave/849-Slovenci-v-XX-stoletju [3] Marshall, A. (2021). A Populist Leader Kicks Off a Culture War, Starting in Museums. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/arts/design/slovenia-Janez-Jansa-culture.html [4] Jager, V. (2020). Janša ustanavlja inštitut, ki bo na novo napisal zgodovino izvora Slovencev. Mladina. Available at: https://www.mladina.si/200605/jansa-ustanavlja-institut-ki-bo-na-novo-napisal-zgodovino-izvora-slovencev/ [5] Marshall, A. (2021). A Populist Leader Kicks Off a Culture War, Starting in Museums. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/arts/design/slovenia-Janez-Jansa-culture.html [6] Janša, J. (2021). [@JJansaSDS]. #KUL neposredno financiran kar od Kitajske komunistične partije? [Tweet]. Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/JJansaSDS/status/1354022974685409281 ; Janša, J. (2021). [@JJansaSDS]. Agentura #CCPChina ? [Tweet]. Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/JJansaSDS/status/1355831337819762689 Previous Next

Open Call | The Unlearning Curriculum 2024 Application deadline: June 20, 2024 Inform of selected participants: July 10-15, 2024 Intensive dates: August 17-23, 2024 The Unlearning Curriculum in 2024 is a five-day intensive conceived for cultural workers, artists, curators, writers and researchers who share interest in practicing different methodologies of working within art and culture. It aims at exploring methodologies based on decolonial principles, and ways of knowing that engage not only mind but also our whole body and a variety of senses. It is a process of co-learning and un-learning, and of challenging the divide of culture, nature and human. By “staying with the trouble”, as Donna Haraway states, we may recuperate alternative literacy, tools and relations to cultivate an ecology oriented to the future. We will spend days and nights together by sharing common space and time through learning, reflecting, making, listening led mentors but also all the participants. During these five days we will decentralize our position as urban dwellers, and address the eco-social crisis from the perspectives of practical hope, to recover the collective input of local community and knowledge. The intensive is situated in an old village nearby Taishan in Guangdong province of China. The building has been renovated and sustained by Huan Jiajun, who is an activist of conserving the local culture. Taishan is historically home for a lot of overseas Chinese, who emigrated to north America to work as indentured workers in plantations, mines and railways in late 19th century and early 20th century. The architecture of the village preserves such diasporic history in its synthetic style. * The intensive is conceived and initiated by Biljana Ciric and Nikita Yingqian Cai; organized by Guangdong Times Museum and “What Should/Could Curating do?”; and generously supported by De Ying Foundation. This intensive is a greate opportunity, if you are: Interested in learning from others and from nature, and generous in sharing; Willing to engage in disciplines and conversations beyond your educational or academic training; Willing to share your insights and specialties with others, including but not restricted to yoga, knowledge of nature, craft-making, cooking etc. Requirements: A short bio including your educational background and recent experiences in cultural or social projects; A short intention letter (less than 500 words) which states what you would like to learn and unlearn with others; Your contact info including email, mobile and social media account. Fee: 3800 RMB or 490 EUR (The fee includes meals and accommodation of the five days; transportation from your city of residence to Taishan/China is not included） Please be noted: The Unearning Curriculum is open for local and international participants; The intensive will take place at Tosen’s Garden, Paobu Village, Taishan City, Guangdong, P.R. of China ; The working language is English; All participants are expected to arrive no later than August 17th and to commit to the whole duration; Further information about international or domestic travel will be provided after your enrollment is confirmed; Detailed information on day-by-day activities will be notified once all participants are confirmed. Tasks for preparations will be shared and discussed by zoom meeting in July; After the intensive in Taishan, additional visits to independent spaces, studios and institutions in Guangzhou will be organized in the following 2 days. The visits are not part of the curriculum, and you need to plan your stay and cover your own expences in Guangzhou. Please apply by submitting the following materials to contact@timesmuseum.org by June 20, 2024 and visit www.timesmuseum.org for further information. About mentors Amelie Aranguren (she/her) has been a member of Inland since 2011. Campo Adentro/Inland is an association and collaborative project that approaches rural issues from an artistic perspective while addressing significant social issues and advocating for the reconnection between rural areas and cities as a basis for sustainable development strategies. She is currently the director of the Center for the Approach to the Rural, a space in Madrid where creators, curators, researchers, and rural agents can engage in production and investigative residencies, and experiment with art forms linked to social contexts and ecological perspectives. Aranguren, along with a team of nine other collaborators, has recently initiated a new association, Paisanaje Project , which explores the capacity of artistic practices in order to address the eco-social crises and inequalities generated from these issues. Aranguren has worked before in institutions as Museo Reina Sofía Madrid, Federico García Lorca Foundation, Madrid and Jeu de Paume, Paris. Nikita Yingqian Cai lives and works in Guangzhou, where she is Deputy Director and Chief Curator of Guangdong Times Museum. She has curated such exhibitions as Times Heterotopia Trilogy (2011, 2014, 2017), Jiang Zhi: If This is a Man (2012), Roman Ondák: Storyboard (2015), Big Tail Elephants: One Hour, No Room, Five Shows (2016) , Pan Yuliang: A Journey to Silence (Villa Vassilieff in Paris and Guangdong Times Museum, 2017), Omer Fast: The Invisible Hand (2018), Neither Black/Red/Yellow Nor Woman (Times Art Center Belin, 2019), Zhou Tao: The Ridge in the Bronze Mirror (2019) and Candice Lin: Pigs and Poison (2021). She initiated the para-curatorial series in 2012 as a paratactic mode of thinking and working, which connects the curated contents of art and culture with pop-up modules of critical inquiry and field curriculum. She has maintained and expanded the research network of “All the Way South” and is the co-editor of On Our Times. She was the participant of de Appel Curatorial Programme (2009-2010) and was awarded the Asian Cultural Council Fellowship in 2019. Her writings have been published by Bard College and the MIT Press, Sternberg Press, Black Dog Publishing, Yishu, Artforum and e-flux. She is the co-editor of Active Withdrawals: Life and Death of Institutional Critique and No Ground Underneath; Curating on the Nexus of Changes. Biljana Ciric is an interdependent curator. She is curator of the Pavilion of Republic of Serbia at 59th Venice Biennale in 2022 presenting with Walking with Water Solo exhibition of Vladimir Nikolic. She is conceiving inquiry for first Trans- Southeast Asian Triennial in Guangzhou Repetition as a Gesture Towards Deep Listening (2021/2022). She was the co-curator of the 3rd Ural Industrial Biennale for Contemporary Art (Yekaterinburg, 2015), curator in residency at Kadist Art Foundation (Paris, 2015), and a research fellow at Henie Onstad Kunstsenter (Høvikodden, 2016). Her recent exhibitions include An Inquiry: Modes of Encounter presented by Times Museum, Guangzhou (2019); When the Other Meets the Other Other presented by Cultural Center Belgrade (2017); Proposals for Surrender presented by McAM in Shanghai (2016/2017); and This exhibition Will Tell You Everything About FY Art Foundations in FY Art Foundation space in Shenzhen (2017). In 2013, Ciric initiated the seminar platform From a History of Exhibitions Towards a Future of Exhibition Making with focus on China and Southeast Asia. The assembly platform was hosted by St Paul St Gallery, AUT, New Zealand (2013), Rockbund Art Museum, Shanghai (2018), Times Museum, Guangzhou (2019). The book with the same name was published by Sternberg Press in 2019 and was awarded best art publication in China in 2020. Her research on artists organized exhibitions in Shanghai was published in the book History in Making; Shanghai: 1979-2006 published by CFCCA; and Life and Deaths of Institutional Critique , co-edited by Nikita Yingqian Cai and published by Black Dog Publishing, among others. In 2018 she established the educational platform What Could/Should Curating Do? where different formats of instituting are tested and imagined through collective processes. Since 2023 WCSCD entered transition merging rural and urban taking over custodianship of the piece of land in rural Serbia. She was nominated for the ICI Independent Vision Curatorial Award (2012). Ciric initiated a long-term project reflecting on China’s Belt and Road Initiative titled As you go . . . the roads under your feet, towards a new future . She is undertaking practice based PhD in Curatorial Practice at Monash University, Melbourne. She is currently developing retrospective of Vietnamese artist Tran Luong that will open in Jameel Art Center, Dubai in 2024 and tour to AGWA(Perth), Govett Brewster Art Gallery (New Plymouth, NZ), Guang Zhou Fine Arts Academy Contemporary Art Museum among others. About Tosen's Garden The project is located in Taishan City, Guangdong Province, which is known as the hometown of overseas Chinese. This is an ancient historical village built a hundred years ago by overseas Chinese in Myanmar. There are woods behind the village and fish ponds in front of the village, which preserves good natural ecology. There are seven residential houses built by overseas Chinese in the village, all of which are well preserved. In the first phase of the project, a 400-square-meter historic property was restored. Visitors can stay in the historic house and experience the local life more than a hundred years ago. There is an organic vegetable garden and orchard which provide local specialties. About De Ying Foundation De Ying Foundation (DYF) is a charitable organisation that supports contemporary art in China and internationally. We believe that contemporary art has an essential place in today’s China, and are committed to widening access to the highest standards of arts programming. We take a patient, long-term approach that is collaborative and open-minded, supporting and learning from other organisations that share our aims and values, as well as launching our own initiatives when we feel there is a need. Arts education is especially important to us, since we believe both in its inherent value and in its potential for transformative impact. While our core focus as a foundation is on greater China, we also work with international partners whose work inspires us, and hope to engender and to be part of a genuine artistic dialogue between China and the rest of the world. De Ying Foundation has provided long-term sponsorship for the De Ying Associate Curator, Visual Arts, at M+. The foundation is Founding Patron of the Shanghai Centre of Photography and a key sponsor of the Hangzhou Triennial of Fiber Art at China Academy of Art. De Ying was a sponsor of the Beijing-based artist Cao Fei’s first major solo exhibition in China, “Staging the Era”, 2021, presented at UCCA, Beijing, as well as, the UCCA leg of “Who is He?”, the historical retrospective of Geng Jianyi, one of China’s pioneering conceptual artists in 2023. De Ying is the main supporter for Glen Ligon’s first UK solo exhibition “All Over the Place”, 2024, at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. In 2018, we were also particularly excited to be early supporters of Steve McQueen’s Year 3 Project at Tate Britain. De Ying Foundation also provided support in 2019 for the production of the catalogue accompanying Cecily Brown's acclaimed survey exhibition “Where, When, How Often and With Whom” at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Denmark. Village in Taishan, Guangdong Province of China.

Educational Program  Educational Program Lecture Series Participant Activities < Mentors Educational Program Menu >