Curatorship as Narrative and as Collective Practice

This interview explores Pérez Rubio’s vision of Argentine art from a propositional perspective. From the recent discussions revolving around artistic professionalization in Buenos Aires to his views on the limits of the curatorial practice and its work methodology, the new Artistic Director of Malba develops some aspects that he will work on from the museum, based on a thorough analysis of the current situation in Argentina.

S.V.: You arrived in Buenos Aires at a moment when the discussions about the professionalization of the artistic milieu were latent. With the conflict generated by a series of donations of artworks at the Museum of Modern Art as point of departure, a numerous group of artists began to question themselves about the precarious state of the basic art related work conditions. On the other hand, the level of unreliability of state institutions, and the very ambiguous rules of the market, generated an atmosphere of disconcertment. In other countries, such as Mexico or Brazil, universities impart a very clear notion of what being an artist implies; they establish reference figures, work materials and a certain vision of what art is, and this somehow standardizes the art practice. How do you envision the field of art in Argentina from this notion of the ‘professional’? Do you believe that universities may be dangerous spaces within this process of professionalization?

A.P.R.: My reading is based on the perspective of institutions. I believe there are matters that require being professionalized, and above all, being legalized. It is necessary to take the bull by the horns. It is really shameful that in 2015, photography and video should still not be considered contemporary art in Argentina, and it is necessary to start devising a museographic program at the national level. Based on my experience in the private sector, I consider there is a need to be transparent and democratic, especially when it comes to spaces that belong to all citizens, and it is regarding this question that professionalization is lacking in Argentina. For the abovementioned to occur, it would be necessary to create an association that includes all museums and formulates a manual of good practice, that demands that the position of director in public museums be subject to public examinations, and that proposes the protocols that should guide the activity. Not everything goes in institutions.

With regard to universities, I would never define them as dangerous spaces, but rather as questioning spaces. For me, college was fundamental in my formative process, and I understand there is danger when these spaces are used to indoctrinate people. I do not like it when certain university currents, and also some museum currents, establish a very concrete and unidirectional space for an artistic practice. This scares me.

I am not against the hyper-specialization in US universities, but it is necessary to be careful with this. It is all right to have freedom of choice in certain subjects, provided students are imparted basic skills and knowledge. I was trained as a historian and an aesthete, and on this basis, I can work as a curator. I have seen very good exhibitions curated by people who come from filmmaking, literature, economics, and this brings a contribution from a different perspective. Yet, on the other hand, this theoretical aspect may well be applied to the curatorial task but not to institutions. There are technical matters that have to do with the space itself, with budgets, logistics, institutional relationships, and so on, that are relevant to the curatorial practice and that it is important to bear in mind in the space in which we are moving.

S.V.: What is your work process like from the curatorial perspective?

A.P.R.: I conceive the curatorial work as a narrative. As a narrative, but even more than that. This is the reason why I like to organize a program, not just an exhibition. My vision of the museum is an integral one, and it must be thought of in a specific context and aimed at a specific audience. My way of understanding a curator’s work has to do with a process in which different exhibitions interweave and pose common themes and interests.

With regard to museums, I think collection, exhibition and public program form part of the same thing. A museum project is developed over time and it is woven together.

I focus on the curatorial structure in different ways, but it must always represent the institution, and consequently, its publics.

For example, at this moment I am working on an exhibition of Annemarie Heinrich’s oeuvre at Malba. Initially, my work is based on the knowledge of the sources, of the archival material, later to formulate a hypothesis. Her images have a public side and a personal one, which she never showed. Many photographs of nudes were never shown, and part of that iconography can be viewed as proto-feminist. I will not work with a reading based on photography, but in any case, we will exhibit the vintage works, maintaining a historical attitude with regard to her oeuvre. The idea is to contribute a new gaze and stop always repeating the same canons.

On the other hand, Experiencia infinita (Infinite Experience), which will open shortly at Malba, is an exhibition that has never been presented in Latin America. The project goes beyond the concept of performance and proposes constructed situations, displays in space, actions inserted in real time, living sculptures, etc. It is important to interrelate the local, the Latin American and the international, and for this reason, the artists participating in the exhibit were Elmgreen & Dragset and Ingar Dragset, Dora García, Roman Ondák, Diego Bianchi, Pierre Huyghe, Allora & Calzadilla, Tino Sehgal and Judi Werthein, among others.

