A deceptively simple descriptor, the term 'historic site' covers a large and immensely varied set of places. By their very nature, these designated sites possess fundamental and unique characteristics that have developed and emerged over the course of the individual histories that occurred there. In much the same way that history in general is an accumulation of past events, figures, and objects connected to every conceivable area of study, historic sites are representative of diverse layers of meaning imbued with influencing undertones. The resulting lack of neutrality differentiates the historic site from the gallery as a space for exhibition, and a place for curation.
According to O'Doherty's classic definition of the white cube, the ideal space removes any cues that interfere with the viewer's perception of the artwork as art, including concepts of time and history.[i] Works are intended to exist in an “eternity of display,” which necessitates that the gallery act as a limbo; untouched by the passage of time.[ii] Conversely, those staging contemporary art exhibitions at historic sites must consider the resonation of the site on the works, and use very different curatorial strategies.
As the historic site is a relatively new space for contemporary art curation, little analysis has been undertaken into the approaches taken in past exhibitions. The resulting dearth of specific theoretical application and literature has led to a reliance of empirical data in order define curatorial practice within these sites. The comparison of practical exhibition information and first-hand statements from curators, heritage officials, and artists, allowed for the identification of commonalities in approach between the various projects that have emerged over the past few decades. It became clear that two major factors differentiate curatorial practice at historic sites from other contexts: those of collaboration and site-specificity. Beginning with a brief overview of the development of the curatorial field, both key strategies will be examined. With relevant theoretical frameworks applied for purposes of expansion and critical reflection, this discussion will result in a better understanding of the practice of historic site curation as a whole.
 
Development in Brief
Strictly speaking, curation within a historic site is defined as the action of an art curator to conceptualise and organise an exhibition or contemporary art project within a building, site, or space that has designated historic value. Despite the appearance of clarity in the above definition, it is difficult to present an all-encompassing overview of the emergence of the trend towards curation at or within historic sites. This context for contemporary art exhibition is under-researched, owing in part to an absence of dialogue around curatorial work and practice, and to its relative newness as a platform outside the gallery. Records of artistic activity at heritage sites are fragmentary at best, and most information archived online only extends to the mid-2000s. This is not to say that curatorial activity only began in earnest around that time, but rather that earlier records are inaccessible or non-existent. While the United Kingdom is represented by exhibition information recorded by governing bodies like The National Trust, sites in other nations are not always covered by such frameworks, making contemporary art and heritage collaborations more difficult to identify. As such, the discussion of development according to the present research begins in the mid-1990s, and predominantly focuses on the United Kingdom.
One of the earliest examples of contemporary art curation at a designated historic site occurred in 1993 with Ha-Ha at Killerton Park near Exeter. It was followed by Judith King's Living at Belsay, held at Belsay Park, Castle and Gardens near Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. This became the first in a series of six exhibitions to date by King at the English Heritage-run Belsay, resulting in one of the longest running, and most successful curatorial-historic partnerships in the UK. Two years following King's first exhibition, the Elizabeth Bay House in New South Wales, Australia, began a programme of contemporary art exhibitions encouraging site-specificity, featuring guest curators and commissioned works. For the third show in the series, Ten[d]ancy (2006), the artists were selected based on the situation of their practice outside the space of the gallery[iii] This concept of removal from a traditional art space is rooted in the advent of postmodern performance and community-based art in the 1960s and 1970s. Artists and collective groups like Fluxus began to question the gallery as an appropriate space for engagement, resulting in the emergence of a trend towards external exhibition.[iv] The concept of community impact also became important at this time, with community referring to segments of the public underexposed to the institutions of high art.[v]
In the late 1990s, several curators aligned themselves with this line of thought, including Barbara Vanderlinden. She stated in 1999 that a declining interest in the rigid structures of permanent exhibition spaces like galleries was the defining characteristic of the current generation of curators.[vi] Maia Damianovic confirmed Vanderlinden's opinion, suggesting that from her own curatorial perspective, neutral white spaces had become less and less suitable for interaction with innovative art, as the works are removed from the 'messiness' of unique and specific situations.[vii]
