But , how do you meet these unknown artists ? Or are they coming to Culturgest ?
MW: I go to meet them. One must travel, be attentive, observe, it is necessary to do field work and at times provoke the encounter with the artist, for example, in his studio and then make a proposal for an exhibition . Things in simple terms require much work, be alert, focused , concentrate, but the choices are made from the experiences that you have by working with many artists. The choices should not be made, in my view, by catalog, or magazine is not perusing the "Art Forum" , or "frize" , or " muse" who make choices of what is contemporary art . The catalogs are important in this research and familiarity with the work of artists process, but the actual experience of works for me is a condition sine qua non, to interest me. The golden rule has always been not invite someone whose work was not know very well. And in many cases there is a process that unfolds in a dialogue with the artist, deepening of the knowledge and a reflection on its work. This has no great science or mystery , you must go out and fight, go abroad. When I joined the Culturgest had a very incipient knowledge of what was happening in the world of international contemporary art.
What then was the main challenge you faced when you started your career as a curator at Culturgest ?
MW : It's just doing a work of acquisition of experience, knowledge and building a relationship with the work of a multitude of artists. I did not have that familiarity and concrete experience. When I get to Culturgest had just gone to see a biennial of Venice, had spent three weeks in New York via the exhibits that were presented in Portugal, was a frequent visitor of the Serralves contemporary art museum in the late '90s , it had to far the best lineup of art in Portugal and I would eagerly see. But that was not enough, wha I had the possibility to see here was insufficient to be equipped in order to be able to build a programming. It was also a process that developed step by step, cumulative and not putting the wagen beores the oxen, to be patient and that has no end, because it still continues today .
This relationship between the public and these new art is also evolved ?
MW : We would like in Culturgest to reach a broader and more heterogeneous audience possible, but it is a fact that this kind of programming ends up attracting a relatively small audience. Not because we do not make an effort to reach more people because we do this and we will, but then we pay a price, I would say even higher, by choosing this path, is thornier . It seems to me that it is very clear that we are disadvantaged in terms of media coverage and what we do in terms of exhibitions. Until the level of monitoring done by calling art criticism because the critics themselves do not know the work of artists who are propose and presented and the process of familiarization with the work of an artist is not instantaneous and immediate, effortless and we are face constantly with this aspect.
One of the most frequent criticisms is that Culturgest features a unique lineup of Dutch and Belgian artists lately.
MW : That's a fact, but it is a conditioned reflex of parochialism, precisely because in Portugal there was a predominance of exhibitions devoted and coming artists from certain contexts. I thought it was very interesting to pay attention to artists in semiperipheral contexts, in this case, the Netherlands and Belgium, and there was a period of about three years there has been a strong focus in this direction. This cycle is closed and another opened since 2009 and is still unfolding this exhibition of Belgian artists. But, you know what is the irony of it all? In the programming Culturgest have been over more German artists than Belgians, but that people do not question, or do not realize that, even this strangeness and sometimes an edge gives up much thought. In the background we presented the work of artists, then there is a confusion between the Dutch and Belgian artists and also artists that are taken by Belgian and I realize that in conversations. This denominator has become the caricaturization of the Culturgest programming a issue that for me is a program policy. It focus on semiperipheral contexts, which we cannot be emancipate, if not inserted in others semi-peripheral contexts, we keep this dependence on central contexts, we shall always have a subordinate position. It is a policy that has to do with this discussion on the peripheries and semiperiferias, I do not care with present contexts of Belgian art, or Dutch, pleases me much more individualized positions in some very idiosyncratic cases from these contexts and therefore chosen not only because they were Belgian artists, chose only this , that and the other. Were very specific choices, the same for the Americans, who we had in equal number that the Belgians, but nobody questions it, the fact is that is natural in Portugal to present the work of American and German artists, but it is strange to put some emphasis in Belgian and Dutch artists, so do I say that this is a reflection of our provincialism and lack of reflection on the specific position that dealt in an international context of contemporary art. It is not by chance that we did not have a Portuguese artist in documenta of kassel pfor three editions , in 2002 we did not have , nor in 2007 , nor in 2012 and I believe that in 1997 the documenta curated by Catherine David also did not have any, but I'm not sure , because we are semiperipheral and tend to be peripherals and should be aware that acute way of how we operate and participated in contemporary art.
Now that programming has 20 years of existence , with all this accumulated experience, what we can expect for the future of Culturgest ?
MW : The main thrust of the program , the principal, guidance keeps entirely valid, the method of this principles can operationalize these is that you can change, in other words, the strategy remains intact and valid, then the translation tactical approach is that it can change and I want to put them into play is not to say that programming has to be repetitive, because we have worked with immense natural artists and in that programming is very diverse, there is the idea that has Culturgest a unidirectional internal articulation, I think is a very questionable perception, I rather think it is multidirectional and radiates in several directions and branches constantly. When I make a very simple exercise of thinking which were the artists over the years, we have presented the most disparate greater precision, sometimes contradictory artistic positions, but there is much an idea that has been enplane that Culturgest has programming monotonous and it is not true in my point of view. I see it as a developing, constant and branching process. When you question the future of Culturgest there is a variable, these things are done according to the conditions which apply to do and in 2012 had a small cut on the budget and had another very strong in 2013, today the conditions from the financial point of view are more ungrateful than they were in 2011 so there were no constrains in that particular year. The program I'm working on in 2014 and 2015, in the case of one or another project already in 2016, is a program designed taking into account this variable that cannot be ignored is what the budget allows, I think that makes sense to conduct and is curious because there are some ideas that arise due to these very interesting budgetary constraints, very exciting projects, interesting even, that perhaps under conditions of relief would not arise , this does not mean that in times of budget cuts because it sound good thinking in other types of projects, there are always undesirable, but despite Culturgest be linked to CGD and receive their funding through this institution, Culturgest is not uncle McDuck, we do not swim in money and there is a huge scruples on the way of spent taht money and keep checking. One of the facts that pleased me is that Miguel Lobo Antunes, who is a conscientious and ultra prudent person in money management, his view of Culturgest is impeccable , and for us the budget management is no less rigorous than was previously, the volume ofactivity was reduced as a result of this budget constraint. It also seems worthy to underline from the behalf of the different programmers, the administration, there is a absolute commitment to not compromise on the quality parameters , do not fall into the temptation of impoverishing programming.
