Читать книгу Curationism - David Balzer - Страница 8

Prologue

Who Is HOU?

Miami’s South Beach is nothing like a white cube. On its easternmost side, along Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive, lies an impressive fleet of art deco hotels and, among them, the mansions of the resort neighbourhood’s current and erstwhile residents, from J. C. Penney to Gianni Versace, who was shot dead on his front steps in 1997. Everywhere is colour, traffic; life is instinctive, vulgar, dangerous, fun. The cacophony of capitalism defines the area, from these hotels, to the clustered, modest houses and apartment buildings lying slightly west of them (many, in their lingering decay, redolent of South Beach’s 1970s and 1980s depression – a period, with its cocaine dealers and crime, depicted in Brian de Palma’s 1983 film Scarface), to busy Lincoln Road, one of the U.S.’s first pedestrian malls, and its surrounding, riotously colourful surf stores.

December is tastefully warm in South Beach. The sun toasts rather than scorches. Historically, this has not been a big tourist time, but over the past decade or so that’s changed. I arrive in 2013 as a journalist, part of the hordes of mostly Europeans and Americans who have come to see Art Basel Miami Beach.

Art Basel typifies the ever-growing popularity of the fair in contemporary art, in which international commercial dealers converge in large cities at convention centres, piers, custom-built tents and hotels, securing high-priced booths in which to display and sell work from their stables of artists. Founded in Basel, Switzerland, Art Basel chose Miami Beach as an outpost more than a decade ago because of the wealthy Miami collectors who frequented its flagship event. Since then, around two dozen fairs have cropped up alongside Art Basel Miami Beach, most within walking distance – to say nothing of the myriad of parties, pop-up shops and ribbon cuttings that have come to comprise what is now Miami Art Week. South Beach is not transformed so much as intensified: more preening, more plastic surgery, more partying, more celebrities. Contemporary art seems put there by a production designer. Depending on how you see it, it’s either the best or worst kind of ambient noise.

Much has been written about Art-Basel-as-Wasteland. In a 2012 Slate piece entitled ‘The Eight Worst Things About the Art World,’ fashion writer and Barneys New York ‘creative ambassador’ Simon Doonan put Art Basel at the top of his list, snidely describing it as ‘overblown. . .[with] all that craven socializing and trendy posing.’ There is a lot of art at Art Basel, to be sure, but what, implies Doonan, does it add up to? As if at a crowded, expensive party, works jockey noisily for attention, devoid of gravitas and thematic order. It is no museum or gallery, in other words. Curators, those trusted sybils of the contemporary art world, are conspicuously absent.

Or are they? Famously, advertisements for bars and events are towed by planes above South Beach’s long, populous white-sand beach. I go swimming one day, looking up from the crashing waves to see a different banner: ‘HANS ULRICH OBRIST HEAR US.’ I laugh. It’s such an obscure plea – a knowing combination of unctuousness and plaintiveness. Hans Ulrich Obrist is one of the world’s top curators, and a few nights previous I had attended a panel discussion he had moderated between Kanye West and architect Jacques Herzog. (Obrist calls both, to varying degrees, friends.) Clearly, Obrist is here. But why?

The banner’s culprit was Canadian artist Bill Burns. Over recent years, Burns has made drawings, postcards, sculptures, watercolours and digital mock-ups addressing a variety of art-world authorities. The works express (and parody) the desperation and vulnerability felt by contemporary artists when fathoming the internationally known directors, curators and collectors who could make or break them. One Burns work is a proposal to affix a large sign to the roof of London’s Tate Modern reading ‘Hans Ulrich Obrist Priez Pour Nous’ (in English, ‘Hans Ulrich Obrist Pray For Us’). In Miami, Burns hired airplane banners every day to make similar appeals, not just to Obrist, but to other power or star curators, like Hou Hanru and Beatrix Ruf.

It’s likely the beach crowd stared up in indifference at Burns’ banners. Outside of Obrist, is Burns certain anyone he had appealed to by name was actually present at Art Basel? ‘I have no clue,’ he tells me. ‘The fairs are very big events, but they take a certain kind of personality to enjoy, like going shopping at Christmas.’ What would a curator do at Art Basel Miami Beach? ‘It’s true that curators over the last two hundred years have been understood as taking on a kind of public-service role. But now there’s a curious mixed economy in the art world. A curator’s job is often, at a fair, to cajole a collector into buying something for a museum – which I’m sure, for many, is not very pleasant. Artists, curators, collectors: we’re all part of a regime. I’m part of it as well. You are too.’