The revelation that these two curators had a desire to take art out of the gallery emerged simultaneously with a noticeable increase in the number of exhibitions and projects taking place at historic sites, perhaps as larger numbers of independent curators sought alternative venues in which to practice. The early years of the millennium saw the creation of the Beacon Art Project, which has been prolific in the organisation and curation of exhibitions in rural Lincolnshire. MeadowArts, another UK curatorial collective which emerged just before Beacon in 2002, has produced numerous exhibitions at a variety of heritage sites. The two organisations seek to bring high-quality contemporary art to areas where few other facilities exist, partnering with historic buildings to create new audiences and encourage partnerships between the arts and cultural heritage sectors. [viii][ix]
Perhaps the most high-profile use of a historic location for the exhibition of contemporary art has been that of the Palace of Versailles. Beginning with Jeff Koons in 2008, Versailles has hosted exhibitions of Takashi Murakami, Xavier Veilhan, Bernar Venet, and most recently, Joana Vasconcelos. While the French government has contributed some funding, the majority has been received through corporate and private sponsorship[x]. With the added consideration that the palace provides a large pool of tourists as a new art viewership, it is clear that the benefits of this kind of exhibition have significance beyond government cultural policy requirements. Curator Laurent Le Bon states that when juxtaposed with the surrounding architectural structure, contemporary artistic work makes possible a different perception of the ever-changing reality of the monument.[xi] Although these exhibitions were largely presented as retrospectives of work in a new environment rather than responsive commissions, the importance of the relationship to site remains present. Commissions may be used by curators to bring forward a concept intrinsically connected to the chosen site, while existing works are used to draw attention to the commonalities or differentiations between ideas or aesthetics that were demonstrably manifested before installation at a specific site, thus illustrating the ever-connected nature of culture.
Presently, contemporary art exhibitions at historic sites may take place at internationally recognised monuments like Versailles, be staged by individually managed sites, or fall into larger strategies for collaboration like the National Trust's New Art scheme, established in 2009. Whatever the setting, they are increasing in number, necessitating discussion about the curatorial approaches that define them. The strategies of collaboration and site-specificity stand out as major factors differentiating curation within historic locations from other exhibition platforms like the gallery, or intervention into the public sphere.
 
Curatorial Collaboration
The absence of the specific infrastructure of the gallery is an inevitable part of any curatorial project taking place outside contemporary institutions and art museums. For individuals staging exhibitions at heritage venues, this absence is acutely felt, as the curator may not necessarily hold the highest position of control. While gallery curators may be required to fall in line with its mission or collection, those in historic sites are also limited by the specific connotations of the site, and leading figures who may be unaccustomed to contemporary art. Curators at historic sites are of course required to work with artists, but also consult with heritage officials and organising bodies, funders, and in some cases, the opinionated public. The Beacon Art Project's curators find that working directly with property managers has aided in the creation of their most successful exhibitions, and during MeadowArts' Tell it to the Trees, held at Croft Castle in 2009, the property manager was consulted on all aspects of the exhibition, including the selection of artists.[xii] Collaboration is a characteristic that has proved necessary in these past curatorial projects, and will doubtless continue to do so in those to come.
As in other exhibitionary contexts, curators here act as the middleman between artist and viewer, but also between artist and heritage site, fulfilling the role of the mediator suggested by Andreasen and Larsen.[xiii] Traditionally conceived as heroic problem-solvers, mediators engage in negotiation to minimise conflict and facilitate cooperation between two parties.[xiv] Due to the importance and interest in the commissioning of new work to respond directly to sites, artists may occasionally conceptualise works that are be limited by the requirements of preservation or health and safety policies. Curators must think about these issues during the commissioning process, and indeed, during the planning of the exhibition as a whole, facing more limitations than would be present in a prepared gallery. These activities, while representing the practical, rather than the theoretical or aesthetic aspect of staging an exhibition are still important in the consideration of the collaborative lengths curators must go to in these locations.
