1. What do you think is implied by the concept of ‘absence’?
SC: The concept of ‘absence’, to me, implies that something material or physical is at a remove, out of sight, missing. It’s linked to an awareness that said ‘thing’ is no longer there, and a desire for it be made tangible once more. You anticipate or long for the its return. It also implies that what was once centre stage has temporarily stepped off. Whether intentionally or through force, there has been a transition, which I think is where, at least with regards to the latter, trauma steps in — there is an uncertainty about whether or not it will ever return.
2. In the context of curation, what are some of the reasons why anyone would choose to frame or portray absence?
SC: From my understanding curation is a lot like editing in the sense that you have to be selective about what does or doesn’t get seen, based on whatever story you are trying to tell. Often you construct a narrative based on pre-existing or commissioned objects, which, like words, have their own (albeit varied and subjective) associations.
Over time there is a collective understanding that forms about what these objects mean. It’s a product of seeing something in a particular way, over and over again. The more we associate an object with a specific story, the more that object takes that story’s form. This process of seeing (or not seeing) creates blindspots that solidify with time — big, unaccounted gaps in the fabric of history.
The choice to frame or portray absence is often linked to an urgent desire to tell a story that hasn’t been heard before, that has been forgotten, or that has been intentionally or forcibly erased from the ‘authenticated’ version. It’s an attempt to rectify these processes of erasure and account for the complexity of your own experiences.
Curating the Absence 