After seeing Burns’ banner, it occurred to me I was in eyeshot of the fuchsia tent of Untitled, one of Miami Art Week’s newest fairs, whose press materials emphasized its use of a curator, Brooklyn’s Omar Lopez-Chahoud. Lopez-Chahoud selected the galleries for Untitled, in some cases overseeing the arrangement of the fair’s booths and works. But Untitled’s gambit is not, in fact, novel. There’s Frieze London, and now Frieze New York, both of which rigorously jury their exhibitors, using curators to handle ‘special projects’ such as sculpture parks on their tent grounds. And Frieze’s template is arguably Art Basel’s, whose former director, Samuel Keller, pushed curation to the forefront of the fair’s brand (in Switzerland and in Miami), collaborating with Obrist as early as 2000 to launch, at first, a series of talks at the Swiss fair.

Now, within the sterile, chaotic confines of the Miami Beach Convention Center, there are, for instance, curated sections for artist films and videos. Art Basel Miami Beach’s Nova and Positions sectors, the former meant for gallerists to display new works and the latter for gallerists to showcase the work of a single artist, do not have apparent curators, but suggest a ‘curatorial sensibility’: things judiciously selected and sleekly arranged, granting the fairgoer an experience much closer to that of a gallery or museum. When one considers Burns’ (correct) guess that curators also come to fairs to acquire art for their respective institutions (or, more frequently, to function as advisors for trustees and the like who hold those institutions’ purse strings), the fair becomes not anathema to curators, but specifically tailored to them. They occupy – and when not occupying, compellingly inform – both of the fair’s essential roles, those of buyer and arranger-facilitator.

If curation is everywhere, it is also both strangely embodied and disembodied. The curator is no longer just an art-world figure. Within the art world, a select number of curators like Hans Ulrich Obrist dominate their institutions but also transcend them, playing roles in media and culture. Outside the art world, curation is powerful but also diffuse. Celebrities act as curators not just for exhibitions, but for music festivals and boutiques. We ‘curate’ in relation to ourselves, using the term to refer to any number of things we do and consume on a daily basis. Curators are visible in so many likely and unlikely ways. Are we witnessing their ultimate triumph, or a troubling, fascinating moment of their undoing?

While it can be said of professionals from many fields, it is particularly true of curators that no two are exactly alike. There is certainly no one quite like Hans Ulrich Obrist, who is affectionately known in the art world by his monographic acronym, HUO. One could begin by citing his dependable inclusion in the art-world ‘power lists’ that have become so omnipresent over the past five years or so. In 2009 to 2013, Obrist – with, in some years, his co-director at London’s Serpentine Galleries, Julia Peyton-Jones – made the prestigious Top 10 of ArtReview’s Power 100 list every year, taking first place in 2009 and second in 2010 and 2012. While ArtReview’s Top 10 is sometimes broken by curators – Christov-Bakargiev was No. 1 in 2012 due to Documenta – it is more typically occupied by dealers, collectors and directors. If ArtReview is to be believed, Obrist is nearly as powerful as Larry Gagosian, the billionaire ‘superdealer’ with galleries in New York, L.A., London, Rome, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong.

And while Obrist is not as wealthy as Gagosian, his influence, despite or indeed because of his singularity, is as representative. The New Yorker’s Nick Paumgarten described Gagosian as occupying ‘an ecosystem of his own’ – so does Obrist. As the world’s most famous contemporary-art curator, Obrist sets a remarkable precedent, acting as the archetype for the professionalization and domination of his field.

Ubiquity and its attendant commitment to industry are Obrist’s hallmarks. In May 2013, New York–based collector-oriented website Artspace put Obrist first in its ‘8 Super-­Curators You Need to Know’ piece, claiming he is renowned for ‘being everywhere at once.’ This trait is cited repeatedly by Obrist’s friends and admirers. A profile of Obrist on the New York Observer’s Gallerist blog, also from May 2013, is titled ‘Marathon Man,’ with the kicker ‘UBIQUITY.’ Writer M. H. Miller makes the wild claim that, ‘Over the course of a single cigarette, I once witnessed [Obrist] roll up to an art fair in a car, run inside, come back out murmuring to his companion about what impressed him, then get back in the car and head to the next event, like some kind of highbrow European Roadrunner.’ Modernist café-society photographer Brassaï timed his fly-on-the-wall exposures to the duration of a cigarette’s burning; in the 2010s, the cigarette can be used to measure the frenetic pace of the internationally mobile curator.