The curatorial strategy of collaboration occurs most significantly between the figure of the curator and the officials and governing body responsible for a particular site, as curators must explain and defend their intentions, as well as acting as representatives of the artists involved. While practicalities exist here as well, an intellectual exchange of ideas is evident, lending a dichotomous quality to the idea of 'collaboration.' Within it, the concepts of practical collaboration and collaborative practice – both of which are present and significant in historic site curation – are separated. From the perspective of the site, contemporary art exhibitions present several valuable opportunities. Events are seen as a means to make the character, history and atmosphere unique to the property available to a wider audience.[xv] Heightened visibility, lively engagement with the past, partnership building, and general revitalisation are all stated benefits for these sites, and the increasing number of exhibitions indicates that they are being used to advantage.[xvi] Curators cooperate to ensure that installations are advertised to audiences, meet health and safety standards, and do not interfere with areas of the site subject to preservation.
While the governing bodies of historic sites are aware of, and keen to participate in practical partnerships with curators to produce mutually beneficial exhibitions, they also form an integral part of the collaborative practice that characterises this unique curatorial platform. The sites themselves form the basis of an inter-connected, heritage-based community whether they fall under a management organisation, or are privately-owned attractions. Many sites are also integral to the cultural fabric of the local region, becoming symbolic of a particular area. As such, the inclusion of the curator, usually coming in from beyond a group of dedicated staff at a given location, may be considered a step into community art. Although some heritage sites are also museums – presenting permanent collections – they are not purpose-built or adapted for the exhibition of contemporary art. Neither may they be considered purely public areas; most are open to the public, but are controlled as well as being subject to the selective interest of visitors. Instead, they form a niche environment situated between the museum, public space, and the private sphere, which values and considers the opinions of the public at large in the formation of exhibitions.[xvii] 
Curators then, must cooperate with community members who become informants and participants in the curatorial process.[xviii] Most often, these 'community members' are officials or staff members of the sites, some of whom, like those employed at National Trust sites, are encouraged through the organisation's training literature to think about how events fit in to the 'spirit' of their respective property.[xix] Some exhibitions, like Tell it to the Trees include staff members in the planning and selection process, as curators partner with them to choose and commission works that resonate with the site in a way that is true to its history.[xx] Even where this kind of cooperation with individuals does not take place, interaction between the curator and the physical fabric of the site may also be considered a form of collaborative practice. Taction between the desire of the curator to produce a contextually meaningful exhibition of work, and the unavoidable historic realities of the site results in a figurative conversation. The outcome inevitably affects the exhibition itself, just as it affects the curator.
With these considerations, Grant Kester's conception of community art becomes useful as a tool for analysis of the aspect of collaboration within historic site curation. For Kester:
"Community arts projects are often centred on an exchange between an artist (who is viewed as creatively, intellectually, financially, and institutionally empowered), and a given subject who is defined a priori as in need of empowerment or access to creative/expressive skills. Thus the “community” in community-based public art often, although not always, refers to individuals marked as culturally, economically, or socially different from the artist." [xxi]
In this case, the characteristics of Kester's 'artist' may be applied to the curator, who also engages in expressive artistic practice, producing and conceptualising exhibitions rather than an oeuvre of artworks. The interchangeability of the artist-curator title in this example is confirmed when the relevance of his description of the 'subject' community to the historic site is also acknowledged. The community, according to this definition, inherently lacks the creative skills and empowerment necessary to successfully represent itself in an art project. Incidentally, contemporary curatorial projects are named as a means by which historic sites requiring revitalisation and the renewal of relevance for modern audiences may achieve these aims.[xxii] Thus, the curators behind such projects fill the role of Kester's empowered individual, deriving authority and the permission to speak on the behalf of the historic site. Through curatorial collaboration, an exhibition is able to say something meaningful about the site, with the specific parallels drawn between the exhibited work and history grant 'moral equivalence.'[xxiii]  When the curator understands, and credits a historic site with an exhibition that recalls, or calls into new light its historic elements through contrast, they satisfy the interests of both parties; artist and community.
