ISSUE 5 Curatorial Episteme
The Curatorial Thing

Debates on the notion of the curatorial and its related exhibition practice have been going on for more than a decade. Curators and scholars often contrast “the curatorial” with “the curating” (Jean Paul Martinon, Beatrice von Bismarck, Irit Rogoff, et al.). Maria Lind’s publication reiterates such a distinction in describing the curatorial as a presentation, and curating as representation.Such a dichotomy prescribed by many can certainly go against the grain of Herald Szeeman’s assertion that a curator is merely an “exhibition-maker (ausstellungsmacher),” a practical wisdom in making art public. For me, there is some beauty in Szeeman’s statement, such that an exhibition-maker could treat curating as a poetic device and to render the creative aspect possible, precisely because of the involvement of poiesis, or the making of becoming. The curatorial can overlap with curating in some areas, although the former often emphasizes philosophical and ethical approaches of reflexivity, self-criticality, and knowledge production. Can the representation aspect of curating include the presentational? Or, who will be the presenter of such presentation belonging to the curatorial? The list of questions drawn from this pair of concepts can go on and on. This article will focus on the moot point of curating versus the curatorial, by pushing the binary operation to bring forth what can be the “thing-ness” of curation.

1 I was fortunately to listen to Maria Lind’s talk on the curatorial in Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei. See Maria Lind, Curating “the Curatorial,” Art Forum, October 2009 ; Maria Lind, Situating the Curatorial, E Flux Journal #116 – March 2021
In fact, I tend to agree that such differences between curating and the curatorial do exist and must be further developed. A recent instance is the publication of the Chinese translation of SouthEastAsia: Spaces of the Curatorial, edited by Ute Meta Bauer and Brigitte Oetker, where the difference between “curating” and “the curatorial” in Chinese was not deliberately made.2 Although Bauer extends the notion of “the curatorial” to the geopolitical and colonial aspect, the translated Chinese cannot do justice in delivering this significance. It is therefore important to look at the thingness, the thing-in-itself, of the curatorial, on which the foundation our dichotomy is based, and from which the curatorial episteme constructs in many different techniques in making exhibitions such as the performative curating, critical curating, the educational turn, and institutional critique.
2 Ute Meta Bauer Brigitte Oetker, Eds, South East Asia: Spaces of Curatorial

Knowledge and Politics

Almost all advocates emphasize the knowledge production of the curatorial. “The event of knowledge,” claims Irit Rogoff, brings together new knowledge through various presentations and encounters with the public, and a curator has done so by drawing “a new set of relations” between things, which are not necessary “art” by definition.3 The epistemological horizon is expected to transcend the institutional setting to the outside world. However, as the notion of knowledge is invoked, we need to examine its relation of production, that is, how it would be circulated, shared, consumed, produced, and finally reproduced itself. A Foucauldian version of “knowledge” will suffice to access its close relation to power and the formation of subjects. Not surprising, when speaking of curatorial knowledge, Martinon, for example, draws a parallel line between the old epistemology and ideology, an interpellation that needs to be challenged in order to regenerate new knowledge. Much of Rogoff’s view on the expanded field of curating charts the open field of knowing, in which an emancipatory epistemology takes place in an exhibition. Through presenting a set of relations of things an exhibition proffers the contested scenario, which cannot be as be easily resolved and just given. However, to regenerate an emancipatory knowledge still does not respond to the fundamental epistemological question—on which conditions knowledge is produced—and its episteme, the condition of knowing designating such issue. The recent discussion on “situated knowledges” has taken the open field as a construct on which their relations of production are deployed.4 Needless to say, the reflection of the epistemic South, raised by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, responds to the construction of knowledge and power relation, the epistemicide happening around the globe, which the book SouthEastAsia: Spaces of the Curatorial addresses. Beneath the simple equation of the curatorial to knowledge can lurk the manipulation of power and the politics of knowing, which includes the possessions and the possessed of knowledge. When referring to the curatorial as knowledge production, we should be more careful with institutional factors that define what a knowledge is, which in turn may be a homogenous part of the outside world.
3 Irit Rogoff “The Expanded Field,” The Curatorial: a Philosophy of Curating, Jean Paul Martinon, Edit. P 222
4 Donna Haraway, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), PP 575-599 Published By: Feminist Studies, Inc.
Another way to realize the curatorial is through political aspects. One can go for the politics of knowledge, which explores the general condition of the known and various types of knowledge. In such aspect, artistic knowledge is definitely one of a kind, truly going against the grain of the nature of, let’s say, scientific knowledge. I believe artistic knowledge must possess distinct characteristics from the conventional Kunstwissenschaft. Artistic knowledge is too radical than to be entitled as knowledge. Lind draws the relation between the curatorial to Chantal Mouffe’s notion of the political, which deals with dissensus, instead of consensus asserted by the police, an antagonism essential to democracy.5 As Mouffe herself draws the pair of the politics and the political to Heideggerian pair, the ontic and the ontological, the former deals with the convention and the latter concern with what institutes a society. Therefore the political is the true democracy that creates a disrupted and confrontation social situation. It is far-fetched to suppose that any curated exhibition can stage the radical democracy as in the real world. Most of the time, the political (aka. antagonistic) situation in an exhibition usually attends with representation of a selected group of people, that is to say, a model of representational democracy is engaged. A curatorial event is by no means a social event, which is always already governed by the logic of policing and security and consensus is regulated to become the everyday reality.
5 Chantal Mouffe, On the Political. London: Rutledge, 2005

