Re-reading my first post, I realise that I have glossed over the details that should come first on the agenda of someone publicising the event, and I feel vaguely guilty, however my primary agenda is not to publicise the event – others are paid to do that – but to give some insight into what I am doing.
In a sense I am being accurate in omitting the curatorial information, because I am thoroughly un-familiar with the exhibition that I am to act as artist Animateur for, or the work of Vincent its creator. In fact so far I have only seen about 8 small images and read a short paragraph about Vincent the artist.
The role that I need to adopt for this task is one of responding to Vincent’s actual work for this particular exhibition, not his reputation, career, or what esteem he is held in by critics. This role is best served if the exhibition is as much as a surprise to me as it is to anyone else.
Working this way is healthy for a variety of reasons:
1 It will make me think on my feet.
2 The immediacy of my first impressions will inform my responses directly – without being too stale or over developed.
3 If I’m tempted to behave authoritatively it will be based on my responses to the exhibition, and have equal validity to anyone else’s. my practise as an artist will inform me, but it will probably prove less interesting than say, a plumber’s or a florist’s.
4 I will not be able to resort to received pseudo-facts about the exhibition just because I have read them somewhere.
If you need curatorial information there might be some here.