This form of collaboration between public history and contemporary art builds on the work of the situationist and interventionist figures in the art world who have long sought to confound viewer expectations of where and how work is displayed.[xxiv] Just as Duchamp's Fountain challenged the established idea of the fine art object, the hanging of artworks outside the designated space of the gallery represents a shift. It is participatory in nature, allowing for input from several corners beyond the singular figure of the curator, despite the latter's eventual attainment of authority. According to Claire Bishop, participatory art, 'instead of supplying the market with commodities, is perceived to channel art's symbolic capital towards constructive social change.'[xxv] The aim of historic site curation to bring contemporary art to new locations – creating the potential for impact on new audiences – fits with this use of art to achieve social change. Critical thinking on the part of the audience is a commonly stated goal of public history organisations, who attempt to encourage visitors to move beyond the search for a single authoritative past, and toward an understanding of a fluid, participatory history.[xxvi]
These collaborative elements help to differentiate the form of contemporary curatorial practice at historic sites from of other platforms for the exhibition of art. Curating at historic locations has the ability to provide striking, memorable images that possess the power to provoke new considerations of the past in viewers, and for this, reference to place is essential.[xxvii] While both collaborative practice and practical collaboration characterise the experience of the curator, they must also be considered alongside a second key strategy of site-specificity.
 
Significance of Site-Specificity
 By its nature as a singular place, a given heritage site is accompanied by a sense of distinctiveness that presents the curator with unique possibilities. Variety is essential when planning any programme of gallery-based exhibitions in order to minimise repetition of ideas, subject matter, or artistic style. However, in these cases, the gallery as a place is not generally implicated in the conception of an installation. By contrast, the associations of the space, and thus site-specific or relational artworks, are inherent to curatorial practice at historic sites. An examination of theoretical perspectives on place and a discussion of examples of such work from various exhibitions reveals the significance of site-specificity as a curatorial strategy.
As a general definition, according to Lucy Lippard, place is a text of humanity, an 'intersection' of nature, culture, history and ideology, and the resonation of a specific and known location.[xxviii] For Lippard, the uprooting of lives from specific local cultures in modern times has led to feelings of alienation for some, and following that, attempts to reconnect and repair the loss of a sense of place.[xxix] Miwon Kwon attributes this to increasing globalisation and the rise of telecommunications.[xxx] In a world where individuals are increasingly  reminded of their closeness and similarity, there is a movement towards the rediscovery of difference. For Kwon, these efforts:
"become heavily invested in reconnecting to uniqueness of place – or more precisely, in establishing authenticity of meaning, memory, histories and identities as a differential function of places. This differential function associated with places, which earlier forms of site-specific art tried to exploit, and which current incarnations of site-oriented works seek to reimagine, is the hidden attractor in the term “site-specificity.” The nomadism of artists in recent site-oriented practices can be viewed as symptomatic of the dynamics of deterritorialisation.[xxxi]
As with Kester, Kwon's 'artist' also describes the practicing curator who moves out of the gallery and into a location that better possesses this sense of place. Through their curatorial activities, they situate and aid in the creation of site-specific art, 'an art that reveals new depths of a place to engage the viewer […], rather than abstracting that place into generalisations that apply just as well to any other.'[xxxii]
According to artist Daniel Buren, writing about the influence of architectural surroundings on artworks, every place radically imbues an object shown there with its meaning.[xxxiii] For Buren, the white cube aims to make the artwork autonomous by eliminating all distractions of the eye, but only serves to alienate it from the context of the architectural frame in a detrimental manner.[xxxiv] This concept relates to Lippard's assertion that interest in site-specificity stems from a sense of loss of place within the world that is just as applicable to curators as artists. It also indicates that the choice of curators to abandon the gallery in favour of historic sites is representative of an underlying desire to reach and communicate something specific. Buren continues in his exploration of siting, stating that art is unable to completely break away from the surrounding environment, which includes the social, political and economic contexts outside of the immediate exhibition space.[xxxv] He concludes that place should not be taken for granted in the exhibition of artworks, rather that showing what a work will imply in a given place, and what the place itself implies as a result of the work, are important considerations.[xxxvi] While Buren speaks from the perspective of an artist creating individual site-specific works, the curator considers how these works will be considered from an external position; they draw the connections between the visual/conceptual and the surrounding site, and ensure that they are apparent to viewers.
