A paradigm shift in exhibition criticism? – A conversation with Rendes Kapuőrök
What exactly is Rendes Kapuőrök (‘nice gatekeepers’)? Judging by the name, you might not immediately know what it’s about, but it’s actually a promising project with a lot of potential. Rendes Kapuőrök is an exhibition critique platform – more specifically, an Instagram page dedicated to sharing exhibition reviews. As a theory student, I felt it was important to present this initiative, which has been running since September, to a wider audience. The project was conceived by second-year Design Theory master’s students at MOME, specialising in design curation. Supported by the Deák Erika Grant, they’ve further developed the website and its visual identity, and received the professional backing needed to address the gap in contemporary art criticism in Hungary. Since forming a team of ten people at MOME is no small feat, I sat down with two of the editorial team members, Laura Fedics and Réka Vass, to discuss how the project operates, its mission, and the role of exhibition criticism.
As young Design Theory-design curation students, what was your vision and theoretical foundation when creating the website? What role do you see for yourselves in the art discourse?
LF: In the spring semester, we began reflecting on the place of exhibition criticism within the wider art discourse in one of our Exhibition Criticism classes with Anna Sidó. Art historian József Mélyi [1] points out in one of his texts how vital “self-appointed” exhibition critics and the social media presence of institutions are in acting as mediators in the current landscape. How an institution presents itself can have a significant impact on public perception.
In this context, writing exhibition critique isn’t always straightforward, particularly in Hungary, where it’s not a standard part of curatorial practice. We’ve come to understand that curators play a key role in content creation, but this shouldn’t be limited to organising exhibitions and writing wall didactics. It’s equally important for curators to express their views on other exhibitions and concepts, as this role bridges the gap between professional community and the general public. As students, we’re something of insiders, but also somewhat detached from the scene, so we need to learn how to communicate in a way that resonates with our audiences, whether professional or general.
It would be interesting to learn why you picked this name. What does the term kapuőr (gatekeeper) [2] mean in your case, and how is it related to your work?
RV: It reflects both our role and our mission and embodies our stance. And, by the way, we’re actually quite nice too. Figuratively speaking, of course, but alongside reflecting on the contemporary art scene, we guard the ‘gates’ of exhibition criticism, overseeing the flow of those coming and going, and actively shaping and revitalising the genre itself. I believe that our professional relevance has now been firmly established for this mission.
LF: The term ‘gatekeeper role’ also appears in the aforementioned text by Mélyi, which we half-joked about in one of our classes, but then it started resonating with us. The average content consumer doesn’t have the time or the capacity to read and absorb a six-page exhibition critique that might include complex ideas they can’t relate to. Instagram, with its 2,000-character limit, offers a perfect platform to share thoughts and perspectives that resonate with people.
It’s problematic that texts of art criticism are generally difficult to understand. How does Rendes Kapuőrök aim to address this issue, and why did you choose Instagram as your platform?
LF: Essentially, we want to redefine the role of the gatekeeper. We don’t want people to view criticism as something that tears institutions, concepts, or other aspects into pieces. We had to step away from that mindset ourselves. There’s no need for that. What is needed is for people to talk about art, as they have a genuine desire for it. We need a paradigm shift in how we, as professionals, discuss art. We want to make the discourse more engaging and capture the interest of younger generations, who are our primary audience. Instagram is the ideal platform for this. Additionally, we want to promote criticism that encourages dialogue, and over time, as our audience grows, we hope to engage them in conversation as well. We’re also excited to share insights from these.
So far, you’ve mostly talked about your theoretical background and mission. Let’s focus on the specifics: how does your editorial team work? And how do you choose which exhibitions to review?
RV: We typically visit exhibitions in groups of three or four, so multiple reviews are written for each exhibition. One of our main principles is to present multiple perspectives, which also means embracing a diversity of writing styles in the reviews, in a positive way. Our goal is to bring more variety to the reviews of each exhibition and show that there isn’t just one correct interpretation. This approach adds a personal touch to our reviews and helps introduce new readers to the genre of exhibition criticism. Fortunately, there are ten of us in the editorial team, and we are all very different. Our interests vary widely, from fashion research to experience design, so we bring diverse viewpoints to each exhibition.
LF: We operate with a rotating editorial system, so those who aren’t writing one week take on editing duties. This allows us to cover three to four exhibitions a month, with each exhibition receiving three different perspectives from our team. This structure also aligns perfectly with Instagram’s three-column layout. Archived posts from our previous Instagram account are also important – if someone falls behind, we can still post from there. It’s no secret that the growth of the page has been organic, and part of that process has been finding our voice. The archived posts help demonstrate this evolution.
How do you decide which exhibitions to write about?
LF: We want to focus on exhibitions that might not get the attention they deserve. Some exhibitions are only on view for a short time and don’t receive much coverage, despite having powerful concepts and substantial work behind them. Time is a crucial factor, but these exhibitions are just as valuable as those in more prominent galleries and museums – and they should be discussed just as extensively. Many of us are also interested in exploring new forms of curatorial practice, not just the traditional white-cube spaces. There are other venues and locations that also represent significant artistic value, but they’re not always communicated through the usual, exclusive channels. These exhibitions deserve attention – last year, for example, we even wrote a review about an exhibition in a memorial house.
Your work clearly demonstrates that a new approach to art dialogue is emerging, one that the younger generation is trying to create. What do you see for the future of Rendes Kapuőrök? Do you plan to expand beyond the online space?
LF: That’s still a little way off. In the near future, our goal is to maintain the pace we established last semester and keep the page running smoothly. We applied for the Deák Erika Grant for one year, and we certainly hope to continue our work beyond that. It’s difficult to predict where we’ll be one year from now because, in university life – and maybe in our generation’s case – things are unpredictable; you never know where you’ll be in a year or even six months. I think it would be exciting if we had a larger community behind the page. We want to build a more robust dialogue with our readers.
Personally, I’d love to visit exhibitions with a larger group and perhaps hold roundtable discussions afterward. It’s amazing when people can truly connect with each other through art.
As I spoke with Laura and Réka, it became clear that Rendes Kapuőrök is more than just a university project. Through their work, they seek to redefine the genre of exhibition criticism and the curator’s role, while critically examining the very concept of professionalism. They are driven by the belief that art must be discussed – and perhaps, to do so, we need to take it off the pedestal it has occupied for centuries.
// /
Members of the Rendes Kapuőrök editorial team includes Balázs Dávid, Laura Fedics, Andrea Patek, Abigél Sógor, Enikő Szentiványi-Székely, Márk Szolomayer, Róza Tomka, Bence Tóth-Meisels, Aida Ujfaluczky, and Réka Vass.
[1] József Mélyi: Közösségi média, közösségi műkritika. In: Bárány, Tibor; Hamp, Gábor; Hermann, Veronika (szerk.) Kulturális iparágak, kánonok és filterbuborékok. Budapest, Magyarország: Typotex Kiadó (2020) pp. 59-67.
[2] The term gatekeeper was coined by American psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s and, a decade later, it became widely used in mass communication. Gatekeeping is a process whereby the media filters information before it reaches the public.
