On nuclear pasts
and radiant futures
Logo: SALT.CLAY.ROCK.
Artistic research
and exhibition

Learning to curate the possibly radioactive

24/09/11
Erzgiberge

On Curation: A conversation on curating radioactive material into the exhibition

One of the artists we commissioned for SALT. CLAY ROCK. Is considering including a mining hammer into her project for our upcoming exhibition. She has been having difficulty getting access to one, but has a lead with the Wismut e.v. museum. The museum may be able to loan her a hammer, though there is one catch. Mining hammers are used to mine, and this one  was used in a uranium mine. Thus, it was exposed to radioactivity and may be radioactive. 

Of course the museum said that they would only loan it to us if they and then the BGE cleared it as safe. If necessary, it was understood they could instruct us in the safe installation of the object. 

We had an interesting discussion about all this. 

The curator working with the artist on this suggested that we should only allow the object in the show if we also have a third party check and clear the object. They also said we should make sure to post safety warnings at the exhibition entrance. 

One of our curatorial collective members joked that if we exhibit a radioactive object, we might get some press out of it. 

Not getting the joke, another collective member said that while it might be good to court controversy, this is the kind of controversy that would only strengthen the “nuclear radiation is basically harmless” camp.

Another member suggested that this is an issue initially for the artist to decide. They said that this is is a political and aesthetic issu. How to deal with a possibly dangerous object that would need labeling could be nothing but both. It is political because it deals with the question of how dangerous nuclear waste is. And then there is the finer debate as at what level exposure gamma ray exposure is dangerous. It is also political because some might suggest that the invisibility of radioactive waste keeps it off the ongoing issue of the front pages of the news. It is an aesthetic question because both of these political issues relate to the visibility and public exposure of a radioactive object. Further, perhaps, a warning sign would affect the overall look of her project. 

Then we discussed whether or not we would need a third test and warning signs. We realized that the Wismut Museum has a responsibility when lending out objects and should do proper due diligence to ensure the safety of its collection… and to make sure that any viewers are safe when viewing them. And then we noted similar things about the BGE, it is the public organizations responsible for public safety around nuclear waste. If we couldn’t trust their ok, who could we trust? Why would we need a third test? Did we not trust them to be responsible?

We realized we should be able to trust them.

Finally, regarding signage. We realized that we do not want our signage to be sensational. We realized that from a curatorial perspective, at this moment it does not serve the exhibition to have am entrance sign that might give some viewers the thrill of danger, and others the fear of death. 

Eventually, we realized that we should let the artist lead on this.