Increasingly in the last several decades, working curators have turned to site-specific practice as a means to immerse the viewer in a combination of art-and-environment, at times crossing divisions of experience, space and time.[xxxvii] Historic sites themselves confess that an engagement with place results in a more valuable experience for visitors, and promotes a more responsive attitude.[xxxviii] The relative frequency with which curators commission works to respond directly to the social or historical associations of a location also indicates the significance of site-specific practice; these artworks converse with the past with the full knowledge of a viewer who is then able to do the same. The dialogue that occurs between viewers and the history accessed through site-specific works fulfils one of the central benefits of this exhibition type, cited by both curators and representatives of historic sites; to enable audiences to interpret and experience history in new ways.
Through the curatorial choices displayed in a contemporary art exhibition at a historic location, visitors are encouraged to think about the past in relation to the present. This kind of historic thinking involves the use of heuristics in which curators themselves must also engage. The historic building or structure itself is the central physical element of a historic site, and acts as an artefact to be read and interpreted.[xxxix] When artworks framed by an overarching theme or curatorial vision are added, they become separate layers of text to be compared with their surroundings. As they are shown in direct connection with the past, the risk of uncritical aestheticisation is lower than in a conventional fine art setting, making these site-specific heuristics particular to curation within historic sites.[xl] The heuristic methods used by curators, artists and visitors alike include: origination, stratification, supposition and empathic insight.[xli] Respectively, these enable discernment of the multiple factors involved in a building's origin; identification of multiple levels of time to locate elements in proper context; the hypothesisation of reasons for existence behind items of physical evidence; and a consideration of the affective factors acting upon and within a historical element.[xlii] Evidence that these and other tools are used by curators for the obtainment of a site-specific historical consciousness may be seen in the exhibitions themselves, through historically resonant works both selected and commissioned. As an example, Ten[d]ancy, held at Australia's Elizabeth Bay house, saw the curators consider the colonial past of the building, as well as its aesthetic heritage, as a conception point for the exhibition. In addition to this usage of the origination heuristic, the curators also stratified, considering multiple periods of the house's history in order to draw connections to their idea of artists as interlopers. The heuristic that is perhaps most clear in any historic site exhibition is that of empathic insight, as curators, artists, and visitors think about the historic events or influences that have acted on a site through revelations from the artworks. While the examples of these usages are many, reference may only be made to a small selection for the sake of brevity.
The exemplary Beacon Art Project, which has engaged in a series of largely commissioned exhibitions at historic locations since 2002 (including Scion at Barrington Court, Profusion at Calke Abbey, No Place Like Home, and Sense of Place: Place of Sense, each held at multiple heritage sites throughout Lincolnshire), holds site-specificity at the utmost importance. Each of these projects featured a large percentage of new works, with the latter two comprised of them exclusively.  After selecting heritage buildings, curator John Plowman then considers which artists will be best suited to both site and curatorial remit.[xliii] Beacon is not interested in 'parachuting' work into a site without consideration of its history, citing early and frequent visits as crucial to both the development of commissions, and familiarisation of artists placing existing works within the exhibition site.[xliv]
For exhibitions where curators do not commission new place-responsive works, site-specificity nevertheless remains a key strategy. With his high-profile Versailles exhibitions comprised mostly of existing works, curator Laurent Le Bon sought to provide insight into a place that visitors thought they already knew, revealing its complexity, substance, and stratification.[xlv] Works by Koons and Murakami were compared and contrasted with the classical decorative schemes of the state rooms, drawing attention to the mythological and historic influences that acted on the palace when it was occupied.[xlvi] When visitors were confronted with the unexpected artworks, it resulted in the opening of internal dialogues in which they attempted to reconcile or separate the two. Without the insertion of contemporary artworks led by a curator, Versailles would be taken as a straightforward relic of pre-revolutionary France, rather than carefully considered in terms of changing social norms exposed by visible changes in artistic expression. Le Bon encouraged visitors to decide whether the works echoed, reflected, or acted in opposition to the values represented by Versailles, and noted that as a former 'field of experiments for the most audacious creations,' it deserved to be a part of contemporary artistic expression.[xlvii]
That historic places are thought to deserve attention and revitalisation through art is an interesting concept. It denotes their significance as potential contributors to the discussion and interpretation of art, and implies that as textual objects, they possess inherent value when read. The contemporary curatorial practice of exhibiting at these locations, and making use of site-specificity as a distinctive strategy differentiates them from other platforms for art. Historic sites are singled out as a collection of unique possibilities for new artistic exploration through the past.