A democratic situation of curatorial event ought to bring out the special form of the political, as Jacques Rancière calls attention to meta-politics where the emancipated spectatorship along with an autonomous aesthetic experience happens. Usually the moment of epistemological un-decidability is prescribed for the spectators as the curatorial concern, which cannot be equated to a certain representation of demos in mirroring the antagonistic situation of democracy. Even if a political reality is presented by an exhibition, e.g., Occupy Wall Street in Documenta 2012, the political aspect still needs to be read as an artistic expression and be aesthetically experienced. The political in art apparently is unique and cannot be equated to the political in the social domain. However, I am not against the instrumentalization of art. Such function of art can only serve as the by-product that takes as a part of textual content the work, which matters the most. Taking political art for example, I do believe the “art” part is much more important than the political one. Social-engagement art that often involves participation of communities creates layers of spectatorship, those who collectively making work with an artist and those who refers as the representation of a certain social group or class, which altogether are indispensable part of the work. In a curatorial event the usual unnoticeable spectators and beholders are the ones who can be easily ignored; they are demos of art exhibitions.

Olivia Plender, Google Office, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, 2010. (Photo: Hongjohn Lin)

The political of the curatorial should attribute to antagonism between spectators and curators, who can create a moment bringing a shift of epistemology through the form of exhibitions. The shift of epistemology always involved a cognitive activity that is capable of bringing objects and relations into consideration. The event of knowledge, if it exists as an exhibition, is neither a literal depiction nor a logical inference. Thus, the spectators can have a chance to emancipate from the convention of exhibition, which always guarantees with assured visuality. The aesthetic experience is an autonomous cognition process though thought and senses, less depending on what has already been known. The curatorial is not only reflexive for the practice but also able to reveal the deeper underlying structure of exhibition. Unlike curating, the curatorial is the present-ness that takes the effect of the withdraw, a phenomenological reduction, instead of being immediately given. The unconventionality in the curatorial almost looks like a self-cancelling gesture, since it performs self–criticism on itself as the degree-zero of curating. This is the precise reason that Boris Groys says “the best curating is nil-curating, non-curating.” 6 In order to show the deep structure that is further receding, the curatorial practice often demonstrates the deconstruction strategy in exhibition, instead of giving the face value of art. One of the aspects that Bismarck raised in Curatorial Things states the situation of deconstructive curation, “(This) results in a situation that is fundamentally irreducible open-endedness, which, going beyond its semantic dimension, also encompasses its spatiality and temporality.” 7
6 Boris regards curating as the pharmacology in Jacques Derrida’s definition that the cure is to make it unwell, Boris Groys, Art Power, Cambridge: MIT press, 2008. P 44
7 Beatrice von Bismarck, Benjamin Meyer-Krahmer, Cultures of the Curatorial: Curatorial Things, Steinberg Press, 2019. P 11

From Things to Thingness

In fact, Curatorial Things shares not only different types and techniques of curatorial practices, namely the performative and institutionalism, which together are based on a self-reflexive stance in thinking what a curating can be. Performative curating grows out of J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, always plays around the discursive practice and enacts a reality effect. The performativity in exhibition means to take action to reveal their inner logic of cultural representation. Through the consideration of presentation in relation to events, participation, and actions shows the way in which truth and knowledge are being constructed and how histories are generated. In short, the performative shows the backstage of how realities are constructed. The performative denaturalizes an exhibition by resetting the dynamics among acting and enactment. The conventional scripts of an artist, a spectator, and a curator are rewritten, and therefore the symbolic order is disrupted to show the construct of the reality in exhibition.

