Horațiu Lipot studied art history at the National University of Arts in Bucharest. He currently collaborates with galleries, independent and alternative spaces, and art institutions as a curator and cultural manager. He works mainly with young artists, whose artistic vision is still developing. He curated numerous solo and group exhibitions that manage each time to gather a large audience at the opening.
Please tell me about your experience in the art world and the context in which you became a curator?
In short: I entered the faculty of Art History and Theory, seeing it at that time more as something complementary formative, than defining ─ I ended the three years without supporting the license, there were still a few credits to take, which was doubled by the fact that from the second year I started working for the Artmark Auction House, after waiting quietly and provincially, in order to answer the last one after my colleagues to the proposal of the teacher-expert of the Auction House, to start a voluntary internship ─ I subsequently spent almost 6 years, having the chance to work directly with a huge artistic production in terms of volume and value differences, mainly in the area of modern art ─ then followed the coordination of the Witte Gallery in Ulft (The Netherlands) between 2018-2019, coordinating the exhibition program of Atelier 35 between 2019-2021 and of the IOMO Gallery in 2021, but also collaborations with institutions or off-spaces, or exhibition chronicles for specialized magazines.
What is your area of interest? What themes and theories are you exploring?
As a discourse I try to rely on an experiential approach, often installations, in the unfolding of the exhibition space, which accumulates through individual practices inscribed to new environments, interdisciplinary approaches, or various manifestations in situ. I approach topics related to political actuality, identity, or memory, calling into question the current status quo while trying to avoid the perspective that in many cases these exhibition formulas suffer from and that we see manifested in the case of certain biennials or art fairs, which sometimes seem to be Theme Parks for adults. In addition to this general aspect of the experience as a property of an aestheticization of capitalism, I am equally interested in certain more poetic formulas, such as speculative constructions, which have at their core the import of concepts from fields relevant to the definition of the physical world, such as quantum physics, chemistry or biology, technology, and its impact both with the human environment, as well as with the environment in general. Perhaps the unseen too, the apostle’s saying, is less rare.
The curator’s role is in a continuous dynamic. From your point of view, what does it mean today to be a curator?
We live in a world defined by the belief that positivism is the way of authentic knowledge and social evolution. Art, as Claire Bishop observed, has imposed on itself with the ’70s this mission of being socially relevant in turn, of proposing solutions, yet coming from a special intuition of its own. I notice, to move into another intersubjective reality, as in the case of religions Catholicism has done so, and we see the popularity of the current Pope at the expense of declining Orthodoxy, for example. Returning to the mentioned climate the role of the curator is guided by this mission to connect various forms of expression to current relevant concepts, political or related to the environment itself. Naturally, there is also his basal role, to translate and place the artist in context, to closely concur with him in defining the artistic practice. And there is also the institutional relationship, to constantly find new ways ─ spatial, editorial, discursive, economic placement, presence or facilitation of a meeting, and so on ─ for artistic production.
How would you define your curatorial activity?
I do not believe in the exclusivism of one formula or another, as can be seen from our discussion too. I have tried so far to work on two levels, which I consider not so much complementary, but derivative. On the one hand and preponderant, in group exhibitions with artists whose discourse is just beginning to crystallize, whom I consider relevant both to the environment and to the spatio-temporal context in which they operate, on the other hand, in individual exhibitions with artists, often from the so-called mid-career area, whose discourse has already been entirely assimilated and assumed.
Is there a risk that a curator will formulate and support through curatorial projects his interests rather than the interests of artists?
Given that it is an activity in which the interpretation plays an important role, that the artistic field is among the least regulated ─ understanding the alignment to some universal ethical or stylistic principles ─ that the art world (in Dickie’s terms) is not only a concept but also a palpable reality, surely this can sometimes happen if you are of course referring to personal interests. Among the last polemics in this regard were triggered with the previous edition of the Venice Biennale, when the curator Christine Macel introduced (at the very beginning of the exhibition, in the Central Pavilion) the works of her partner. If, however, you refer to the case in which a curator chooses to frame an artist in a certain concept at the expense of his opinion, I think that the basal role of the curator is still to translate his practice as well as possible, being convinced that there is always a middle way, a meeting point. After all, I believe that discourse/language is much more flexible (and implicitly more prone to the sins of sophistry) as a type of communication through its ubiquity than the visual or performative forms and practices often known by a numerically limited category.
Can you tell me please how you build your collaborative relationships with artists?