Hans Ulrich Obrist was born in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1968 to non–art-world parents, yet his legend begins early. In an interview for the December 2013/January 2014 issue of Surface, of which he is the cover star, he speaks to Paul Holdengräber about formative experiences. Obrist, who has a celebrated memory, was struck by the vast Abbey library of Saint Gall at the ripe age of three. He came across a Giacometti sculpture at Zurich’s Kunsthaus shortly thereafter, and vowed to ‘go to museums every day.’ By the early 1980s, the pioneering curator Harald Szeemann was at Kunsthaus Zurich, and Obrist, now a teenager, soaked up his influential programming, visiting his Der Hang zum Gesamtkunstwerk group show forty-one times. (Obrist remembers this ‘because [he] counted it.’) By sixteen, Obrist claims to have visited all the museums in Switzerland. By seventeen, he had cold-called Swiss art duo Fischli/Weiss and asked to visit their studio. They got on, and this precipitated more artist visits: Christian Boltanski in Paris at age eighteen; Gilbert & George and Gerhard Richter in London soon after. This was the genesis of Obrist’s reputation for hyper-travel, the youth-discounted InterRail Pass getting him across Europe. ‘I was everywhere, all the time, but I had yet to produce anything,’ he tells Ingo Niermann in his 2011 book, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Curating But Were Afraid to Ask. ‘Those were apprenticeship and journeyman years, a European Grand Tour.’ In 1991, at twenty-three, Obrist curated his first group show in his kitchen, featuring Fischli/Weiss, Boltanski and other names that were or were to become art-world royalty.

Having already formed important mentorship relationships with curators Kaspar König, currently director of Cologne’s Museum Ludwig, and Suzanne Pagé, currently artistic director of the Louis Vuitton Foundation for Creation, Obrist began Migrateurs, a curatorial project for the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris (MAMVP) under the supervision of Pagé, who was director at the time. In Surface, Samuel Keller recalls his first, mid-1990s meetings with Obrist: ‘[He was] a pale, young, tall man schlepping around a large bag, with lots of documents, usually catalogues, always running around at a very fast pace. . . Whenever I showed up somewhere, Hans Ulrich was often already there – but only for 24 hours.’

It was around this time, 1993, that Obrist began to identify officially as a curator, his CV subsequently becoming a litany of exhibitions, biennials, publications and sundry appearances and accomplishments. Obrist worked at the MAMVP as a salaried, capital-C curator from 2000 to 2006. He took his current position at London’s Serpentine Gallery, with the title Co-director of Exhibitions and Programmes and Director of International Projects, in 2006. This arguably marks the beginning of his bona fide international celebrity. A Blouin ArtInfo piece from 2008 calls him ‘as close to a rock star as a curator can be,’ attributing 150 international exhibitions to him since 1991.

Nineteen ninety-three was not only the year Obrist officially embraced curator but also when he officially began to record interviews, a medium in which he has become a sort of guru. At the time of the publication of his second volume of interviews in 2010, Obrist was purportedly in possession of two thousand hours of taped interviews with various artists, architects, filmmakers, scientists, historians, etc., all organized by the interviewee’s last name. In that book alone, Obrist interviewed subjects as diverse as Björk, Doris Lessing and Alejandro Jodorowsky. In Surface, editor Karen Marta calls his interviews his ‘divine passion’ and likens them to poems. Obrist describes them as his retreat, his ‘secret garden.’

Despite that avowal, Obrist’s interviewing constitutes a colossal, very public aspect of his work. His impressive bibliography is in large part made up of ongoing transcripts of these interviews: in addition to two collected volumes, there is a series of smaller monographic artist-interview books (an extension of his Art Basel Conversations series), of which there are, to date, more than twenty; A Brief History of Curating and A Brief History of New Music, compendiums of interviews with important curators and composers; Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Curating But Were Afraid to Ask, an interview-based advice manual and professional biography. To wit, all of Obrist’s published interviews could fill a sizable shelf.