As an under-researched area, there is a vast potential for additional inquiry into contemporary art curation at historic sites. However, after even a brief look into the field, the significance of both collaboration and site-specificity as curatorial strategies particular to this avenue is clear. Curators working here must communicate with artists, officials and the public alike, and give special consideration to the connotations of the individual heritage location. Through the theoretical and practical examination of these two strategic elements, a fuller picture of the historic site as a base for exhibition emerged. The neutral, art-creating environment of the gallery is replaced with a site for art that is imbued by various strata containing people, other places and things, all of which dialogue with the work to establish connections and new viewpoints. The curator may commission works that directly reference aspects of the site, or select seemingly disparate pieces which draw attention to the differences between exhibited objects and environment. Whether the former, latter, or a combined approach is taken, the curator facilitates engagement and dialogue which subsequently allow visitors to visualise divergent artistic and historic paths through time, and to identify the thought processes which may unite them. While connections and shared-values between a site and an installation are clear in some cases, curators may present challenging juxtapositions in others. Vasty different from the gallery – with its 'artifying' quality – historic site curation allows for a greater degree of questioning as to what objects are able to communicate in a space, and what makes them works of art. In turn, the curator at such a site is characterised as a figure moving beyond the traditional institution in order to pursue the opportunities for art presented by the complications of history in context.This area of curating then, represents a nearly limitless field of potential, as those who choose to engage with it continuously seek new ways to forge connections between the unique artwork and the unique site.
 
 
[i] Brian O'Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, (London: University of   California Press, 1986), p. 14.
[ii] Ibid, 15.
[iii] Sally Breen and Tania Doropoulos, “Ten[d]acy,” Historic Houses Trust, accessed 20 October, 2012, http://www.hht.net.au/discover/highlights/insites/tendancy.
[iv]   Grant H. Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art, (London: University of California Press, 2004), p. 125.
[v]    Ibid, p. 126.
[vi]   Barbara Vanderlinden, as cited in Claire Doherty, “Out of Here: Curating Beyond the Edifice,” in Gavin Wade (ed.), Curating in the 21st Century, (Walsall: The University of Wolverhampton, 2000), p. 105.
[vii]   Maia Damianovic, as cited in Claire Doherty, “Out of Here: Curating Beyond the Edifice,” in Gavin Wade (ed.), Curating in the 21st Century, (Walsall: The University of Wolverhampton, 2000), p. 105.
[viii]   John Plowman. Beacon: Artists Joy Sleeman, David Lillington, John Plowman, (Great Britain: Beacon, 2004), p. 2.
[ix]   MeadowArts, “About,” MeadowArts, accessed 23 October, 2012, http://www.meadowarts.org/page.php?Plv=2&P1=&P2=3.
[x]    N.B. Funding information is available on each major exhibition website. Major funders include Mobilier National, Xerox, Beaux Arts Magazine, France 2, Télérama, etc.
[xi]   Laurent Le Bon and Elena Geuna, “Presentation by the Curators of the Exhibition,” Jeff Koons Versailles, accessed 24 October, 2012, http://www.jeffkoonsversailles.com/en/.
