Melanie Keen: I would like to ask you all how the Danger Museum came into being, and why you felt it was necessary to create an organisation like the Danger Museum.
Tien Wei Woon: I think, at first, the Danger Museum was sort of a small project that I started playing around with, and the first Danger Museum was in a tent, a little tent set in the back yard of the college for an assessment. And from then on, after that project, it grew up to be something more, and I think that slowly, as the years went by, a lot of the Danger Museum became more Miho and me, and then Øyvind joined us last year. And I think, (...) I felt that there were three co-directors creating something for the museum, working on the museum.
Miho Shimizu: Initially I was very inspired by people when I came to London. My classmates were from everywhere, so it was very natural to talk about the background of their culture or the context they used to be in, in relation to their works. And I really liked that situation, knowing other people's culture, and also trying to express my situation or my context as well. It's like exchanging knowledge or exchanging thoughts. And that's why I think it's interesting for me to work with the Danger Museum, because it's quite focused on the process itself: the activity is the museum, not necessarily the final installation. I really enjoy that.
Øyvind Renberg: I think it's something that most people can relate to, but maybe they are not that consciously aware of what the museum is. Maybe it's interesting to use that structure in a different way: we have got to think about the museum and also think about what we are doing as a museum.
MK: (...) The very fact that you have created that space, a platform on which to show other artist's works, you are doing that creating an aside from the mainstream museum, so in some respects it's a critique. You know, the accessibility of the network that you have is different to somewhere monolithic like the Tate, for example. So, while it might not be an overt critique, I think it's something which is imbued within the way in which you work. And then you are talking about the name the 'Danger Museum': whenever I think about that, I think about 'the museum in danger'. If the museum were to transform itself, would it possibly be in danger? If the museum were to be more accessible, if the museum were to embrace more cultures, would it somehow be jeopardising its position as an organisation which strongly supports this idea of the canon, like the history of great artists? That is why I am asking those questions, because I think it's somehow bound up within the Danger Museum. And I completely take your point as well of what I think the Danger Museum does... This is another thing I wanted to talk to you about, the Danger Museum as a sort of democratic agency, because I think what you do is a very generous act. Would you like to comment on that, giving a space to artists to show their work?
ØR: I think it's not democratic, but it's quite open. For me, they are people whom I would like to work with. (...) I mean it's not completely open, it's not like anyone could just walk in and put something there.
MS: I think that there is an element of openness, but then not everyone will want to work with us, because we cannot provide a white cube or... you know, like even this space... it's a gallery space, nice wall, but every artist involved has to compromise or be flexible with the situation, which would provide new possibilities through the activities or practice as well; but then they need to give up something at the same time...
MK: In return.
MS: Yes, in return.
TWW: I feel that it has a lot to do with conceptual space; an agreement to show... Even in this context, I think they would have to understand what it's all about in the first place. [The artists] would have to agree to its overall concept, what the danger museum represents, before they could show, I think, in the situation that the Danger Museum creates.
MK: So, would you say that your work is collaboration with other artists? Because one of the questions was about how the Danger Museum embraces a strong curatorial strategy within your practice, but ultimately does it affect your practice as artists, because you are artists? And do you see your relationship with other artists as a collaborative one? For example, our relationship: I have created a loose framework to enable the Danger Museum to operate, but I wouldn't necessarily say what we did is truly collaborative, because I (...) said to you, 'We should do this, we should do that', and you have a much closer relationship with the artists that you have invited to the Danger Museum. So I am just wondering whether you can talk about it as collaborative practice. And also, can you talk about how the Danger Museum, which is a kind of curatorial vehicle, has affected your practice as artists and affects the way that you work with other artists? Because you brought up something quite interesting, I think, when you were talking about your work with Alex, and I can't remember the quote verbatim, but it was something about challenging your work with him in a curatorial way that actually made you reflect upon your position as an artist. So those are the things I am trying to resolve.
ØR: Are you thinking of me as an artist doing something else than the Danger Museum, or...?
MK: No, as an artist working within the Danger Museum. Have you separated yourself into two identities: are you Øyvind, the Danger Museum director and Øyvind, the artist? Because the way I perceived the Danger Museum was that the Danger Museum is an artistic project, and within that artistic project you have embraced certain types of curatorial strategies, and I just wanted to know whether those strategies have affected generally your practice as an artist...
