Are there any questions you would like to see addressed that have not been addressed already?

//Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
but the empty space between them
is the essence of the wheel.

Pots are formed from clay,
but the empty space between it
is the essence of the pot.

Walls with windows and doors form the house,
but the empty space within it
is the essence of the house
-Uses of Not
Lao Tse, Taoist philosopher on the concept of Ma//

To draw out a map of the grounds I will be traversing through in this essay, I will first
begin with the end. A map is hardly useful for the nomadic wanderer, and although I enjoy going wherever my feet take me, for the purposes of this essay I wish to focus on a specific destination. So allow me briefly to lie out where we will be going and the ideas we will be touching on in order to assure that neither you (nor I) get lost along the way.

I propose to curate the space of listening. That is the space that exists in the in-between—The space between things. I aim to curate this space which is suspended in pure potentiality; knowing only itself as a means unto other means rooted within a complex system of rhizomatic relationships. In order to attempt such a seemingly abstract practice, first let us start with unpacking the notion of listening.

Foremost, it is important to understand the two forms of dialogue that need distinction in order to understand what it means to listen. The first form is dialogue disguised as monologue. Man, gifted with the ability to think, abuses dialogue as if it were a sport, speaking at each other without ceasing until one has overcome the other. This does not necessarily qualify itself as an active argument, but simply out-thinking, and out-speaking the other, as if to prove ones capacity for knowledge. The transaction lacks a receiver and fades away as it fails to reach the ears of the other. This dialogue, tainted by ego is hardly any dialogue at all. Rather, such a transaction might better be understood as mere monologue, disguised as such.

The second form of dialogue is a bit more complicated to unpack however, Buber seemed to have put it best when he described it as process of “becoming aware. ” This genuine form of dialogue is much more than simply exchanging ideas and forms. Rather it is the understanding and acknowledgement of the relationship in itself as a whole. It is a specific care towards the other, which is neither withdrawing from ones’ own self nor is it an objectification of the other. It is an act of taking into account the nature between you and the other. In a person to person exchange, dialogue—in its most essential form, is an organic reciprocal participation in the between nature of things. In short, dialogue is a reciprocal act of listening. In some cases, dialogue necessitates responsiveness. Here however, I wish not to limit it to simply that, for dialogue might also take form within silence.

I will be able to expand on these ideas later on in the essay, but for now let us set them aside so in order to return to the between space in which I am most interested in specifically as a venue for curatorial practice. It is impossible to be sure what exactly this idea fully means, but it does not negate or make arbitrary its sincere investigation. And as a sincere investigation, I wish to introduce the dialogue space.

Inspired by the Guatarri’s notion of the partial object, I wish to transform the galleries into a partial spaces. The partial object is a term that Guatarri refers to in Chaosmosis signifying an art form that refuses such categories as painting, sculpture and installation. The term is understood rather, as surfaces, volumes and devices which “dovetail within strategies of existence.” The partial object is a segment that lies upon a plane of infinite potentiality. Through transforming the ‘architecture’ of the gallery into a partial space, the mode of viewing transforms into a mode of participating within a space that fosters dialogue through panel discussions, readings, workshops, installations, and performances.

The dialogue space has three essential distinguishing characteristics that allow it to take shape. First of all, to begin with the obvious, there needs to be a dialogue. That is, a necessary ongoing exchange of ideas and a drawing awareness of relational values. Without dialogue, as an open-ended processing of space, an important dynamic becomes an idealized form, which prohibits an element of growth. Within the context of our contemporary age, the space needs room for transformation as the pace of our culture continually speeds up. This isn’t to say that the space needs to change with every whim of culture, for that would be only to its grave disadvantage. While making sure the space does not bend backwards to appease the unquenchable desires of society, we aim to brush against that tendency and form a space that counteracts with the patterns of the world and intercourse with it as it embarks upon great transformation. (this could perhaps use more explanation)

The second important characteristic of the dialogue space is modularity. The space needs to move. It has to be willing to be transformed without giving up its transformative qualities. It is a transitive relationship of both give and take. As such, it must be able to sustain itself within different contexts (culture, history, location etc). Originally, the dialogue space was going to exist as a single location. But as I was thinking it through, I felt that it is important for the space to have legs of its own. A single location would perhaps act as a limitation that could prohibit it from moving beyond itself. (this probably needs more explanation too)

The third aspect of the dialogue space that is intertwined with the previous two has both to do with critical and practical output. The previous two would only prove ambivalent without this third trait. To utilize dialogue and its module capacity to provoke and expound upon the between nature of things (through collaborative creative processes) is in its simplest form, what the dialogue space is about. Furthermore, as a collaborative space, the act of listening here is a profound, yet in many ways, a lost capacity. This is evident specifically within the Art world as a monologue disguised as dialogue.