[xii]   John Plowman and Nicola Streeten, personal correspondence to the author, 28 October, 2012; Arts Council England, “Trust New Art: Tell it to the Trees, Croft Castle,” Arts Council England, 2011, accessed 23 October, 2012, http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/funded-projects/case-studies/trust-new-art-tell-it-to-the-trees-croft-castle/.
[xiii]   Andreasen and Larsen, p. 27.
[xiv]  Ibid, p. 27.
[xv]   Catherine MacCarthy, Caroline Cotgrove, Fiona Macalister and Nettie Cook, “Events: Planning and Protection,” in Andrew Oddy (ed.),The National Trust Manual of Housekeeping: The Care of Collections in Historic Houses Open to the Public, (London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005), 723.
[xvi]  Cathy Stanton, “Outside the Frame: Assessing Partnerships Between Arts and Historical Organizations,” The Public Historian 27, no. 1 (Winter, 2005), p. 29; Howarth and O'Reilly, p. 12.
[xvii]  Arts Council England, “Tell it to the Trees.”
[xviii]  Mary Jane Jacob, “Making Space for Art,” in Paula Marincola (ed.), What Makes a Great Exhibition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 140.
[xix]  MacCarthy et al., p. 723.
[xx]   Arts Council England, “Tell it to the Trees.”
[xxi]  Kester, p. 137.
[xxii]  N.B. The use of the word 'revitalisation,' and mention of new interpretation through contemporary art may be found in numerous written documentations and case studies of exhibitions, including: Tell it to the Trees at Croft Castle; Promenade at Kedleston Hall; and museumaker, various sites. These concepts may also be found in the mission statements of curators: MeadowArts, Judith King, the Beacon Art Project and Trust New Art.
[xxiii]  Kester, p. 149.
[xxiv] Stanton, p. 23.
[xxv]  Bishop, p. i. 
[xxvi] Stanton, p. 28.
[xxvii] Ibid, p. 28.
[xxviii] Lippard, 7.
[xxix] Ibid, p. 7.
[xxx]  Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, (London: The MIT Press, 2002), p. 157.
[xxxi] Ibid, p. 157.
[xxxii] Lippard, p. 262.
[xxxiii] Daniel Buren, “Function of Architecture: Notes on Work in Connections With the Places Where it is   Installed Taken Between 1967 and 1975, Some of Which are Specially Summarized Here,” in Reesa Greenberg, Bruce W. Ferguson and Sandy Nairne, (eds.),Thinking About Exhibitions, (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 315.
[xxxiv] Ibid, p. 316.
[xxxv] Ibid, p. 319.
[xxxvi] Ibid, p. 315.
[xxxvii] Jacob, p.136.
[xxxviii] David Baker, “Contexts for Collaboration and Conflict,” in Gill Chitty and David Baker (eds.), Managing Historic Sites and Buildings: Reconciling Presentation and Preservation, (Routledge in association with English Heritage: London, 1999), p. 14.
[xxxix] Christine Baron, “Understanding Historical Thinking at Historic Sites,” Journal of Educational Psychology 104, no. 3 (2012), pp. 834, 845.
[xl] Stanton, p. 33.
[xli] Baron, p. 844.
[xlii] Ibid, p. 844.
[xliii] John Plowman and Nicola Streeten, personal correspondence to the author, 28 October, 2012.
[xliv] Plowman and Streeten.
[xlv] Laurent Le Bon and Elena Geuna, “Presentation by the Curators of the Exhibition,” Jeff Koons Versailles,   accessed 24 October, 2012, http://www.jeffkoonsversailles.com/en/.
[xlvi] Laurent Le Bon, “Murakami Versailles,” Château de Versailles, 2010, accessed 28 December 2012,           http://en.chateauversailles.fr/index.php option=com_cdvfiche&view=cdvchapitre&template=blank&idr=4028A278-9490-AAA2-23BD-969CF32A1C61&idc=BC34C6D8-D61E-9849-D601-77977BC22A0B.
[xlvii]  Le Bon, “Murakami Versailles.”