You Are Not a Curator
Posted in Individualism, Presentism on 09. Mar, 2010
The Information Superabundance. It flows all around us and drowns us. It saturates our increasingly mobile computers. It follows us around through our increasingly powerful phones. It engorges our still-infuriating television. It invades more and more space.
It managed to turn the music industry inside out. It turned the film industry into a paranoid delusional inmate. It scares the living daylights out of the newspaper and journalism industry. It has proved the fiction publishing industry to be delightfully stubborn.
In response to the Superabundance, the buzzword has become “curator”. There’s too much stuff and even that stuff is being repeated so how do we get to the good stuff? Well, curators just select stuff, don’t they? We need curators to sort this stuff out for us. The definition of a curator is becoming mutated. So, I’ve come up with the carefully designed test.
Ask yourself: Am I a curator?
The correct answer is: If you had to ask yourself that, you are not a curator.
You are, at best, a filter. You may make a name for yourself by excelling at some kind of selection process, but you are not a curator. “Curator” does not mean “I have good taste”. That just makes you some kind of fleshy gauze for the rest of us. The good come to us whilst all the pus and snot that came through your information media streams stay on your side. You are a makeshift step before a more advanced algorithm is invented.
Also, anyone calling themselves a “curator” when it is clear that they are dealing in merchandise should have their thumbs removed. You are not trying to fool us into believing that your job is anything outside marketing, branding and selling. Be proud of what you do without assigning the make-believe title of “curator” to sound more important. You have not reached some cultural apex through the range of shoes you have on offer. You are not a Connoisseur of a Stock-Take.
You Are Not a Curator. Don’t worry, there’s no shame. Just keep repeating it to yourself. You aren’t an editor of a newspaper by just simply choosing what articles to print. You aren’t an army general by simply shouting, “Charge”. So an inflated sense of worth in your Pick ‘n’ Mix does not a curator make.
I have becoming increasingly frustrated by the nonsense being stuck to the term “Curator” because people struggle to find the word for “Someone (Else) to Sort Through This Rubbish”. I still maintain that a curator, a job with actual skills, is starting to be abused by people from industries notorious for abusing definitions. This is why I sometimes despair at my Museopunk group when they start straying into territory that I covered in the Death of the Curator articles and calling it punk. It’s all well and good to get lots of involvement from your visitors/users/patrons/etc. but if you don’t have it based around an honest-to-God curator, do you know what you end up with?
Reality television. Prove me wrong. Very high participation from an audience who get to crowdsource the answers/outcomes/selections to the most base and voyeuristic products of the underculture.
I believe an antidote to this may well be Nina Simon’s new book, THE PARTICIPATORY MUSEUM. At the very centre of everything Nina says in this book is the curator (or more specifically, museum staff) as facilitator, designer and collaborator. Not just a presenter, as I fear curators will become when someone thinks participation means voting for favourites.
I warn you again; there needs to be a proper handle on curatorship before others start claiming it or misrepresenting it (I’m looking at you, U.S. NEWS). The very notion of a museums is integrated with the action of analytical thought. We go to museums to define ourselves, the world and the civilisation around us. If the curator is devalued cheapened through this woolly thinking then museums could lose all respect as cultural bastions. When I asked what the most important function of curators was, we saw how complex and varied the job was and not a single person said “selecting“.
Great article, but I think it would be more persuasive if you provided a definition of the word “curator,” as you see it.
I’m more than happy with the large wordle as my answer. It’s the last link, but here it is http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/1139337/Most_Important_Function_of_Curators
I think I also said “To provide meaning” at the beginning of it all.
You are a curator.
Only a curator would write “You Are Not a Curator. Don’t worry, there’s no shame.”
No one but a curator would imagine someone being worried or ashamed of not being a curator.
I agree that there is a pathology in the notion that being a curator is primarily a function of selection. In this sense, curator is just a euphemism for consumer.
I would take issue, however, with the suggestion that if I have to ask myself whether I am a curator, than I am not one.
http://www.google.com/search?q=selecting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Curator definition: ” Your browser doesn’t seem to understand the APPLET tag. You need to install and enable the Java plugin. ”
grin. :)
@Xensen – Only a curator can point out that tumblr isn’t a job.
@Jeff – How many articles have you read recently that said somehting along the lines of “Can a X be a Curator?” I think the last one I saw said something about bloggers and DJs. A professional curator doesn’t have such issues about what they are because they’re doing the job.
@Maria – Explain?
@Karl – Yeah, I know. I hate Java. The thumbnail is here though.
http://newcurator.com/2009/09/most-important-function-of-curators-part-iii-mifc/
I hadn’t actually come across such uses of the term curator (as presenter, etc) – I’m quite glad to say, that the notion short circuits my brain…
Interesting thoughts.
I suggest a counter-strategy, though. Rather than saying to those who excel at using their creative judgment to apply an interesting structure to the flood of information “Thou Art Not A Curator”, I’d suggest that we try to find a name for that role.