ØR: Yes, very much.
MK: ... or the relationship you have with other artists, the nature of collaborative work.... You have created this sort of museological structure of which you are directors, but I am just curious how that affects your relationship with artists and your own practice.
ØR: Well, I think my interest with Alex has been, apart from being interested in his work, seeing the kind of limit between being part of his process of making a piece with him, or just giving the space for him to make a piece. Because I come from a background of making... you know, I could have been Alex in a sense: I could be making films or whatever, objects, so that was just a kind of very personal thing for me to feel how far I can go in terms of being part of the process.
MK: And how about you, Tien, because you are working with and invited Matze and Sebastian to do the real mapping process, and the Artists Village, which I know that you are part of, and you are part of these other collectives. Can you say how the Danger Museum impacts on your practice and the relationship you have with artists within the Danger Museum context and beyond?
TWW: Maybe I will start with a little bit of the background, because before doing a degree at Goldsmiths, I was involved with the art community in Singapore, and it was quite common for artists to gather in communities or to work in groups to do something, or to come together to work in collaboration and stuff like that. It's kind of more loose back home. So I think that the Danger Museum was in a way a scenario where I could actually reach out to find out more about what different groups are doing, be communicable through that platform instead of just going around saying, 'Hi. What are you doing?' But we also have a bit about role-playing, the museum director and sort of going along with the game, to think about it that way. So, it offered a lot of interesting points; I could understand and get to know more people as well as their work. I think because of that... I have always liked to work in groups rather than alone, and I seldom make stuff. (...) So all the work is always like between the artist or the curator... because the Danger Museum started not so long ago, maybe four or five years ago, and now there is the über curator, the curator who can do anything that is artistic. In fact, it's quite interesting to see that happening, getting more and more popular, where curators could offer more than just being in the background, and now they are more in the front doing things.... Does that answer your question?
MK: It does to some extent...
TWW: For me there isn't much difference between the artist and the museum director. I think it's a role-playing part. Because I was always thinking about how the structure works, and actually we were part of the structure; no matter what happens within the structure, it will not change, or you will have to come out of it. So I think that it has a lot to do with role-playing. I just enjoy playing the role with others. (...) A lot of people have this beautiful idea of collaborating... it's like having half a piece of the ring: you draw this half and I draw this half, and that is collaboration. But it's also collaboration if you could draw over my half, and I think it's the different degrees of collaboration that is interesting. Sometimes I can believe that 'Oh, there is a democratic collaboration', but it just depends on situations and conditions.
MK: Well, I think that is very true, because the nature of collaboration is not necessarily an easy 50-50 split, and I think bound up with collaboration is struggle as well.
ØR: Mm, a big struggle sometimes... (...) I just wonder why this question about the difference between an artist and a curator is so important. I don't know...Why is that question raised so much?
MK: I think within an institutional context it's certainly easier for people to adopt roles because they know what to expect from you, so as a curator, people know what to expect from me and I know what I am expected to deliver. Similarly, in the role of an artist: you know what people expect from you, you know what you are expected to deliver. And it's only when those two roles come together and they become merged and blurred in some way that becomes kind of complex, people don't know what to expect, they don't know what is going to happen, and that merge is something interesting. I think that's why there is that debate, because the institution has such a strong hold over what is produced; however, things which have happened outside the institution, what you could call alternative practices, are so influential in what is going on in the institution these days. Those debates, I think, are almost a necessary part of change or transformation, even though it might not happen. You know, 20-50 years from now, maybe curator/artists will not exist, they will just be kind of makers or creative practitioners, and I think that is perhaps, in my mind, how things will probably evolve. But it's interesting that you should bring it up, because I think basically that the issue of artist/curator isn't really significant.
ØR: I think we are perceived by people who are not involved in the art scene probably more as curators and not as artists.
MK: Because you are called the Danger Museum and you call yourselves directors...
ØR: Yes, and people ask me 'Are you showing some work yourself in that exhibition?
MK: When you say 'people', who are your referring to?