In 2006, Obrist’s first year at the Serpentine Galleries, he began his Marathon series, the inaugural version taking place around a pavilion designed with Rem Koolhaas (every year, Obrist and Peyton-Jones commission a different artist-designed pavilion on the grounds of the gallery). This first version, twenty-four hours in length, consisted of non-stop interviews with dozens of cultural figures – David Bailey, Damien Hirst and Ken Loach among them. Obrist continues to host different sorts of Marathons on a yearly basis. In 2013, the topic was his 89plus project, co-conceived with curator Simon Castets, which highlights young artists born after 1989. Essentially, the Marathons are symposia or salons (a historical concept that greatly fascinates him) running without adjournment, the absurdity or effortfulness of this durational aspect making it performance art as well as a meeting of minds. True to Obrist’s obsessive-compulsive nature, all Marathons are recorded and transcribed.

Obrist’s commitment to the interview and to the general proliferation of work is reminiscent of Andy Warhol. But Warhol, the Pittsburgh-raised child of working-class parents from Czechoslovakia, created his Factory in Manhattan as a paradoxical mirroring and parody of the American industrial system. At the cheekily named studio, Warhol instigated a number of different projects. His screen tests mimicked the assembly-line star-making process of major Hollywood studios; his early films, boring by design, extended the screen tests to depict extempore scenarios and, with his eight-hour film Empire (1964), a single slowed-down static shot of the Empire State Building, simultaneously celebrate the quotidian modern and deride the Hollywood epic. As Camille Paglia points out in her study Glittering Images, Warhol’s famous silkscreens, which allowed him to turn out artworks at a breakneck pace, used ‘a commercial process for fabric design. . . Disdaining authorship, he often used a rubber stamp to sign his paintings, and he professed indifference to their fate; they were as disposable as any other product of American manufacturing, then geared to planned obsolescence.’ Warhol was lucrative, but his professed attitude toward his work was a characteristic lassitude. He was both self-propagating and self-negating; poet and critic Tan Lin notes in the fall 2001 issue of Cabinet, ‘Eye and mouth are both surrogate modes of “being oneself”’ and ‘Warhol’s two favorite surrogates were his tape-recorder and his camera.’ Warhol, the ultimate postmodernist, turned himself into a machine in a kind of nihilistic denial of authenticity and authorship. His artistry was the sellout, his success at the cost of the essential him, whatever that was.

Obrist does this as well, but oddly, as a successor of Warhol, he is much more ingenuous. On examination, he seems the anti- or bizarro Warhol. In 2012, New York magazine noted his complete lack of ennui: ‘He’s not over anything, even as he’s always on to the next thing.’ Like Warhol, Obrist privileges self-negation, but it is of a remarkably different sort. ‘I learned everything from artists,’ he says, and his interview subjects reliably testify to this self-effacing sensitivity and curiosity. (‘Curating always follows art, not the other way around – that would be awful.’) Samuel Keller calls him ‘the artist’s best friend’; Klaus Biesenbach, director of the Museum of Modern Art’s PS1 and curator-at-large at MoMA, calls him an ‘idea machine.’ Like Warhol, Obrist has a fascination with memory, but not in the sense of letting it be absorbed or displaced by the mechanics and gadgetry around him. Obrist’s commitment to memory is old-fashioned. To all his interviewees, to all the artists with whom he works, he offers, as the speaker of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 55 humbly yet lavishly offers his lover, ‘The living record of your memory. / ’Gainst death, and all oblivious enmity.’ Obrist calls his ongoing process of recording and preserving interviews ‘a text-machine’ (‘PhD students transcribe them into various lan­guages’), but the end goal, unlike that of Warhol, a ditzy hoarder obsessed with trash, is rigorous, possessive archivalism. Obrist’s productivity sets the gears of Warhol’s Factory in reverse. His aim is to preserve. And so rather than the post-war American industrialists, Obrist’s implicit model, while related, is earlier: the American Puritans and their proverbial work ethic. The title of one of his books, dontstopdontstopdontstopdontstop, is like a Dadaist take on a Puritan homily (e.g., ‘Idle hands are the devil’s playthings’). The title of his celebrated exhibition series, Do It, also recalls a homily. Ongoing since 1993 (that year, again), Do It is a series of instructions for exhibitions written by famous people Obrist has encountered. Its emphasis on didactic or pedagogical text as the basis for action, however whimsical, also suggests the Puritans, known for their devotion to scripture or ‘the Word.’

