TOWARDS CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION IN CONTEMPORARY ART: ARTISTS’ AND CURATORS’ PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol31.568Abstract
In the second half of 2024, within the framework of the project Spatial and Visual-Conceptual Strategies of Artworks in Contemporary Art Exhibition Development of Scientific Activity at the Latvian Academy of Culture, a group of researchers conducted a focused study on the spatial and visual-conceptual strategies of artworks. In total, 20 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted. The process of interviewing artists and curators highlighted an observed issue – the audience’s inability to fully comprehend the idea of an artwork, both during its creation and exhibition.
The objective of the paper is to analyse the data obtained from the interviews in order to identify the methods employed by artists and curators to develop constructive interaction during the creation and exposition of the artwork. Findings emphasise several core themes that shape constructive interaction in contemporary art. One of the factors affecting audience engagement is the expectation of a single, fixed meaning in artworks, whereas artists encourage multiple interpretations. The role of mediation, through exhibition texts and contextual information, proves essential in bridging the gap between artists and audiences. Additionally, exhibition dramaturgy plays a crucial role in shaping interaction. Spatial arrangements can either invite immersion or create barriers to engagement. Moreover, some artists view contemporary art as a social and emotional dialogue, where they hope their work will not only be seen but also provoke reflection and discussion. Findings indicate that accessibility plays a crucial role in this process, with artists and curators using various mediation strategies, such as guided explanations, complementary texts, and spatial design – to engage audiences effectively.
This paper will examine the experiences of artists and curators working in the contemporary art scene in Latvia over the past three years, focusing on the interpretive challenges identified in interviews. While insights from these perspectives highlight challenges and strategies for constructive interactions, further exploration of the viewer’s role in interpreting art is essential.
Downloads
References
Best, S. (2011). Visualizing Feeling: Affect and the Feminine Avant-garde. London, New York: I. B. Taurus.
Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso.
Cambridge University Press (2023). Synergy. Cambridge Dictionary. Available: https:// dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/synergy#google_vignette (viewed 07.02.2025.)
Christidou, D. (2016). Social Interaction in the Art Museum: Connecting to Each Other and the Exhibits.https://doi.org/10.18848/2326-9960/CGP/v11i04/27-38
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.
ICOM (2022). Museum Definition. International Council of Museums. Available: https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ (viewed 31.01.2025.)
Kakarla, U. (2024). The Evolution of Contemporary Art: A Journey Through Cultural Shifts. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 11(04), 8119–8122. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsshi/v11i04.02
Knight, C.K. (2008). Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Latvian Ministry of Culture (2021). Kultūrpolitikas pamatnostādnes 2021.–2027. gadam. Riga. Available: https://www.km.gov.lv/lv/media/13169/download (viewed 31.01.2025.)
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2004). The World of Perception. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis. Available:https://www.perlego.com/book/1615065/the-world-of-perception-pdf(viewed07.02.2025.)
O’Neill, P. (2012). The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Culture(s). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Penfold, L. (2017). Art as experience. Educational Review, 69(4), 523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1264206
Rancière, J. (2008). The Emancipated Spectator. London, New York: Verso.
Schuermans, N., Loopmans, M.P.J., Vandenabeele, J. (2012). Public space, public art and public pedagogy. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(7), pp. 675–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.728007
Scott, S., Hinton-Smith, T., Härmä, V., & Broome, K. (2013). Goffman in the Gallery: Interactive Art and Visitor Shyness. Symbolic Interaction, 36(4), pp. 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.74
Thornett, L., Crawley, G. (2022). Staged: scenographic strategies in contemporary exhibition design, Theatre and Performance Design, 8(1–2), pp. 3–6, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322551.2022.2099091
Tümen-Akyıldız, S., Ahmed, K.H. (2021). An overview of qualitative research and focus group discussion. Journal of Academic Research in Education, 7(1), pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.866762
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Culture Crossroads

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.