In addition, these curatorial things include the status of art objects that are essentially relics, artifacts, works of art, those which are displayed in museums in reflection of their the origins and destinies. The conception of museums grows out of the project of colonialism and nationalism, and most things are changed from their original functions to the status of art, which in turn becomes the trophy of national pride, and the signifier of a collective identity. Things collected from ethnographical exploration are stolen from other cultures, an instrument to exclude others. A museum is a “sematic monster,” capable of coding cultural messages for things in exhibition. Not to mention, the architecture of museum itself as a thing has ready manifested a prestigious cultural statement in housing the high-art treasure.

Within a decade, another curatorial thing also includes the notion of das Ding, namely the assembly, in organizing occasions for public affairs, res publica. Bruno Latour’s neologism, Dingpolitiks, invites participants in gathering public discourses. Without sacrificing to any pre-given political thoughts, the Dingpolitiks creates public concerns and negotiates public matters in a way that responds to Heidegger’s appropriation of the Germanic legal term. Latour promotes the shaping of the public engagement in exhibition:

If the Ding designates both those who assemble because they are concerned as well as what causes their concerns and divisions, it should become the center of our attention: Back to Things! Is this not a more engaging political slogan?8
8 Bruno Latour, From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik, Or How to Make Things Public, Bruno Latour and Peter. Weibel. Edit., Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe: MIT Press ; ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, 2005. P 13

In fact, Curatorial Things shares not only different types and techniques of curatorial practices, namely the performative and institutionalism, which together are based on a self-reflexive stance in thinking what a curating can be. Performative curating grows out of J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, always plays around the discursive practice and enacts a reality effect. The performativity in exhibition means to take action to reveal their inner logic of cultural representation. Through the consideration of presentation in relation to events, participation, and actions shows the way in which truth and knowledge are being constructed and how histories are generated. In short, the performative shows the backstage of how realities are constructed. The performative denaturalizes an exhibition by resetting the dynamics among acting and enactment. The conventional scripts of an artist, a spectator, and a curator are rewritten, and therefore the symbolic order is disrupted to show the construct of the reality in exhibition.

Indeed, the museum has been a site for public assemblies since the 18th century, and an exhibition is always by definition a public event. In exhibition to response Dingpolitik, the role of spectators and beholders can turn themselves into active participants in voicing the public discourse, which are also undeniable a representation of certain groups and divisions. The presentation of representation for participating groups can be highlighted, instead of the common public as spectators. Furthermore, the agenda of such public assemblies are planned beforehand, and it was not formed automatically.

More importantly, in presenting the assembly of negotiations, the exhibitions have transformed themselves from a site of public contemplation, which belongs to the aesthetic domain, to a site of public discussion that is still not necessarily political antagonism. If the curatorial includes dingpolitik, then the validity of representation to the public sphere needs to be considered as the exhibition displaces from the autonomous aesthetic to the heteronomous social domain.

Christian Jankowski, Director’s Cut, Taipei Fine Art Museum, 2010. (Photo: Hongjohn Lin)

Among these curatorial things—the assembly, the collection, and the curating practices, there are apparently two levels of things in the curatorial: the first one is a literal thing, an object that in everyday usage of language that signifies a work of art. The second is about various curatorial practices framed by different exhibition contexts of museums, art fairs, or biennials in signifying what art can do. In these two levels, both involve the space-time relations—namely the history, locale, and site—in a combined determination of such tradition, to which the things truly belong, instead of some happenings of random incidents. These things can be matters of attention when they are damaged or endangered as they become noticeable, precisely in Heidegger’s term “present-thing-at-hand,” the presence of once naturalized objects. These curatorial things are on the way to be considered as the ground and basis, and there should be the thingness, the curatorial thing, to be addressed.