Obrist’s fraught relationship with sleep is also puritanical. Warhol’s 1963 film Sleep provides the ideal counterpoint; this five-hour-long work, a precursor to Empire, depicts poet John Giorno sleeping. That’s it. In this anti-film, sleep is the anti-subject: an oblivion suggesting death, a fixation of Warhol’s. His camera stare once more demonstrates his nihilism, his celebration of inactivity. Giorno is idle, and Warhol, though aspiring to a static take, was forced, due to technical limitations, to work with a wind-up camera and to employ a rather complex edit. In this way, both Warhol and his audience become captive witnesses to absence, with the film becoming a loving, accidentally busy paean to inactivity, thwarting ­traditional American values of industry. Incidentally, Giorno, according to legend, was the only one Warhol knew at the time who slept at length, given the prevalence of then-trendy ‘uppers’ among Warhol’s circle.

Obrist, while Swiss, is more American. Ironically for a Swiss, he has an antagonistic relationship with the clock, and time (because there is never enough of it) – and thus with sleep. ‘Sleep to me is like an accident,’ he says to Ingo Niermann in Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Curating But Were Afraid to Ask, ‘because I really don’t want to sleep, and yet sleep outwits me again and again.’ In several interviews, Obrist has reiterated his life’s struggle with the body’s need for rest. This again can be dated to the early 1990s, when his career takes off. An ongoing commitment to travel is one method Obrist uses to defeat the clock. As W editor-in-chief Stefano Tonchi notes, he is always in a different time zone, and so is ‘in his own time zone somehow. There is no way to say where he is, because he doesn’t have a time zone.’

In his war with sleep, Obrist looked at cultural precedent. French novelist Honoré de Balzac legendarily drank cup upon cup of coffee every day to sustain his productivity, and so the young Obrist tried to emulate him. ‘I was having fifty coffees a day,’ he tells Niermann. ‘[But] at some point it simply abated.’ (Niermann notes that Balzac may have died from his coffee addiction, and Obrist laments that the novelist was ‘[r]elatively young’ and it was a ‘sad way to go.’) After Balzac, Obrist adopted a variation of ‘the da Vinci rhythm,’ modelled after the Renaissance artist: he slept fifty minutes every three hours. This was successful (he claims his first books were written this way), but in 2006, after getting his job at the Serpentine, which requires regular office hours, he stopped it. Presently, as he relates in a video on the website Nowness in January 2014, he always gets up very early and never goes to bed after midnight. On starting his Serpentine position, Obrist co-founded the Brutally Early Club, a crack-of-dawn salon that counts as one of its members another art-world workaholic, performance artist Marina Abramović.

Like Abramović, Obrist’s commitment to non-stop work and as little sleep as possible not only has its puritanical aspect but also an association with American celebrity. Obrist’s Nowness video, Morning Ritual, shows the curator in a blue windbreaker taking his morning run through a sun-dappled, gauzily shot Hyde Park, where the Serpentine Galleries are located, while his voice-over relates the oft-told story of his lifelong attempt to conquer sleep. The accompanying blurb extols his industry, quoting him as saying the park is his ‘extended office’ and claiming he still finds time to read at least a book a day (in the video, he says, ‘I cannot live without buying a book every day’). The video is unmistakable lifestyle porn: a stylized and sanitized fantasy version of what we could do or be, couched in consumerist compulsions and giving us pleasure precisely because we know such ideals are out of reach. Ex-model Martha Stewart is the reigning queen of lifestyle porn, but it has a rich tradition in American celebrity, from Old Hollywood how-to memoirs, such as Joan Crawford’s My Way of Life (1971), full of sadomasochistic advice like ‘Never let your husband see you exercise,’ to blogs like Gwyneth Paltrow’s GOOP, now frequently mocked for its ridiculous accounts of the star’s virtuous domestic and professional lives. A typical goop sign-off: ‘11:29 pm now, exhausted and ready to do it all again tomorrow!’

