“Kalokagathian Curators” as Cross-Racial Allies

Author: Suzana Milevska

The lack of understanding of the urgency of the ethical component of the curatorial profession is at the core of this text. Too many projects, despite their intentions, end up self-centered and socially tone-deaf. In my curatorial practice, I have frequently witnessed projects by individuals and institutions that have not met and fulfilled their promises. Particularly, this is the case of many participatory art projects that promised social transformation but failed to accomplish their promise due to the obstacles resulting from the complex neoliberal context (1). These failed ethical promises motivated me to coin the term kalokagathian curator, with which I call for “reuniting” aesthetic and ethical values under the umbrella of the curatorial profession (2).

Kalokagathia originates from the Ancient Greek καλὸς κἀγαθός. The word kalokagathia is derived from two adjectives: kalós (beautiful) and agathós (honest, good, noble, courageous, worthy of admiration). This Ancient Greek ideal of harmony between artistic action and the noble and good human personality is documented in Plato’s teaching on the balance between bodily, moral, and spiritual values (and is also present in other ancient texts). For example, in Plato’s dialogue Lysis, the relationship between beauty and goodness is established with an emphasis on both categories as positive human values. Socrates says: “Now I maintain that the good is [the] beautiful. What do you think? (λέγω γὰρ τἀγαθὸν καλὸν εἶναι· σὺ δ’ οὐκ οἴει)” (3).

Unfortunately, the balance between aesthetic and ethical values has long been disvalued and suppressed, mostly by the prevailing universalist, modernist, and formalist aesthetics’ arguments and myths. Recently, I was excited to discover the Curatorial Ethics Network (CEN) initiative, as it focuses on raising awareness of the urgent need for societal transformations and advocates for accessibility, decoloniality, and inclusion of disenfranchised artists and communities in the otherwise elitist and hierarchical art world. These and similar concerns resonate with my ideas about the accessibility and inclusion of various communities in the art scene and point to similar tenets embedded in the concepts of “becoming-curator” (4) and “kalokagathian curating.”

However, I want to point out that a certain tautology is concealed in the name Curatorial Ethics Network. The etymology of the term curator (Lat. curare – to care) already encompasses an important aspect of ethical conduct. By default, curating entails an ethical dimension, and caring for objects or persons, so it’s an act of care, whether for others or for oneself, both of which imply basic ethical principles. By the same token, there is an intrinsic ambivalence at the center of the term “curatorial ethics” because culturally bounded and determined ethical principles hinder and defy any claim to universality.

For this contribution to the CEN blog, I was motivated by an online AAMC conference I attended in 2021. I particularly appreciated the workshop On Becoming and Being a Cross-Racial Ally, led by Kenneth V. Hardy (5). His introduction—focused on curators collaborating in solidarity with artists and colleagues from different ethnic or racial communities—resonated deeply and clarified many of the issues I have encountered in my own work(6).

Throughout my cross-disciplinary research and curatorial practice, much of which I have dedicated to projects by Roma artists, I have come across different strategies through which Roma artists bear witness to their communities and address questions of sociopolitical and economic status, representation, identity, and transindividuality. Similar to Hardy’s suggestions, I had to develop my own basic principles of communication, based on respecting different cultural and social backgrounds while dismantling the deep cultural hierarchies embedded through education and culture.

My thesis and arguments stem from my long-term curatorial practice of working with Romani artists (e.g., Call the Witness, 2010–2011; Roma Protocols, 2011; To One’s Name, 2013; Rewriting the Protocols: Naming, Renaming and Profiling, online exhibition, https://www.romarchive.eu/en/visual-arts/subsection-rewriting-protocols/rewriting-protocols-naming-renaming-and-profiling/), as well as from various theoretical sources. One of the most challenging aspects of these projects was developing a research methodology, vocabulary, and solidarity strategy that would enable allies from other ethnic backgrounds to overcome societal hierarchies rooted in systemic racism. One ongoing challenge is the problematic label “Roma Art,” which has long-term implications and often results in expectations of stereotypical imagery based on the assumption that there is something essentially characteristic of art created by Roma artists.

Some of the most expected—and unexpected—places where one could look for contradictions are:

• the project’s concept;

• grant applications;

• budget structures and excel spreadsheets;

• internal communication ethics and external communication protocols;

• codes of conduct (including how participants are addressed, and how lists of names and name tags are compiled).

To sum up, the kalokagathian curator is assumed to be an active societal agent who contributes to cross-referential understandings of art and to rapprochement among different artistic, cultural, ethnic, class, gender, and sexual communities. Most importantly, this role contributes to the improvement of society in general by building bridges between aesthetics and ethics, despite divergent cultural customs, principles, and rules. Such a curatorial practice does not require a particular figure to master the intricate balance implied in kalokagathia, nor does it require a platform from which to impose harmony between aesthetic and ethical values. It simply requires from anyone who ventures onto this noble path a form of social practice grounded in shared learning and doing—one that rejects top-down managerialism.

All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Footnotes

(1) Suzana Milevska (2016) “‘Infelicitous’ Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage.” (2016) p/art/icipate: Kultur aktiv gestalten 07 (October) Accessed January 23, 2016. http://www.p-art-icipate.net/cms/infelicitous-participatory-acts-on-the- neoliberal-stage/

(2) Suzana Milevska (2020) “The Return to Kalokagathia: Curating as Leverage in the Ongoing Dialogues between Aesthetics and Ethics.” Philosophies 5, Edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, no. 4: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040029.

(3) Ibid,.

(4) Suzana Milevska (2013) “Becoming-Curator.’ In The Curatorial -A Philosophy of Curating. Edited By Jean-Paul Martinon, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013, 65-73.

(5) “On Becoming and Being a Cross-Racial Ally” (2021) A Workshop with Kenneth V. Hardy, PhD, Clinical & Organizational Consultant, Eikenberg Institute for Relationships, 30 April, 2021. Art Curators Conference AAMC, April 29-30, 2021, online.

(6) Kenneth V Hardy (2023) Racial Trauma: Clinical Strategies and Techniques for Healing Invisible Wounds. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company

References

Hardy, K. V. (2023) Racial Trauma: Clinical Strategies and Techniques for Healing Invisible Wounds. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company

Milevska, S. (2013) “Becoming-Curator.’ In The Curatorial -A Philosophy of Curating. Edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013, 65-73.

Milevska, S. (2016) “‘Infelicitous’ Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage.” (2016) p/art/icipate: Kultur aktiv gestalten 07 (October) Accessed January 23, 2016. http://www.p-art-icipate.net/cms/infelicitous-participatory-acts-on-the- neoliberal-stage/

Milevska, S. (2020) “The Return to Kalokagathia: Curating as Leverage in the Ongoing Dialogues between Aesthetics and Ethics.” In Philosophies 5, Edited by Jean-Paul Martinon, no. 4: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040029.