I do not believe in either one-off relationships or so-called friendships (a priori). I try as much as possible to identify artists who first of all seem relevant to me at the level of discourse, whether on current issues, history, or, the environment itself. Concluding that broadly speaking the themes of reflection are about the same, regardless of whether or not we agree with the proposals put forward, the fact that there is the urgency of their dissection, involving dialogue, the exchange of ideas or polemics, is what makes me, first of all, choose to work with one artist or another. I am perhaps primarily looking for this openness as an extensive category of a certain generosity, a consciousness to activate for the community good more than the individual, to propose solutions, or to dissect what is sick in the social body.
In short, they interest me as much (or perhaps more) as the artifacts they produce, their structure, and their way of placing themselves in the world. If they are consistent admiration becomes a dedication.
You have curated group exhibitions, but also solo exhibitions? Is the experience the same or are there differences?
Broadly speaking, the group exhibition tends to highlight more the footprint of the curator, while the individual one tends to highlight that of the artist. It is a structural difference. The first assumes rather a theme or concept supposedly socially, politically, or referentially relevant to the field or environment, while the second focuses on the career and relevance of the artist.
In the current world of pluralism of opinion, cultural or political, I tend to consider that group exhibition is more relevant, as it comes to reinforcing these micro-climates. Of course, I can not neglect the main component of the solo exhibition, the evolution, and placement in the context of the artist. In fact, in the landscape of post-war art, one can notice this increasingly pronounced transition from individual to collective discourse, both in institutional and private environments. It is also observed in the history of contemporary Romanian art, where the first galleries appeared, in the first decade let’s say, 2000-2010, favored almost exclusively the formula of individual exposition, while now the balance is tilted in the opposite direction.
What artists, writers, academics, or curators inspire you in your curatorial endeavor?
I will surely forget many, but for the sake of the game in the order stated by you: William Powhida, Eva & Franco Mattes, Gelitin, Pierre Huygh, Lygia Clark, Anca Benera & Arnold Estefan, Edward Krasinski, Vija Celmins and Victor Man, Șerban Epure, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Mircea Nicolae, Sturevant, Malevich ─ Borges, Houellebecq, Ruxandra Novac from Alwarda or Gabi Eftimie from polaroid red eyes, magical realism and Cărtărescu from The Dream, Erofeev and Kaminsky with his Deaf Republic, Ted Berrigan─ Richard Feynman, Boris Groys, Latour, Benjamin, Claire Bishop, Harold Bloom, Agamben, Byung-Chul Han ─ Francesco Bonami, Okwui Enwezor, new scenario, Aaron Moulton, the manner of approaching art as a metahistory of the artifact practiced by the Museum of American Art in Berlin, Agnes Gryczkowska, Szeemann of course ─
How do you think the curator’s role will evolve?
Probably the elephant in the room, which each of us intuits about the future of any activity, is automation with its potential shifting towards the technological singularity, where it is often considered that professions in which interpretation is a major component ─ such as curatorial, criticism or even art historiography ─ will disappear last. In current debates on this topic, for example, archaeology has been proposed as a possible field among the most difficult to replace by artificial intelligence. Of course, in the 90s the advanced hypotheses related to the work of the driver of vehicles, where we see how the handover of the relay is already going on more and more rapidly. Looking empirically, I see how the current generation of artists is increasingly aware of building a discourse applied both conceptually and as a historical placement, a role often assigned to the curator or critic. I also notice more and more artists capable of curating exhibitions or biennials, a practice otherwise cemented after the 2010s, often in a much more trenchant manner, with a different insight (I could not find a replacement for this term). Under such conditions, perhaps the traditional role of the curator – seen as someone who catches artists as in an insectarium to consume an idea or a proposed concept – will be more about conveying a knowledge of the mechanisms of promotion of the works or exhibition, about placing it in context, by evaluator similar to a critic through the built program or the chosen artists, perhaps of a fine touch up in defining a particular project.
Who influences the artistic world? Curators, museums, biennales, galleries, auction houses, artistic groups, art universities?
I generally refuse to believe in a particular global occult no matter how tempted it may be as a speculative exercise. Leaving the joke aside, let’s assume that in theory at least, the different fields/systems that make up the democratic world, work in the sillage of meritocracy. In this case, if you necessarily want a hierarchy, of course, you will find both a vertical one starting from the academic environment to the institutional one, but also a more complex one carried out horizontally, with various areas of influence and intersections, maybe with distinct favorites, one academic, the other subscribed to market mechanisms.
