top of page

What can we make and become (WCWMB)

What Can We Make And Become is a public art exhibition of the works by the current PG CSM students — Lara Geary, Lois Bentley, Isabel Bonafe Carrasco, Aleksandr Tishkov, Harley Price, Susanna Brunetti, Tere Chad, Carla Benzing, Lexi Sun, Theresa Gößmann, Niloofar Taatizadeh, Yajing Hu, Jolanta Basova, Orna Kazimi; curated by Sasha Burkhanova-Khabadze.


The model of joint art production that was applied in preparing the exhibition, and further critically reflected on in the display — Intra-actions — was conceptually inspired by the work of posthumanist feminist thinker Karad Barad. Unlike “inter-action” model, which stands for a temporary collaboration of consistent, fundamentally autonomous distinct agents that pre-exist the event of joint art production, “intra-action” understands joint art production as a “dynamism of forces” (to use Baradian terminology (Barad, 2007:141)), in which all designated art practitioners (artists and curators alike) are constantly exchanging and diffracting, influencing each other and working inseparably — developing their specific artistic outlooks, subjectivities and techniques in the presence of each other. 

This time at Exposed, you will encounter the documentation of a journey, undertaken by a group of individuals in their becoming-artists. You will enter the space that is becoming-artist itself — together with, in the presence of, in response to, its human collaborators. Their dialogue expands in a multilogue, and the multiplicity voices starts to speak in concert. Becoming-artist – the phrase that both generates disagreement and acknowledgment. Becoming-artist, but also – becoming-collective  [I really like the ‘BECOMING-COLLECTIVE’ in relation to becoming-multiple]. In my opinion, is the process of seeking not for common parallels, but rather acknowledging each other’s position regarding the performance of the project collaboratively. We have been given a creative freedom which was limited only by the historical significance on the site.

The exhibition-assemblage (I like this word to describe what we will create) agree that you are invited to experience was produced in the course of 5 meetings, through which the individuals-becoming-artists intertwined their thinking processes, shared their impulses for making art, and developed response-ability to the others in the group — to consequently transform their art-making practices and act like the particle of one creative(organic? could be a different adjective to use instead of creative so to underline how we naturally mixed each other ideas) assemblage. What kind of processes could possibly enable these committed and therefore independent-minded artists to hear each other, tune-in to another’s world? Do we include artefacts/maps/sketch paintings within the exhibition that touch on the processes, used in those opening meetings? AGREE I have told the story of our first meeting a number of times. It was such a good way to begin. One person speaks, the others write down one-word responses. The second person speaks of their work and of any of the one-word responses that resonate...and so on around the table. This is an example of the approach we used. Without “rules” it set the tone for our way of working. It has been both an amazing and intriguing experience to work with a curator that’s not on the ‘dominant authoritarian position’, to work with a curator that relies on the artists, a curator that believes that artists can take independent decisions, a curator that’s more a guide than someone who is imposing things. It proved my theory, that the best way to construct any kind of relation is through freedom, hence naturally people that want be there, will get involved and the ones who are not interested won’t.

In our relationship, the INTER-  was replaced by INTRA- .

Inter-, as a prefix, means between or among, describing systems within groups, international, intercede, interrupt, intercept. The prefix intra- means within, internal, confined -  intramural, intravenous, intraventicular. (I like intraventricular, life-blood and an inter-mingling) One externalises (inter-), the other (intra-) suggests that there is no inside or outside, no attachment or isolation, for there is no object or entity prior to the encounter itself -- one comes to existence through it. Both mutually exclusive of each other by definition up to the point of direct contact.  At a certain point they converge but they can never merge -- 

i.e. < I > or , > I <

bottom of page