In conversation with Curator Livia Klein (hereafter "LK"), meet and discover Curator Machine : a decentralised artwork by artist Bjornus Van der Borght (hereafter "BB") that infiltrates the marketspace, shifting from an artist production standpoint to a collective co-production effort.
LK: Can you start by explaining what the Curator Machine project is all about?
BB: Curator Machine is a decentralized artwork structured as a DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) that infiltrates a marketspace, shifting from an artist production standpoint to a collective, co-production effort.
It explores self-interest vs collective potential by camouflaging the artwork as a product while acting as a social experiment around investing mechanisms. The model directs 70% of sale proceeds to the artist and 30% to maintain financial balance while maintaining a non-profit attitude. We also promote shared ownership by producing a limited multiple of the artwork all while aiming to address contemporary issues and critiquing the commodification of art. In a market-driven world, art has become similar to a product, reflecting the current fiscal landscape and reducing artistic integrity in favour of market domination. Curator Machine challenges this shift, questioning the role of art as genuine human expression versus market speculation.
LK: You mentioned that Curator Machine is structured to infiltrate the market while operating as a non-profit and that it promotes shared ownership of art. Could you elaborate on how this structure as a “social experiment” and “public space hack” shape the way audiences interact with the artwork and perceive its value?
BB: Curator Machine encourages audiences to engage with art beyond traditional contexts by positioning art as a “public space hack.” This approach challenges the consumer’s space, inviting viewers to experience art as a dynamic, participatory process.
It blurs the line between art collectors and consumers, triggering market change with artistic action. The project is presented inside a marketspace and shaped like a dispenser machine, presenting cutting-edge art in a product-like form to accentuate an infiltration. We curated a limited selection of digital artists from Belgium, each offering diverse perspectives on the theme, highlighting alternatives to corporate-driven singularity and the effect of social media on our daily lives.
LK: There’s an element of satire in how the artwork is offered “blindly,” similar to mechanisms like a “Kinder Surprise”. What is your statement about consumer culture and art collecting through this approach?
BB: This blind approach critiques consumer culture’s focus on ownership and predictability, introducing a zero-choice simulation. It highlights the irony of consumerism, where acquiring the latest “thing” is often dictated by corporate interest. The similarities between collecting art and consuming products raise concerns about their impact on the public. The juxtaposition of an automated machine with that of childlike innocence underscores ambiguity. The machine simulates an automated system, emphasizing that the real challenge lies in the human intent behind digitalization and automation. In this project, artists assert that art contributes integrity in any system assessment, adding a much-needed human dimension.
LK: How does the concept of “Digital Art in Physical Space” play into this project?
BB: ‘Digital Art in Physical Space’ explores how digital processes, like 3D printing and open- source practices, bridge the digital and physical worlds, challenging capitalist structures and overproduction. 3D printing, as a “revolution in disguise,” offers consumer control in production, a concept we celebrate with Curator Machine while emphasizing artistic collaboration. Despite its 60-year history, digital art is often overshadowed by physical, more ‘sellable’ works dominated by galleries. As a former painter, I see digital art as an anarchistic counterpart to traditional collecting forms. To address this, we curated young Belgian digital artists overlooked by the market’s focus on selling physical art. Curator Machine challenges corporate and art-world boundaries, highlighting that artistic processes are time-consuming and require dedication and should be respected whatever the medium is. Historically, people who handled calculators were called ‘computers,’ with Ada Lovelace as the first coder around 1840 which renders computing older than modern art itself. Today, as the internet becomes more controlled, we must reclaim it as a tool for the people, fostering user empowerment over corporate dominance.
LK: You also address competitiveness and the artist-curator relationship. Could you talk more about that?
BB: Certainly. Curator Machine challenges the competitive dynamics within the art world and looks closely at the artist-curator relationship. In this context, curatorship is about making choices based on various value judgments, and I draw parallels to the appropriation of art history in art. Today, for instance, successful artists are often imitated rather than having fresh, contemporary research done on their work, it becomes a form salad. With Curator Machine, we suggest that artists can act as curators within their own practice by appropriating success mechanisms from other artists, critiquing the trend-following culture that often replaces genuine exploration. For this reason, I thought it would be valuable to instead of appropriating aesthetics to incorporate them directly as participants in the project.