I suspect that the word “curator” gets used through some combination of factors: the lack of a more specific, appropriate term; some of what a “filter” does approximates a subset of what actual curators do; it sounds respectable to the people who would give themselves that label (as well as their audiences).
But, honestly, “filter” doesn’t work any better than “curator” to describe this role, as it is too mechanistic and leaves out the creative judgment involved. Those who make collections are performing a creative act, one that is unlikely to be replaced by a “smarter” algorithm. (Sure, Pandora does a passable job of the role of DJ by using a distance function to compare the values of a fixed set of attributes to suggest that if you liked X you might also like Y, but such systems are incapable of discovering new attributes for themselves and, bluntly, will never “understand” that song X and song Y have a similar emotional tone– something a good DJ knows on day-one).
I’m really not clear why a definition matters, but perhaps by that very point I’ve just proved that I’m not one of whatever it is you define “curator” to be. Roles and definitions twist, stretch and change over time, and never mean very much anyway. Maybe “curators” (whoever they are) should be *pleased* that they’re getting some media time? Maybe Kevin Kelly can help? http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/02/the_bottom_is_n.php.
Either way, I personally quite like the term and intend to continue “abusing” it by talking about events being “curated by” various people: http://bathcamp.ning.com/events. Works for me.
@Ubu – Why do they need a name? Whatever happened to them just being called “interesting”? I like listening to interesting people. I like knowing what interesting people like.
@Mike – I remember a quote along the line of “Citizen journalism is like citizen dentistry”. A neologism was created with definition that simply perverted the original concept. People start defining nonsense titles when people who are real pros in that area have to shake their head in disbelief. I put in the same category as doctors with fake qualifications. It’s quackery that undermines the good work of others.
@Pete
Only because it is evident that people want a name for that role. If “curator” doesn’t work (and I don’t think it does) then there needs to be an alternative. Expecting people to see a role (definable behavior, people who exhibit common properties) and not give it a name is a non-starter.
@Pete – I think that KK piece is worth a read, as it does a good job IMO in helping to refine the various roles of authors/editors/others and how they all fit into the mix. I’m not sure elitism is the answer, though, in the same way that “everyone is a journo/dentist” clearly isn’t an answer either
@Pete – just thought that while things are getting defined (or not) those results were funny.
Not to go sportyspice on you, but this seems like one of those linguistic phenomena where a word floats up like a ball in the grandstands and gets floated around by the crowd.
Will it land back in museums?
I like that you are doing your best to move it in that direction. I also think that we are the only ones that really care, and it will come back eventually. Tired whore that it will be.
I definitely agree with your assertion that trained curators need to redefine the roles and responsibilities of the profession. And it isn’t just the “masses” who are guilty of this, many museums have used this terminology as well.
Great post. I’m studying how traditional print culture influences knowledge institutions (like museums)…. and how digital culture influences (and will influence) them over time. I enjoy reading the conversation.
Elitism?
The web culture is quick to assimilate words. I agree that the word ‘curator’ has been used too loosely. However, the cure might be to talk more about what it means.
Real “curation” is an act of creation of its own: not just “selecting” things, but being part of the context in which these things are created and having a fully-formed intellectual worldview that allows the curator to engage in an act of expression that is often as rich as the works they choose to present.
A curator establishes relationships between objects and ideas. A curator puts things into a cultural context. A curator expresses their own cultural background.
If you go to an art show, it is often helpful to know who the curator is. While a show could be experienced in a valid way without knowing about the curator’s worldview, it is arguably enhanced by such understanding.
Where does that leave us? Some people probably are good curators of some things in the context of the web and digital culture. Most probably are not.
I suspect the good curators will become evident over the course of time, and will be worthy of the title. The rest will be editors, filters, and choosers, and it should be equally obvious who they are.
If this were not true, then Digg would be an engine for curation, which it clearly is not.
Very interesting. It seems like some of these issues are more prominent in some fields than in others. What about “keepers” and “collections managers?” In some places the word “curator” has very specific meanings that are not standard across the board.
Isn’t the curator nomenclature cat already out of the bag?
Once every Web-based (or print-based) “it” kid (and Shaq!) became a “curator” the term essentially was devalued.
Similarly, any dope can call themselves an “exhibit designer” but that doesn’t mean I’d want to work with them on a project.
At the end of the day, I just want to know if someone has a track record of “delivering the goods” — whatever they call themselves.
http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/newspin.cfm
Another way of thinking of it–you are not a punk. Just a thought. ;)
Mr. Troy is spot on with his definition. Coming from an art background, that has always been my understanding of what being a “curator” is. Is any of this going to stop people from calling themselves a “Curator”, if they don’t really fit the description? Probably not. It happens in all walks of life, so why would the “curator be immune?
Like anything else, there will be “skilled” curators and “not so skilled” curators. The job well done always speaks for itself.