In turn, it is important to feature artists that have never been seen in Buenos Aires, as is the case of the exhibitions of Teresa Burga or of the Brazilian artist Claudia Andujar, which we will present this year at Malba, since in a museum, the curatorial perspective is conceived on the basis of a local and global contribution.

S.V.: Lately, there has been a growing and excessive appreciation of the 1960s in Latin America, which has generated difficulties for the study and exhibition of artists and works preceding this generation. My question is if from Malba, whose collection begins with works from the early 20th century, you have a plan to work with this period in your exhibitions program.

A.P.R.: If you examine Malba’s program from its inception to the present, you will see that an important place has been assigned to exhibitions of works by Tarsila do Amaral, Lasar Segall, Alfredo Guttero, Antonio Berni, etc., but this has not applied to the productions of the 1960s, although there have been exhibitions of artists like Marta Minujin and Oscar Bony, but not many more.

At present, the collection reflects the discourse of Marcelo Pacheco, who did a great curatorial job and featured a certain type of display. I want to introduce a different imprint, and therefore the permanent exhibition will not be on view for so long. The idea is to present exhibitions that last a year and a half, and that are formulated by a scientific-artistic council composed of two members of the institution, and five representatives of the national and the international art scene, distinguished figures from the Argentine and the Latin American artistic milieu. This committee will propose exhibitions that offer new readings of certain historical moments or certain trends of thought, styles or theories.

Based on the works that make up the collection, which are approximately six hundred, we will ask ourselves: What can we do? What works would it be interesting to buy? The market values have undergone great variations since Malba opened. Therefore, we have to seek alternatives to complete the works or the artists that are absent from the collection. An institution must be plural within the framework of certain objectives. But we also have to work from the niches that have not been addressed yet. On the other hand, it is also necessary to work jointly with other institutions, sometimes to get together for budgetary reasons, and sometimes to loan works. I ask myself: What can we do together? I am very critical about the readings of Latin American art that are being produced in other latitudes: The United States or Europe, where, for example, Mexican artists must first go through European museums and only after that, sell their exhibitions to art centers in Latin America. The truth is I think this is a matter of concern. So I believe that in this respect, we have to work jointly with institutions all around us.

S.V.: I would like to know your opinion about the lack of a definition of roles in Argentina. The source of a large part of the critical tradition is poetry; historically, a large number of artists created their spaces, as was the case of Fernanda Laguna with Belleza y Felicidad (Beauty and Happiness), or they became museum directors, like Emilio Petorutti at the La Plata Museum, or Jorge Gumier Maier at the Rojas Cultural Center. Other artists, like Kenneth Kemble for instance, explored criticism, and some critics, like José León Pagano, explored painting.

A.P.R.: I think that is positive; it is interesting for a person to develop different profiles, since it makes it possible to contribute different points of view. I place the emphasis on the question: to what extent and under what protocols does this happen? That is, your being an artist and having an educational project; working in a museum and apart from this delivering classes, this implies broadening one’s knowledge. On the other hand, if you work in a museum that purchases works and you are writing a text for an exhibition in a gallery, there is a problem, because there is a professional ethics that must be respected. There comes a time when you must find a balance: What are you? Because I have met people who reach a paroxysm, for they say to you: “Well, yes, I am a draftsman, I am an artist, but the truth is that I also make films, I am a collector, I write…” This happens.

On other occasions, when approaching projects by young curators, you wonder: Where is the curatorial structure of this project? Since this is an art installation. Where is your curatorial project? And this is really a concern, because it is one thing to have a curatorial point of view, and a very different one when you are playing the role of the artist and confronting the artist.

S.V.: There are cases like that of Frederico Morais in Brazil, who in the 1970s, in response to some exhibitions by artists of the moment, worked from artistic practice as a critical text. Or cases like that of Jorge Glusberg in Argentina, who participated with his works in exhibitions that he himself curated.

A.P.R.: There are extreme outlooks, because there are curatorial projects in which the works illustrate a theory, and on the other hand, there are proposals in which there is so much artistry that it eclipses the artist’s presence, because it is the curator who is, ultimately, responsible for the construction of the work. I think these are the two extremes, and they are the result of something we have been talking about: that no rules have been established. When I speak of rules, I speak of professional ethics, personal ethics and freedom to act. That is to say, neither from an intellectual nor from an artistic perspective may the curator utilize an artwork in a disrespectful way, or as a trading card that illustrates a theory, or as material for his or her aesthetic play.