In 2013, Obrist released a book entitled Think Like Clouds, a collection of his doodles that suggests that even when he’s not consciously working, he’s working. Designed by artist and publisher Paul Chan, the cover underlines Obrist’s ubiquity, with digitized versions of the curator’s head proliferated in a polka-dot pattern. Inside are more than two hundred pages of Obrist’s scribblings, amassed from about fifteen years of activity. In his introduction, Chan notes that, as is typical of doodling, Obrist will scribble during his interviews, or before and during public speaking, which makes him nervous. (Chan calls this ‘a form of public notation.’) The paper Obrist uses is telling: printed-out e-mails, conference itineraries, hotel stationery – all testaments to a frenetic, incessant, global pace. In a postscript essay, Michael Diers writes that Obrist’s ‘scribbles are attractive, and ask to be looked at as well as read,’ positioning them as potential artworks. Yet he also rightly notes that, more and more, doodling is ‘a feature of creative training programs for managers.’ The entire book is uncannily reminiscent of the output of corporate-friendly doodling authority Sunni Brown, who has written two books on the subject and has held many international seminars. On her website, she calls her followers ‘Doodle Revolutionaries’ who ‘put the DO in Doodle.’ Always professing to be an inspiration rather than an impervious paragon, Obrist has, like Brown, gotten other people to follow his example. His popular Instagram account consists of shots of Post-it notes and other scribbled scraps from various cultural figures.

In 2010, Abramović appeared in a video, produced and directed by Klaus Biesenbach, to mark the release of Obrist’s second volume of interviews. In this video portrait of Obrist, she begins by holding up a sign reading,

THE CURATOR IS PRESENT

THE ARTIST IS ABSENT.

She wears the clear-plastic-frame glasses that are Obrist’s trademark, as if to suggest that, for the duration of this video, she is he, or he has somehow possessed her. She proceeds to tell us slowly that ‘Hans Ulrich is. . .fast. . .sleepless. . .restless. . .curious. . .encyclopedic. . .adventurous. . .obsessed. . .possessed. . .art. . .Olympic. . .monotone. . .runner. . .volcanic. . .hurricanic. . .mind-blowing. . .surprising. . .limitless. . .art-loving . . .overmedicated. . .[et cetera]’ and then repeats the list faster and faster until it becomes gibberish. She may be teasing Obrist, who by all accounts is a friend, or giving direct voice to many artists’ concerns about the phenomenon of star curators like Obrist. If the curator is present, is the artist necessarily absent, i.e., disempowered and negated?

More important, however, is the alliance. It’s as if Obrist is the other half to Abramović’s binary, a Dostoyevskian double. Much can be made of this. Both Abramović and Obrist come from marginalized yet relatively new fields (performance art and conceptual curating, respectively). Both seem to have turned themselves into caricatured art-world celebrities, whose defining feature is constant activity for the sake of legitimizing their respective fields. On her part, Abramović has in recent years been dedicating herself to her own ‘Method’ of performance art, to be taught through a bricks-and-mortar Institute in Hudson, New York, but also at various temporary satellite locations around the world. There is a paranoia of professionalism here: a hyper- or accelerated desire to make ephemeral creative practice into ‘value’ and ‘work’ in order to secure its status and canonization. For both Abramović and Obrist, this dedication to permanence has a mock-totalitarian/-dystopian cast. Abramović’s Institute is clinical and bureaucratic, its employees outfitted in white lab coats; Obrist has co-founded the Agency of Unrealized Projects, an archive of unrealized ideas and arguably a play on the National Security Agency, whose aim is also data collection. (Obrist counts Julian Assange among his many interview subjects.) The danger, as writer Thomas Micchelli noted in a 2012 piece for the art blog HyperAllergic, is that impermanence, in being so aggressively combatted, may paradoxically be summoned. Either that, or a severe neutering takes place. ‘[Abramović] refuses to accept. . .finality,’ writes Micchelli, ‘and proposes to recycle a fleeting mode of experience, however ersatz, into infinity.’

As a curator, Obrist has seemed both a totalizing example of contemporary art and an anomaly, his ambition causing him always to have one foot out the door. ‘I flirted with leaving the art world as early as the mid-1990s, perhaps for architecture,’ he tells Niermann. ‘It was all too constrictive; but as [artist] Carsten Höller once said to me: it is the least bad place. And that’s how these bridges across disciplines came into being. I curate art; I curate science, architecture, urbanism.’

Obrist may be the most powerful curator in the world, but he could also represent the discipline’s end-game: après lui, le déluge. As with Abramović, his attempts at securing his own – as well as existing, complementary – legacies, what he calls ‘the protest against forgetting,’ could constitute an elaborate sarcophagus, of which only pale imitations can later exist. As the typification of the curationist moment, Obrist may be its natural harbinger. To quote artist Philippe Parreno, ‘I think [Hans Ulrich Obrist]’s one of the only great curators today – or the last one.’