Producing an exhibition with the Providence Biennial for Contemporary Art renewed my understanding of collaboration, communication, and curatorial ethics in and out of workplace settings. As the inaugural mentorship experience hosted by the Biennial, Curating Commemoration was in its early developmental stage and still had many details to resolve before exhibition preparation. No one knew what this experimental initiative would offer; a mission statement could not anticipate what kind of product the endeavor would yield.

There is much more than meets the eye in bringing elaborate ideas to fruition. To the public, Poiesis: Street Culture & the Art of the City, as part of Curating Commemoration: Poiesis/Remedy, was presented to Providence’s art scene without issue or controversy. However, the road to Poiesis was complicated. I write this reflection with other curators, arts administrators in mind, and artists who may be unfamiliar with the nature of collective project management while striving for autonomous creative direction. I share with a spirit of transparency.

In many ways, the board and the curators (Joel Rosario Tapia and myself) learned from one another reciprocally. The proposed mentorship worked out more as a horizontal leadership structure with heavy financial and technical support from the Biennial. Instead of a curriculum or applied instruction, we spent much of our time together working out the social and professional strains that inevitably emerge in a collaboration process. The curators proposed ideas for the exhibition independently. In retrospect, the central point of our collaboration occurred while working on varying degrees of trust related to meeting attendance, role allocation, task completion, and artwork installation.

I orient my reflections on Curating Commemoration toward the process of curating with an institution or board. This experience affirmed that to truly work as a team (especially one composed of 8 -10 individuals), participants need to know who they are working with – their personalities, leadership styles, work ethic, and, to a certain extent, how their identities and previous life experiences inform their work. Knowing a co-worker’s priorities and definition of “success” for practical cooperation is also essential. This work is difficult for any newly formed group, and the Providence Biennial curatorial team was no exception.

We found ourselves entering intense debates about vision, practice, and curatorial interests. It was often necessary to field and unpack matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion on several occasions, finding that ethical considerations in press releases, grant proposals, and advertisements were frequent areas of sensitivity for one party or another. There also seemed to be variations in perspectives on chains of command, appropriate communication styles and channels, cultural competency, and agency of the invited curators.

It was in this space that I refined my set of curatorial ethics. Early in drafting a concept and layout, I knew the message I wanted to convey and the audience of interest. Providence is home to many different communities, and many could benefit from an additional platform. I was privileged enough to be selected to put forth an exhibition reflecting the area where I resided. In return, I wanted to deliver my love letter to the city for their embrace of me and my work. I aimed to create a sentimental exhibition familiar to people born and raised in Providence and intriguing to those who might have engaged with New England art from a distance.