The Kantian notion of thing-in–itself, is helpful in defining the structure of these curatorial things as being the bearer of properties, to form the one essence, the noumenon that cannot be directly known, but still can be approached and speculated. In other words, the curatorial thing not only haunts the finitude of exhibition history, but also the limitations of human awareness. It is also the non-human casual relation with each other. In a way, the curatorial thing is neither to break down to what is being composed nor to enact it function, as Graham Harman defined as attempt the pair, the undermining and the overmining. 9 To make it bluntly, the in-between-ness of being curatorial, the framework, is what we are looking for, albeit its shift-qualities, which might be deemed as the curating. Whatever a curatorial thing is in discussion or interrogation, there shall be the thingness that unconditionally predetermines a thing.
9 Graham Harman, Art and Objects, Cambridge: Polity, 2019. P 26

Care as the Thing

What can be this curatorial thing, that serves as the foundation, the framework, and the essence of curating practice? As Szeeman suggests that to look for the root of the word for curating, to curate means to cure and to care in etymology, beyond merely to mount an exhibition, to choose artworks, to select archive, and so on. From the Latin cūrāre is to take care of someone, and cūra is to cure, to attend, and to worry. Both meanings take on the early role of a curate who performs cura animarum, the cure and the care of soul in pastoral ministry, and the duties or office of a curate can be called a curacy. Following this linguistic trace, curators and scholars regard the shifting meaning that curating can stem from a genealogical root. Groys takes on the notion of cure to develop the iconoclastic version of curating, as he claims, “The process of curating cures the image’s powerlessness, its incapacity to present itself.” 10 However this view often raises doubt that a curator sets up a hierarchy position over artists and artworks. Kate Flowe, while responding to the notion of care, shares the inherent power relation between care and control, because taking care is always directed to the other. 11 In bringing up care as the thing, the background, I will go through a detour to Heidegger’s existentialism in relation to the myth of Care (Cura).
10 Boris Groys. P 45
11 Kate Fowle, “Who Cares? Understanding the Role of the Curator Today,” Cautionary Tales: Critical Curating, Steve Rand and Heather Kouris, Apex Art, 2007. P 26

There are at least three parallel definitions of the word care, which appears to be ambiguous and even contradictory. As we noted earlier as in Flowe’s undertaking, to care usually means to be responsible for or attend to health, well-being, welfare, and safety. The other one is about solicitude, and it also had connotations of attentiveness, conscientiousness, and devotion. The third one is about worry, anxiety, and apprehension, a disquieted state of mixed uncertainty, which although less being undertaken by curator’s motto, and Heidegger has found care as worry can be the foundation of human being as he translated care as Sorge (anxiety). In Being and Time, he quoted in length from a Greco-Roman myth called “Care,” found in a second-century Latin collection of myths edited by Hyginus. Cura or Aera Cura is the name of a Roman goddess who created the human and whose name means “care” or “concern”.

After Richard Lin (IKEA PS), IKEA PSx8, On the Passage of Few Persons through a Brief Moment in Time, MoNUTE, 2021. Courtesy of MoNUTE

More than any other single source, this little-known myth, narrated below, has given the notion of care in shaping Dasein, being-in-the-world as Heidegger’s ontology. As Cura was crossing a river, she thoughtfully picked up some mud and began to fashion a human being. While she was mediating on what she had done, Jupiter came along and gave the human form a spirit. Tellus (the Earth) provided the material for the human. Cura, Jupiter and Tellus argue about who should the human be named after. They requested Saturn to be the judge, and Saturn announced the verdict, “Jupiter, having given its spirit, you should receive that spirit at death; and since you, Earth, have given its body, you shall receive its body. But since Care first shaped this creature, she shall possess it as long as it lives. And because there is a dispute among you as to its name, let it be called homo, for it is made out of humus (earth).” 12

12 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, John Stambaugh, Tran., Albany: State University of New York , 2010. P 198

Heidegger brings care together with the ontological dimension of being, an authentic way of being in the living, instead of in the lived, as the myth emphasizes the spatial temporal setting of the human. Heidegger writes by directly pointing to the myth,

Cura prima finxit. This being has the “origin” of its being in care. Cura teneat, quamdiu vixerit: this being is not released from its origin, but is held fast and dominated by it, as long as this being “is in the world. “Being-in-the-world” has the character of being of “care.” It does not get its name (homo) with regard to its being, but in relation to that of which it consists (humus).13
13 Martin Heidegger. P 199