LK: So, would you say Curator Machine seeks to address current gaps or issues in the art world?
BB: Curator Machine addresses overlooked contemporary needs by challenging competitiveness, promoting shared ownership, and rethinking the consumer/corporate relationship. It offers alternative perspectives on art and artist support in a market-driven environment. Our goal is to explore what it means to be an artist—and, by extension, human—in today’s context, examining how decentralization would affect the individual to establish growth. Through initiatives like an open call slot for public participation, we aim to reach out to the general public as well. This level of experimentation is often stifled within corporate structures, making art an ideal space to explore these concepts and their potential to counteract an almost inevitable corporate-induced singularity.
LK: You’ve described Curator Machine as fostering a cooperative environment where artists interpret a theme freely within a collective framework. How does this commitment to inclusivity relate to the "new civic urgency" the project seeks to address, and what role do you envision for art in responding to today’s societal challenges?
BB: Civic urgency here refers to art as a socially engaged practice that centralizes the consumer by opening up discussion, and reflection on societal issues. Curator Machine responds by positioning itself as an accessible platform for public engagement, elevating art beyond aesthetics to promote collective well-being and the future. Through a democratized distribution model, it encourages active participation, not just passive observation. Art, as essential as science, medicine, or politics, should be integral to education. However, profit-driven priorities often compromise art, reducing it to something unimportant. This motivates us to seek alternatives, support bold ideas, and promote art that transcends the status quo, in any way or shape.
LK: Inclusivity is a core value in Curator Machine, especially in providing artists with both production and financial support. How does this inclusivity manifest in the curatorial choices and collaborations?
BB: Inclusivity for us means creating a structure that supports and values every artist’s contribution, irrespective of their background or commercial viability. In our curatorial choices, we emphasize diversity—not just in aesthetics but in perspectives and experiences. Financial support and production backing allow artists to lift their financial expenses, simulating a new form of producing, something like an art funded factory.
LK: How do you see the non-commercial approach from Curator Machine impacting the relationship between the artist, the consumer, and the artwork?
BB: By adopting a non-commercial approach, Curator Machine shifts the focus from profit to purpose, emphasizing the intrinsic value of art over its market worth. Here, art serves the public and the artist directly, laying the foundation of the project. Curator Machine can take many forms. Currently, our focus is on addressing contemporary issues, but we're also open to bold, playful concepts. Our next project, opening in July 2025 at Giftshop in Ghent, explores archiving art in the body. We’re developing edible artworks—healthy, vegan, sugar-free candies shaped by our participating artists—and are collaborating with a haut cuisine candy maker to bring this idea to life as a group exhibition.
LK: Your vision for Curator Machine emphasizes art's role in fostering a more reflective and connected society. With that in mind, you’ve referenced Jonathan Meese’s idea that "everything must become art." How does this concept resonate with Curator Machine, and in what ways does it shape your aspirations for the project's evolution?
BB: Meese’s statement resonates with me, capturing art as an all-encompassing force in life, and society. For Curator Machine, this means creating a project that extends beyond galleries and market constraints. Our goal is to dissolve boundaries between art, life, and society, making art accessible and impactful in everyday contexts. This vision shapes Curator Machine as a dynamic platform that reflects and responds to the world, constantly pushing the limits of what art can be. Innovation is essential to challenge politically and corporately driven singularity, and Meese’s approach inspires us to resist current institutional controls over art and explore beyond their limitations.
Livia Klein (b. 1996) is an independent curator based in Vienna. Her curatorial and discursive practice centers on speculative aesthetics for possible future realities. Through her exhibitions, Klein consistently engages with contemporary sociopolitical dynamics, while also forging new pathways for artistic expression. Klein brings a diverse range of experience spanning the commercial gallery sector (Galerie Eva Presenhuber), institutional frameworks (WIELS, Brussels), and editorial expertise in art publications (Collectors Agenda), reflecting her multifaceted engagement with contemporary art and its discourses. Klein holds a BA in Art History and Education Science from the University of Vienna and is currently pursuing her Master’s in Art and Culture Studies at the University of Applied Arts.