I think for me, art is just something quite … it is really like a practice of life. It changes you because it
is somehow quite magical. You can use under the umbrella, under this name of art, create a lot of
things that actually don’t make sense in other disciplines.
What I am interested in, ultimately: why is art so magical in such a way that it is ultimately different
from other objects?
For example, if I call this, my mouse, radically art ‒ or if MoMA, Guggenheim call this mouse art ‒
then how is it different from the object of a mouse that is sitting on my table? How come art, under
this name, things could be radically changing? And I think from an artist’s point of view or as a
researcher or as a curator, with all my different identities, are treating this matter in a very different
What would be the differences, right? If I were an artist ‒ and creating that mouse ‒ then I would
firstly think about how this mouse would be something that gives certain ideas that would create …
that would make people think; that would challenge people; that would raise certain controversies
As a researcher, I would be more interested in how can someone use this object to identify or
authorize „this is an artist“; in what kind of way this artist say this discourse is considered to be valid.
So to speak, an artist … someone who calls himself an artist or others call him an artist suddenly
could make this object become so important, creating a discourse, and that goes back to why, how
this artist … the role of this artist can be authorized by an object ‒ which is a normal object,
As a curator I think my role is to create a new context to authorize these objects to be meaningful or
to create some meanings that have never been talked about before. So to speak, to use different
spaces and ways of presentations, ways of gathering different artists, objects together to create a
new context that would potentially give something also quite challenging, but I think „curator“ is the
role of not so much talking about creating that object but to contextualize the things. But they are
ultimately about art. And art is just something quite magical because we all know this is a mouse
(laughs). And why is it not a mouse anymore? That is something that bankers wouldn’t think about or
medical doctors wouldn’t think about or physics … physicists. This is a mouse. But artists would
always think about „this is not a mouse“. What can it be more? A mouse plus. And in an art context
you can. Because it can be validated. It can be authorized to say, „this is not a mouse“. But in reality,
a majority of cases and disciplines, this is still a mouse. So, I think this is what’s so interesting about
art because we can have the room to think about … starting to think this is not a mouse.