In thinking about a specific practice, dealing with architecture of potential and spaces that are structured as non-structures, I have begun to think about dialogue in motion. Why designate a single space to all sorts of dialogue…wouldn’t that simply place your “non-structure” into a structural paradigm? What if you would continue to shed the skin of the gallery by curating spaces under bridges, at stop-lights, in restaurants, windows and inside other structures (such as museums)? What about curating in schools, theatres, churches and businesses? I want to pursue a curatorial practice that continually pushes against the objectified intentions of particular spaces to reveal the unrealized potentiality with them. If the dialogue space were to become a modular space that could be transported to different areas, different cities, different countries, it would require much more than a mere location scouting. Each location must allow (as would a person to the other in a dialogic relation) its surrounding environment, its people, its culture and traditions to influence how it goes about forming a dialogue with the community. What works in one city might not work in the other, just as what works with one person probably will not work with the other. It is a colliding of ideas, backgrounds and human beings that necessitates a healthy reciprocal communication. Each side has to offer itself to the other by grace as well as understanding in values.

This space, like all space is one of varying processes. A space willingly or not enters into history as a point upon a plane, where various phenomena of intercourse flow in and out. Space is subjected to itself and time. Space might be constructed, refurbished, torn down and or abandoned. It can be created, imagined and forgotten. Unlike these spaces however, the dialogue space will be specifically turned inward on itself in order to investigate these dynamic relationships that ebb and flow through it. Rather than fully defining space, the dialogue space will be a process of becoming, open to change and possibility. It will escape definition in order to allow its history, its culture and its inhabitants to take part in its overall creation. More importantly, the space will maintain an inward self-criticality that molds and shapes it. This molding will take place through literal creative processes that respond to the overall dialogue that takes place within it.

Now the difficulty in this is that there is no formula, no methodology or any sort of model that suits best. If this were the case, I would question its ability to take shape via potentiality. It is a structure that has only a foundation from which to begin where the remainder is suspended as an unrealized potentiality.

Through the remainder of this essay, I will be using the dialogue space as a venue that uses art as a means to understand these complex relationships between man and man (as individuals and as community), between man and nature (as the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things), and God (as an embodiment of both the absolute and infinite). By investigating these three essential relationships more specifically as the between nature of things, I will be able to clarify exactly where the notion of dialogue space originates from and its important implications within the contexts of art and art history.

//Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
but the empty space between them
is the essence of the wheel.

Pots are formed from clay,
but the empty space between it
is the essence of the pot.

Walls with windows and doors form the house,
but the empty space within it
is the essence of the house
-Uses of Not
Lao Tse, Taoist philosopher on the concept of Ma//

To draw out a map of the grounds I will be traversing through in this essay, I will first
begin with the end. A map is hardly useful for the nomadic wanderer, and although I enjoy going wherever my feet take me, for the purposes of this essay I wish to focus on a specific destination. So allow me briefly to lie out where we will be going and the ideas we will be touching on in order to assure that neither you (nor I) get lost along the way.

I propose to curate the space of listening. That is the space that exists in the in-between—The space between things. I aim to curate this space which is suspended in pure potentiality; knowing only itself as a means unto other means rooted within a complex system of rhizomatic relationships. In order to attempt such a seemingly abstract practice, first let us start with unpacking the notion of listening.

Foremost, it is important to understand the two forms of dialogue that need distinction in order to understand what it means to listen. The first form is dialogue disguised as monologue. Man, gifted with the ability to think, abuses dialogue as if it were a sport, speaking at each other without ceasing until one has overcome the other. This does not necessarily qualify itself as an active argument, but simply out-thinking, and out-speaking the other, as if to prove ones capacity for knowledge. The transaction lacks a receiver and fades away as it fails to reach the ears of the other. This dialogue, tainted by ego is hardly any dialogue at all. Rather, such a transaction might better be understood as mere monologue, disguised as such.

The second form of dialogue is a bit more complicated to unpack however, Buber seemed to have put it best when he described it as process of “becoming aware. ” This genuine form of dialogue is much more than simply exchanging ideas and forms. Rather it is the understanding and acknowledgement of the relationship in itself as a whole. It is a specific care towards the other, which is neither withdrawing from ones’ own self nor is it an objectification of the other. It is an act of taking into account the nature between you and the other. In a person to person exchange, dialogue—in its most essential form, is an organic reciprocal participation in the between nature of things. In short, dialogue is a reciprocal act of listening. In some cases, dialogue necessitates responsiveness. Here however, I wish not to limit it to simply that, for dialogue might also take form within silence.

I will be able to expand on these ideas later on in the essay, but for now let us set them aside so in order to return to the between space in which I am most interested in specifically as a venue for curatorial practice. It is impossible to be sure what exactly this idea fully means, but it does not negate or make arbitrary its sincere investigation. And as a sincere investigation, I wish to introduce the dialogue space.