ØR: Well, friends, people I meet to explain the project. They don't see what I do as art, they see it as administrative or curatorial stuff, and that means that we have to have two sets of audience: we have the art community, which understands that it's something more than...
MK: Mm, complex.
ØR: ... being organisers; and there are the people outside, who see it very differently.
MK: I think you are making a really valid point, actually, because something that I have kind of struggled with in this project is the fact that this debate operates within a very small circle of people, and actually most of the work which is being made outside of the context of Soft, but which is also being brought together within Soft, is work which engages a wide range of people. You could call it participatory, socially engaged practice. The nature of the work that emerges from these types of collaborations is very much keyed into a public that might not be an art-specific public. So for me there's kind of been a tension in Soft, that Soft is looking at one thing, and what actually is emerging from it is something else.
(...) One thing you said, Øyvind, which I wanted to touch on as a final note, was that in the last week here you were going to be re-evaluating or contemplating the future of the Danger Museum. Is that something which emerged through being invited to do Soft, or is it something that you have been thinking of anyway and Soft was a suitable moment in which to think about the Danger Museum's future?
ØR: It's hard to say. I mean, it came up after starting to work with Soft, but I think I felt that it was necessary anyway.
MK: It just happened to coincide...
ØR: Yes, I guess so...
MS: I think we used to work based in London for so long, and now we are in three different places, and Soft was the first project that we did the three of us together, physically getting together and setting up the show, so this is quite a special moment for us, working with the Danger Museum, and it's like we are also questioning our working style in a way. We had been corresponding through email, making the project over the web site or sending stuff to each other. (...) But it's very different now, I guess. We don't physically meet, so how to share the same energy to push this collectively, if it's collective. (...)
MK: And could you talk about some of the artists that you've brought to the Danger Museum at the moment?
MS: Right. I invited Kana, the Dream Products company. We had been working for maybe a couple of years already in different projects, in different ways. Sometimes she put her products in our shop (...) and I was really interested in working with artists like her because she needs to be part in some context to exist, and I'm really interested in that kind of activity.
MK: And Kyong Fa I think is an interesting inclusion, because she's an art historian.
MS: Well, apparently she's not. (Laughs)
MK: She's not? She's an artist?
MS: No, she's not.
MK: She's not an artist?
MS: She's individual. (Laughs)
MK: She has no tag.
MS: No, no.
ØR: Anonymous.
MK: What, has she just graduated in art history?
MS: Art history and she did some research on this Singaporean artist, and now she's working at the Singapore Art Museum as an internship. I met her in Singapore and we had some interesting conversation about identity and the culture there and things like that, and I just suggested that she propose something for this project, because she was coming here and I was curious about someone like her, with some theoretical background and cultural interest, working in this specific place in South East Asia.
MK: (...) I get the sense similar to Øyvind and Miho that the artists that you've chosen not only come from, for example, the Artists Village in Singapore, which is similarly a part of your formative identity, but also Matze and Sebastian, who are based in Germany. They are artists you've met in your travels, and that relates to the idea about mobility as well. So how have they come to feature...?
TWW: Because Matze and Sebastian, when I first met them, I was very inspired, they were into the media theory and crazy ideas which I could never really understand. (...) They were attending conferences, blah blah blah, and they are really like that, but I always liked their approach to the stuff they do. So in a way I always wanted a chance for them to come to London to sort of explore ideas. (...) The main thing was that I wanted somebody who were actually talking about something that happens locally, or works they have done locally, and the main question was how does that translate across the boundary? (...)
MS: I thing that the people who contributed to the shop are like people we met before. And Gwenalle, I met her five years ago or so, when I was doing a foundation course; she was doing a visiting exchange thing in my college, and we just kept in touch. We sometimes meet in different places, like I visit New York or whatever, and we just keep on emailing and just keeping in touch. And you know, if both are interested in the framework or area... you know, we can share something... even if we are in remote places, you can still continue working, and I really like that...
MK: And how do you respond to that issue of mobility?
MS: (...) We had Alex for the first week and we already really miss him (Laughs) and it's like... you know, a very basic thing, but that pushes you to think about the possibility of working with him again somewhere. I would see the Danger Museum in that way.