The rich connotations from the myth of Cura and Heidegger’s reading can be regarded not only as the metaphysical truth, but also as the curatorial one. It provides a genealogy of care in light of which to rethink the value of care in exhibition. As care is giving the form before assigning any purpose-ness, Jupiter’s spirit of homos, care provides an autonomous aesthetic experience. It is Care that was “meditating” on the pure human form, which could have been tossed back to the humus. Care is always associated with a crisis in creating an authentic ontological dimension, the self-consciousness in bringing forth the foremost possibility for all possibilities of life. For the curatorial, it is care that forms the consciousness, which unites the objective world and the inner subjectivity together, in order to make free exhibition decisions and commitments in facing a crisis of art. The curatorial gives form and devotion to the living. In care is embodied the ontological dimension of exhibition-making, almost as Heidegger’s explication of being-in-the-world as being-in-the-exhibition:

The multiplicity of these (being-in) is indicated by the following examples: having to do with something, producing something, attending to something and looking after it, making use of something, giving something up and letting it go, undertaking, accomplishing, evincing, interrogating, considering, discussing, determining…. All these kind ways of Being-in have care as their kind of Being.

14 Martin Heidegger. P 57
Care necessarily goes beyond the personal subjective domain but rather an intersubjective networks. Therefore care turns toward not only the living, but also the living-together. Indeed, beside Sorge (anxiety), a concern for oneself to the past and the future, Heidegger reveals there are two types of care, Besorgen and Fursorge: the former deals with the contribution of something for oneself or someone, and the latter means the actively caring for someone in needs, solicitude, and the common welfare. The curatorial thing as care not only structures the ontological dimension of exhibition-making, but also the public which is organizing through assembly.

Installation view On the Passage of Few Persons through a Brief Moment in Time, MoNUTE, 2021. Photo by Chang Guo yao.

I would take some risk in interpreting some exhibitions in relation to the curatorial thing, which serves as the unapproachable structure of thing-in-itself of exhibition. One is the well-known remake of the legendary exhibition—When Attitudes Become Form curated by Szeeman in Bern, 1969—by Germano Celan, Venice, 2012. The remake version in a seemingly tautological curation moved beyond the notion of repetition and difference, creating a framing device for a history of the exhibition, the tradition of the independent curating, the material as conceptual base for making art and its display, and the various attributes of spectatorship involved. In probing the reflexive dimension of exhibition, the remake version has exceeded the original one by inviting the beholder to contemplate what an exhibition can be and cannot be. The other is the recent exhibition On the Passage of a Few Persons through a Brief Moment in Time in Taipei, curated by a collective of artists Michael Lin, and curators Jau Lan, Guo and Lee Ambrozy. Mixing and merging minimalist paintings, post conceptualist installation, folk art, and Ikea furniture, the exhibition fabricated the scenario of the global traffic from the modern art of Greenberg’s flatness to the post–Fordism industry’s flat packaging. Michal Lin’s flowery pattern was installed as backdrop for hanging the impressionist painting of flower done by Yen, Shui Long, a pioneer painter in the early 20th century, with his design of bamboo chairs of Asian Bauhaus style. Therefore the production of artistic knowledge in the context of post-coloniality was highlighted, and not to mention the exhibition title is a situationist détournement from the work of Guy Debord. Upon the exhibition’s installation, the possible structural cause of global art production can be speculated. Both exhibitions embodied care as the spatial-temporal dimension reveals itself in terms of the politics involved in the installation form, of which, I believe, the possibilities of the curatorial are many, even though we cannot guarantee that it can always succeed.

