August 1, 1998
[Artists seem to understand ®TMark's aims and methods
more easily than others. In order to appeal to this pioneering, communicative
and sometimes pivotal audience, ®TMark has sometimes attempted to describe
itself as a kind of curator. Those not interested in art world niceties
may substitute throughout the rest of this article "activity"
for "curation," "influence" for "curate,"
and "influence" for "curator."]
To understand ®TMark curation, the first thing we must note is that corporations
curate much of what we see, hear, and taste every day, via billboards, engineered
menus, ergonomic work environments, etc. (We are speaking of those things
corporations curate directly, not through intermediaries like governments, non-profit
agencies, arts groups, etc.) Corporate curation has one unifying principle,
and all curated objects are defined by it: the curated object must appeal to
citizens (or their pets and children) as "consumers," as input mechanisms.
This is the bottom line, and nothing else is allowed. Even those curated
objects which seem to encourage creation only encourage such creation as leads
without delay to consumption, either one's own (games, art technologies, etc.)
or that of others (work).
Corporations have very successfully positioned themselves as the primary, and
in some places the only, curator.
The defining characteristic of ®TMark curation is directly complementary to
that of corporate curation. Like corporate curation, ®TMark curation has
a unifying principle, and everything curated by ®TMark obeys it: ®TMark curation
appeals to citizens (and non-citizens) as output mechanisms, as creators.
This is the bottom line, and nothing else is allowed. Even those curated
objects which seem to encourage consumption (e.g. Phone In Sick Day) only do
so as a means of affecting the world in a powerful, personal, individual way.
It is ®TMark's curatorial mission to redefine real output away from the domain
of artists, i.e. those grudgingly licensed to engage in non-consuming behavior.
But who, if not artists, is ®TMark's curatorial audience?
The audience for corporate curation ("consumers") are those whose position in
the world is fairly assured, who feel at least a baseline contentment, as well
as the liberty to express and expand their contentment in curated ways. It was
once the case that advertising appealed to our insecurities and miseries, and
tried to exacerbate existential troubles in order to offer costly solutions
(the work of Irving Norman is perhaps the finest description of this method).
But these methods have been swallowed by the very fear they generated.
Just as repression has wisely given way to choicelessness, so has exacerbation
given way to anesthetic. Contentment, though more expensive than terror, is
in the long run cheaper, since the price for contentment can be set: as consumption.
Ultimately, contentment pays for itself.
Seeing themselves as content, people are responsive contributors to machinic
discourse; seen as discontent, people are the wellspring of irrational, unpredictable,
creative acts. The audience for ®TMark curation, therefore, are the discontented.
This audience , is nearly identical in actual makeup to that of corporate curation:
the corporate audience of the contented does not include those who cannot or
will not participate in the economy, and ®TMark's does not include those who
are satisfied with their lives; these excluded sectors are probably roughly
equal in size, and are not very significant.
®TMark believes that corporate mechanisms can easily be frustrated by
a population (re)defining itself as discontent, casting off corporate curations,
and suddenly requiring and discovering new and more satisfying means of
living. The enormous resources within the "discontent class" will
pose an enormous threat when they consume less and find more satisfaction
in injecting their voices and influence irrationally into the marketplace.
This power of the "discontent class" is all the stronger because this
class, consisting as it does of nearly everyone, does not suffer the image
problems of artists, who are allowed their position as non-consumers only
at the cost of almost constant doubt, and against whom the dispiriting
force of "Social Darwinism" (markets are good because they separate
winners and losers) is unleashed by the enforcers of contentment. By
the same token, it seems certain that a small amount of curation goes a
long way with this class.
It should, in closing, be noted that ®TMark is not opposed to all corporate
curated objects. Just as ®TMark is happy there are artists, but regrets
that there need be such a category, so ®TMark is happy that some things
are offered for consumption, but regrets that there is no other large-scale
curation available.