In terms of content we are putting the visual part first and writing in second, for one simple reason. Reading is important, is definitely an important part of the intellectual process. however we think that at this point, text is getting just too much attention, even more than the work itself. Frankly speaking, few people actually are able to go and see all the exhibitions while mounted, not to mention those who are in other cities and in other countries. Unfortunately most of the time the only thing that remains accessible once the exhibition is closed is a text about it. Again, there's nothing wrong about text, it's simply another kind of media that transmit ideas in a different way. Take the 1951, iconic "9th ST" exhibition as an example. Apart from some narratives (3) it's difficult to recreate it how it really happen. This definitely open some doors of discussion that we need to address one by one: What kind of distortion and/or reinterpretation the piece itself go through when it's photographed? what are the limitations of the photographic or video register? How relevant is for the artist to show his work to others in this internet era? How the process of documenting a piece have change or have to change ?
To look and analyze the city or a building or an object is on the same nature as owning it, except that ownership is not a satisfactory feeling - but understanding is a form of complete assimilationLouise Bourgeois(1)