1 I was fortunately to listen to Maria Lind’s talk on the curatorial in Taipei Fine Arts Museum, Taipei. See Maria Lind, Curating “the Curatorial,” Art Forum, October 2009 ; Maria Lind, Situating the Curatorial, E Flux Journal #116 – March 2021
2 Ute Meta Bauer Brigitte Oetker, Eds, South East Asia: Spaces of Curatorial
3 Irit Rogoff “The Expanded Field,” The Curatorial: a Philosophy of Curating, Jean Paul Martinon, Edit. P 222
4 Donna Haraway, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), PP 575-599 Published By: Feminist Studies, Inc.
5 Chantal Mouffe, On the Political. London: Rutledge, 2005
6 Boris regards curating as the pharmacology in Jacques Derrida’s definition that the cure is to make it unwell, Boris Groys, Art Power, Cambridge: MIT press, 2008. P 44
7 Beatrice von Bismarck, Benjamin Meyer-Krahmer, Cultures of the Curatorial: Curatorial Things, Steinberg Press, 2019. P 11
8 Bruno Latour, From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik, Or How to Make Things Public, Bruno Latour and Peter. Weibel. Edit., Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe: MIT Press ; ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, 2005. P 13
9 Graham Harman, Art and Objects, Cambridge: Polity, 2019. P 26
10 Boris Groys. P 45
11 Kate Fowle, “Who Cares? Understanding the Role of the Curator Today,” Cautionary Tales: Critical Curating, Steve Rand and Heather Kouris, Apex Art, 2007. P 26
12 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, John Stambaugh, Tran., Albany: State University of New York , 2010. P 198
Share
Email
Twitter
Facebook
Author

Hongjohn Lin is an artist, writer and curator. Graduated from New York University in Arts and Humanities with Ph.D. He has participated in exhibitions including Taipei Biennial(2004), the Manchester Asian Triennial 2008, the Rotterdam Film Festival 2008, and the 2012 Taipei Biennial, Guangzhou Triennial (2015), and China Asia Biennial (2014). Lin was curator of the Taiwan Pavilion Atopia, Venice Biennial 2007, co-curator of 2010 Taipei Biennial (with Tirdad Zolghadr), and numerous curatorial projects such as Taizhong’s The Good Place (2002) and Live Ammo (2012). Lin is serving as Professor at the Taipei National University of the Arts. For the past 10 years, he has been working on project based on George Psalmanazar, A fake Taiwanese in the early Enlightenment. He is interested in transdisciplinary arts, politics of aesthetics, and curating. His writings can be found in Artco magazine, Yishu magazine, international journals, and publications of Art as a Thinking Process (2010), Artistic Research (2012), Experimental Aesthetic(2014), Altering Archive: The Politics of Memory in Sinophone Cinemas and Image Culture (2017). He wrote the Introductions for Chinese edition of Art Power (Boris Groys) and Artificial Hells (Clair Bishop) . His books in Chinese include Poetics of Curating (2018), Beyond the Boundary: Interdisciplinary Arts in Taiwan, Writings on Locality, Curating Subjects: Practices of Contemporary Exhibitions.

Archive
Archive

Issue 5 Curatorial Episteme
Editorial / Curatorial Episteme Hongjohn Lin
Epistemic Encounters Henk Slager
The Curatorial Thing Hongjohn Lin
Ethics of Curating Meng-Shi Chen

Issue 4 Curatorial Consciousness in the Times of Post-Nationalism
Editorial /​ Curatorial Consciousness in the Times of Post-Nationalism Manray Hsu
When Kacalisian Culture Meets the Vertical City: Contemporary Art from Greater Sandimen Manray Hsu
Pathways and Challenges: Art History in the Context of Global Contemporary Art Jau-Lan Guo
Curating Commemoration: Conditions of Political Choreography, a Performance Exhibition in Retrospect Sophie Goltz

Issue 3 Curating Performativity
Editorial /​ Curating Performativity I-wen Chang
Choreographing Exhibitions: Performative Curatorgraphy in Taiwan I-wen Chang
Living and Working Together in the Now Normal: Visual Arts and Co. at Bangkok Art and Culture Centre Pawit Mahasarinand
The Curatorial as A Praxis of Disobedience Miya Yoshida

Issue 2 Curators' Living Rooms
Editorial /​ Curators' Living Rooms Sandy Hsiu-chih Lo
Extended Living Room: Space and Conversation ruangrupa(Ade Darmawan, Mirwan Andan)
Freeing the Weights of the Habitual Raqs Media Collective
Curating Topography Sandy Hsiu-chih Lo

Issue 1 Curatography
Editorial /​ One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Hongjohn Lin
What is Curatography? Hongjohn Lin
Les fleurs américaines Yoann Gourmel, Elodie Royer​
There are No Blank Slates Eileen Legaspi Ramirez​
Issue 5 Curatorial Episteme

Issue 4 Curatorial Consciousness in the Times of Post-Nationalism

Issue 3 Curating Performativity

Issue 2 Curators' Living Rooms

Issue 1 Curatography