'A collective activism in which each voice provokes 'the other' to update itself and the others.'
Fırat Yusuf Yılmaz

On paper, art institutions are structures that take responsibility to enable artists to survive, to enable them to develop their art practices and to help them open up to the audience, but the scenario we observe is not exactly like this. Art institutions used as career development offices and short-term visibility centers aim for short-term gains rather than meeting the long-term systematic needs of artists and building their capacity to open space for other artists. In this scenario, they cannot develop a view that will enable them to open space for new art practices and other artists. Issues that need to be improved may include updating the context and approach in which art institutions come into contact with new artists and the sources from which they obtain information.

Since the curator generally wants to give the viewer an experience, he is obliged to both publicize his individual relationship with the exhibition space and make the space accessible to others in every sense, allowing individual experiences. In fact, there is a process in which he opens his exhibition idea to the audience with the help of other artists, in line with the core values of the exhibition area. For the curator, a pendulum works between what the pure space tells and what the structure that runs the exhibition space tells. The artist, on the other hand, often tries to survive in a balance formed through the relationship of the work he produces with the space, what the exhibition space tells, and his communication with the other artists with whom he shares the space. In this balance, sometimes the ideas of the curator, sometimes the demands of the artists, sometimes the physical characteristics of the space, and sometimes the voice of the people running the exhibition area dominate. I guess the best scenario is to form an orchestra where each voice provokes another to update itself and others.

Curators and galleries inevitably seem to be in a selective position. We see the expression gatekeeper used frequently, and artists are right to use this definition. I would just like to make a note at this point for newly opened or non-profit galleries and independent curators. There are degrees of decision positions, and just being a curator or a gallery does not give you unlimited decision possibilities. Before forming a prejudice, it may be good to look at the degree of agency and sphere of influence of that person or entity.

It is actually much more accurate to say 'distinguished from others' rather than expressions that express value judgments. Using the expression "others" both shows the relational structure of the field, highlights a sensitivity that what we do may affect others, and reminds us to reference the past every time. In order to distinguish a job from others; The fact that the artist listens to current discussions in the field in which he produces (as distinguished from 'knowing'), that the production process has primarily transformed itself, that the work is a non-competitive candidate for redefining what art is, that he comes up with a practical or impractical method proposal, and that he has an involuntary perception of the production process. I think it should be a documentation.

In fact, a written record should be kept of every process involving artistic labor, including exhibition preparation. There are other written formats that are close to the nature of an agreement. Therefore, proposing the agreement as a final solution takes us a little further away from discussing the foundations of the consensus basis. On the other hand, since not every agreement is legally binding, it has unfortunately become the industry standard for the processes between the artist and the curator to continue with verbal agreements. Verbal communication is not a healthy format as it allows misunderstandings due to its nature, uses ambiguous expressions and leaves no evidence behind. For exactly these reasons, the structure of communication before and after the exhibition and the way we express our demands are not healthy. In the right process; First, written and visual records must be kept, mutual signatures must be made on legally binding written formats, the joint work must be confirmed via email, and copies must be kept mutually. The agreements that need to be made are; A consignment agreement, if not included in the consignment, an agreement covering a potential sales situation, an agreement regarding copyrights, an agreement regarding reproduction and distribution, as well as an insurance agreement and logistics, as well as agreements on storage conditions can be made.