The question of how could CAD expand yet retain the power of its single panoptic window, its Borgesian aleph.
The question is, does adding more towers, more bastions to the territory further legitimate the eyes. Ostensibly the reflection should be more complete. But somehow this ruptures the myth: CAD sees all things through the panopticon's prisoners, us, remaining uncertain whether/when they are being viewed, manifesting a permanent suspicion for the surveillance, artists seen, manifesting sympathy to the system, its code, aesthetics, a guilt under omniscient god. This is, humbly, CAD, a stand in for the system itself. The funny fabrication is that there weren't contributors before. But now the eyes in the Forrest will bear names, and while they always did, we've entered this distinct land labeled "curation."
CAD harbored power through the - however distant - implication of providing a true full survey. While this was not the case, CAD was closest thing to, providing a, however warbled, singular reflection for everyone to latch like curmudgeonly barnacles upon. (I can think of no other image blog placed on CVs as "press.") And so too the warbles and hotspots in CADs mirror became charming if glaring. (I know of at least one collector whose entire collection is itself a representation of this CAD mirror.) A large and uncanny mirror was something we had deep down hoped for, to see ourselves reflected back in. A large glaring mirror that was ultimately unfortunately usurped by the atomization of mirrors into our hands and instagram as the new form of glass, etc. a new glass further catalyzing capital's individuation and fracturing the social mythos and accelerating postmodernity's collapsing of grand narrative, that CAD, for a brief minute, relit, CAD, arguably even unconsciously lit itself on this desire for this myth of narrative, progress, of even just keeping record. It was the biggest, shiniest glass.
This now transformation into a tentacled curatorial being exchanges its myth of linearity for curations construction of individualized "voice." No longer attempting consolidation of an "artworld" (however arrogant) but instead giving curators a chance to attempt their opposite, build their names "voices" for their vision. Again however flawed or doomed a singularized vision is, it stands out amongst the massive fractalization of pretty much everything else. CAD was reliably two shows daily, Sunday only one. 8 years ago that had felt like drowning. Now it is a welcome relief against further orgiastic image hydrants, put your lips toward. And it is noteworthy that these new curatorial names come with CV attached, "Tenzing Barshee is an..." "Erin Christovale is the..." Interesting because CAD arosen without credential, for whatever reason we gave attention.
Questions for your bookclub:
1.While Clement Greenberg ushered and reigned in an era dominated by chauvinist white language, could CAD be said to herald an era where no language exists, is instead negated by the sheer multiplicity of image, "given over to the visibility apparatus itself"?
2. Are Curators generally attempting to survey the field, or they are instead creating their own individualized territory or "voice"?
3. Is CAWD always a bit of a spoof of that clean white subjectivity-less authority?
4. Does CAD risk fracturing? After how many spigots? In the deluge, can more ever be a solution?
5. Would then the ultimate solution be a map as large as the territory is big?
6. Does CAWD place an inordinate amount of capital and importance in CAD? Is this a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome?
7. Since those with pedigree and institutional accreditation are the only players with power to legitimize and make visible, shouldn't we be paying attention to this pedigree, to those with this coronation anyway? Wasn't that CAD's great insight?
8. Why could CAD becoming over 10 years the major holding of artworld documentation and de facto bearer of the mirror without any previous pedigree be an important distinction?