Inspired by the Guatarri’s notion of the partial object, I wish to transform the galleries into a partial spaces. The partial object is a term that Guatarri refers to in Chaosmosis signifying an art form that refuses such categories as painting, sculpture and installation. The term is understood rather, as surfaces, volumes and devices which “dovetail within strategies of existence.” The partial object is a segment that lies upon a plane of infinite potentiality. Through transforming the ‘architecture’ of the gallery into a partial space, the mode of viewing transforms into a mode of participating within a space that fosters dialogue through panel discussions, readings, workshops, installations, and performances.

The dialogue space has three essential distinguishing characteristics that allow it to take shape. First of all, to begin with the obvious, there needs to be a dialogue. That is, a necessary ongoing exchange of ideas and a drawing awareness of relational values. Without dialogue, as an open-ended processing of space, an important dynamic becomes an idealized form, which prohibits an element of growth. Within the context of our contemporary age, the space needs room for transformation as the pace of our culture continually speeds up. This isn’t to say that the space needs to change with every whim of culture, for that would be only to its grave disadvantage. While making sure the space does not bend backwards to appease the unquenchable desires of society, we aim to brush against that tendency and form a space that counteracts with the patterns of the world and intercourse with it as it embarks upon great transformation. (this could perhaps use more explanation)

The second important characteristic of the dialogue space is modularity. The space needs to move. It has to be willing to be transformed without giving up its transformative qualities. It is a transitive relationship of both give and take. As such, it must be able to sustain itself within different contexts (culture, history, location etc). Originally, the dialogue space was going to exist as a single location. But as I was thinking it through, I felt that it is important for the space to have legs of its own. A single location would perhaps act as a limitation that could prohibit it from moving beyond itself. (this probably needs more explanation too)

The third aspect of the dialogue space that is intertwined with the previous two has both to do with critical and practical output. The previous two would only prove ambivalent without this third trait. To utilize dialogue and its module capacity to provoke and expound upon the between nature of things (through collaborative creative processes) is in its simplest form, what the dialogue space is about. Furthermore, as a collaborative space, the act of listening here is a profound, yet in many ways, a lost capacity. This is evident specifically within the Art world as a monologue disguised as dialogue.

In thinking about a specific practice, dealing with architecture of potential and spaces that are structured as non-structures, I have begun to think about dialogue in motion. Why designate a single space to all sorts of dialogue…wouldn’t that simply place your “non-structure” into a structural paradigm? What if you would continue to shed the skin of the gallery by curating spaces under bridges, at stop-lights, in restaurants, windows and inside other structures (such as museums)? What about curating in schools, theatres, churches and businesses? I want to pursue a curatorial practice that continually pushes against the objectified intentions of particular spaces to reveal the unrealized potentiality with them. If the dialogue space were to become a modular space that could be transported to different areas, different cities, different countries, it would require much more than a mere location scouting. Each location must allow (as would a person to the other in a dialogic relation) its surrounding environment, its people, its culture and traditions to influence how it goes about forming a dialogue with the community. What works in one city might not work in the other, just as what works with one person probably will not work with the other. It is a colliding of ideas, backgrounds and human beings that necessitates a healthy reciprocal communication. Each side has to offer itself to the other by grace as well as understanding in values.

This space, like all space is one of varying processes. A space willingly or not enters into history as a point upon a plane, where various phenomena of intercourse flow in and out. Space is subjected to itself and time. Space might be constructed, refurbished, torn down and or abandoned. It can be created, imagined and forgotten. Unlike these spaces however, the dialogue space will be specifically turned inward on itself in order to investigate these dynamic relationships that ebb and flow through it. Rather than fully defining space, the dialogue space will be a process of becoming, open to change and possibility. It will escape definition in order to allow its history, its culture and its inhabitants to take part in its overall creation. More importantly, the space will maintain an inward self-criticality that molds and shapes it. This molding will take place through literal creative processes that respond to the overall dialogue that takes place within it.

Now the difficulty in this is that there is no formula, no methodology or any sort of model that suits best. If this were the case, I would question its ability to take shape via potentiality. It is a structure that has only a foundation from which to begin where the remainder is suspended as an unrealized potentiality.

Through the remainder of this essay, I will be using the dialogue space as a venue that uses art as a means to understand these complex relationships between man and man (as individuals and as community), between man and nature (as the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things), and God (as an embodiment of both the absolute and infinite). By investigating these three essential relationships more specifically as the between nature of things, I will be able to clarify exactly where the notion of dialogue space originates from and its important implications within the contexts of art and art history.

• Fast food nation: McDonald's
• Imitation and image
• Believable hyper-reality
• Loss of communication through imitating communication
• Loss of connection
• Listening
• The building, a mark project
• The listening protest
• Re-humanization
• Placing other before self
• Allowing for potential

I know we talked about a lot of things, but these are just to spark a reminder as to how our dialog evolved.

If you interested in this topic of art and religion and haven't been able to make it to the classes/lectures by Elkins, check out the Bad at sports podcast: Episode 84: Elkins-Morgan-Edmar talking about art and religion.

• Food and cultural norms
• How dinner is socially involved in the exchange of ideas
• How cultures identify themselves through other cultural venues

(I will be writing on some of these ideas shortly)