Making art and curating are clearly distinct practices within the rubric of fine art, however there are undeniably areas where they coincide. Concededly, both are very subjective in nature so I do not profess to possess universal truths in this regard! Various stages in the development of a group exhibition are akin to the creative process when devising a body of artwork: namely, naming a show; and in addition, fashioning associative printed matter, i.e. invitation imagery, posters, advertisements, etc. In a sense, in the instances when I produce a picture to introduce and promote an exhibit I consider it part and parcel of my art and on occasion display it as a stand-alone piece (or series). However, the separation is unambiguous and a strong effort must be made to keep such distance evident. Curating by definition entails an art form in and of itself, which at its core necessitates a sensitivity and sensibility for relating to the art of others-the process of selecting artists and art and the finesse in displaying the pieces in relation to each other and the space. It is problematic if making art and curating are seen as one and the same as this would evince an usurping of the autonomy of the individual art and artists in the name of the supposed omnipotent impresario. Not that I haven’t felt a proprietary sense of authorship in the organic structure that takes shape when an exhibit goes from conception to fruition. Conversely, the conundrum is the tendency of the professional artworld to look askance at a curator who conceives their practice too artfully: many are loath to acknowledge that one may combine activities and still be taken seriously in both (or, for that matter, in either).
