JL Murtaugh
Director, Autarkia (LT) & Syndicate (CA, DE, UK)
JL (Liam) Murtaugh is an artist, curator, writer, and consultant organising projects under the alias of Syndicate since 2014. Syndicate is a liquid contemporary art platform producing exhibitions, events, and publications with a group of long-term artist collaborators. It is active throughout Europe and the Americas and was formerly headquartered in Los Angeles, Cologne, and London.He's currently the artistic director of Autarkia, Vilnius, and was previously the director of Tenderpixel in London from 2012 to 2014. Murtaugh studied fine art at Goldsmiths College in London (MFA), Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, and Columbia College (BFA) following earlier education in architecture and design. He is based in Vilnius and London.
---
[...] This idea of representation, diversity, and inclusion... It's hard to compartmentalise because there are a lot of parallel or intertwined issues going on that are difficult to separate. It's like this condition, or expectation of representation, underpins a lot of the acts in the cultural environment, not just visual art, and so much energy is being put toward fulfilling the data, rather than engaging with the subject. And I think you see that reflected in the way people write, the way people program, the way institutions position themselves, the way that sometimes individuals position themselves - they see that as a pathway to success.
The complicity is centred in the power dynamic-or I should say, the power end of the dynamic. I've learned a lot since I was running the gallery [Tenderpixel-run with Stella Sideli and Borbala Soos], everything's a learning process.
Institutional entities often impose their programme as a selection, a mixture of identifications, and deliberately position themselves this way. And that's not to say that it is wrong, but that many decisions are done purely on the appearance and not on the actual engagement with what the artists do, or what their desire to exhibit is, or to promote whatever it is that they're doing.
Some artists I've worked with have dealt with galleries all over the world, and then realised their relationship wasn't really going to work, because of that. Not because of the lack of commercial or intellectual value, but because the institution or gallery was more interested in the artist for their identification rather than their artistic production or ideas.
This is not an isolated or small segment that we're talking about. It's quite widespread. It's part of the dynamic which you mentioned-whether it's private or public funding, these structures, which demand categorization of who's presented and how they are represented, so they can show to their backers, their funders, they can show how open-minded they are. That's fulfilling value for [those structures], in addition to the value for the gallery or the institution.
I'm involved in making connections and facilitating, alongside curating. I hope that does something concrete, because usually so little is provided. There are so few resources for artists-even when there is money, even when there is institutional support. I mean, I'm generalising hugely, but we need facilitators, people who are just willing to close the gaps where it's possible and have those conversations. It is a critical issue.
It all speaks to the lack of humanity and dealing with the human body. You need to engage with people on a personal level. As opposed to London, in the US they sometimes have trouble even dealing with female-identifying artists. It's been bizarre for me to have these conversations or to be in situations where that's the case. It's like, why? What are we still talking about? I'm not excusing it, it's another cultural context one has to overcome.
How did you become a curator and why?
I don't think I can attach [a decision to be a curator] to a specific moment in my mind, it's still in development. I define myself as constantly in flux.
I struggle with the term 'curator'. Maybe wrongly, I'm somewhat fixed about what 'curator' means in a specific kind of academic approach. It's one I don't agree with, or at least that I don't engage with personally.
The first time I interacted with a large group who identified as curators was in London after I came to graduate school. The Goldsmiths [MFA] curating course was physically adjacent to [the MFA fine art course]. Of course, there's a lot of mixing. I started putting shows together while I was at school. Maybe before-I curated my BA degree show, mainly because nobody else would do it. Curating was then somehow part of my artistic practice, the sort of typical artistic deconstruction that happens when you study for an MFA. I started experimenting with different modes of artistic production. I would often do them anonymously, or as an invented entity that would organise those projects. In that way, the conversation, or the sort of openness and interaction between me and other people was more individual rather than the kind of group dynamic that you get at school. Those influences can limit or set the style of dialogue quite a lot.
After my MFA, I kept on doing that as part of my artistic practice. That is one of the reasons I have a hard time with the curatorial term in my mind. I'm an artist. Curating-such as it is-is just an aspect of what I do. In terms of why-you know, I didn't set out on this path intentionally. It's sort of found me along the way, especially since I left London. I've had to define it continuously. Working in an institution now, again, as loose as it is, presents its own set of challenges, and some people might expect me to be a curator in the more traditional sense. I've gotten away from this a little, but when I started, I didn't even like to put my name on the projects. I didn't want it to mainly be about me.
How do you relate to this idea of tokenization in general, and what practical solutions did you put in place to avoid it?
It's easier to anticipate issues if you develop a personal relationship with who you're working with before you engage in any kind of activity-not intentionally but organically: an opportunity comes up and you think about them. In terms of resources-it's always about humanity and generosity, not just in terms of money, but also time. I have worked with a lot of people who, because of our trustworthy relationship, still value my opinion, beyond a specific time-bound collaboration. I don't think of these things as exclusive relationships, I'm here to support and build bridges this way.
Another practical thing would be to think about what the artist needs at a minimum. What can we offer? Can we at least pay for materials, flights, and accommodation? A lot of well-established, well-funded players don't even do that-and that is shocking to me. So many times I've gotten into debates with big institutions over little money, for something completely insignificant.
A commercial example-some fairs build shared sales pots and split that between all the galleries and all the artists taking part. Everyone benefits from the work of others. This positively affects the people and entities that participate, even if they don't sell in a typical manner. An experimental environment still generates value for traditional art sales. That's a very minor example, but finding inventive models that are more communal and recognize the immense, invisible labour which is critical to survival.
Then, maybe on a personal level, it's about being open-minded. I'm aware how little I know and the associated privilege-I'm a white, heterosexual guy and I'm not constantly brought into question about what I do in the same way as others might.
Unfortunately, there are many prominent people in the arts who instrumentalise others' identities for their individual career purposes, borrowing it as if an artist's identification foregrounds everything they do. It's an immense responsibility, being entrusted with that. I've been in fairs, galleries, and museums for a tour of the show and the curator would say before anything else, 'well, this is a queer artist,' and okay, great, but is that the first thing to mention here? It feels like putting this first, you're not engaging with the person or the work at all. That's quite unfortunate and disrespectful.