P.S. I could call myself a “Wedding Cake” if I wanted to. Anyone who would hire me a such, would find out pretty quickly that I may not be a very good one……
Curator is a good English (or Anglo-French) word that has been used continuously in the more general sense that you deplore for six hundred years — it is not a recent phenomenon.
Is it possible to separate the noun from the verb? Can you curate something without being a curator? An earlier comment suggested that Shaq curating an exhibition is the demise of curators, but I don’t think that is the same thing. Shaq isn’t a curator, merely a person of interest who curated a show.
I find my own attitude somewhat ironic because when it comes to art, and what can be classified as art, I pretty much go by the concept that if some ones says what they created is art, then it’s art. It may be terrible or stupid or terrific but it’s still art. I’m pretty adamant about that when talking about art with folks who don’t like certain types of artwork. But I’m much more protective of the word “curator” — although a lot less than I used to be. And one is a thing (art) and one is a job (curator) so they are different. But still, I’m kind of surprised at myself for having two different sorts of reactions to the use of the words.
Amen! This has been driving me increasingly mad lately. Here’s to calling such silly people filters instead!
@Dave Troy – Really good point. There will always be a range of… talent? Ability? The problem for me is when these anti-curators start getting more recognition then professional curators and cause a real paradigm shift.
@Genevieve – True. The job remit can be flexible, but we can assume that “curator” is that profession at the vanguard of museum work. Collection managers, to me, tend to be experts in the “backroom” side of things that enable museums to do their work. Yeah, in a lot of places this can be one person.
@Paul – Yeah, it may be too late. I would like its still worth reacting to though.
@Tristan – I’ve been speaking to Elizabeth Schlatter a lot recently. That article influenced my reasons to write this.
@Kua – I made this point on twitter, in the difference between journalism being affected by “social journalism” or “citizen journalism” and what’s happening with curators and museums. It will do something very odd to museums is because museums are not structured as a mass-media. Newspapers, television, music survive on big numbers and were undone by fractures in the status quo. I wonder if the “Museum industry” is big enough to go through such a similar change and remain anything like the same.
@xensen – I would like to think I believe in progress
@Morgan – Shaq didn’t curate a damn thing. He put his name to a show and probably said, “Yup, I like all of that”. There’s also some level of expertise required, isn’t there? Make it hard to separate the verb, the noun and the knowledge.
@Elizabeth – Hello there. Is it because responsibility and trust is part of a curator’s skillset, which can’t be bounded around so easily?
Museums rely on celebrity “curators” because the name of the person makes it exciting to the public. You get to see some stuff on display, but what you REALLY want to see is some insight into this person whose name you hear all the time. It’s not about the objects, it’s about learning about a person.
Isn’t the whole museum object display thing about learning about people/culture/history/how we classify the world? (I would refer you to the book Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads here… it talks about how people started classifying and displaying objects in natural history museums).
So I would put it to you this way. Curators-proper should think about why celebrity “curators” are such a draw, in their “celebrity.” Can museum curators stop being so behind-the-scenes and create the REAL transparency between curator and visitor that people imagine they are getting from having a “curator” they read about in tabloids “curate” a show?
Just like people want to know the history of the artists whose art they look at (why did they paint that? etc) I think people would like to know more about why curators and other museum employees choose certain things to research… why they choose to word things in one way and not the other… how they have personally interacted with the pieces (did they order conservation efforts for a certain object? had they done field work in that geographic area? do they have some unique theories?)I think museums try to be “the institution” and not THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCENES and people relate to people, not to objects and not to edifices…that’s why the average person just thinks museum exhibits “appear” and doesn’t think about the people who make it possible. The average person does not know/care what the definition of curator is AND I AGREE THAT THAT IS A NEGATIVE THING.
But we don’t tell them any differently. By keeping curators safely in the background (“pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”), we open the word up to be anyone’s.
Just out “Rethinking Curating”:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12071
Anyone seen it?
Pete, thank you. This is such an important conversation and I’m glad that someone is finally being a gadfly.
I know, enough already but…
“Traditionally, a curator or keeper of a cultural heritage institution (e.g., gallery, museum, or archive) is a content specialist responsible for an institution’s collections.”
–
“Wayfinding encompasses all of the ways in which people and animals orient themselves in physical space and navigate from place to place.”
–
“Editing is the process of selecting and preparing language, images, sound, video, or film through processes of correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media.”
- Wikipedia
You complain that the definition of a curator is being mutated yet you won’t define what a curator is or does.
Your wordie doesn’t reveal anything that would separate the real experts from the imitators.
And all of the quotes on ‘the functions of curators’ page equally apply to the best of the online curators that you feel aren’t qualified to use the term.
“Online curators”. If we want to talk about terms I would struggle to define…
I would like to point out that the majority of that wordle was made through the statements of professionals.
I don’t like to define it. As the wordle suggested, the definition is wide-ranging and complex. I argue against the trend of using the term “curator” as someone who chooses a top ten or “selects”/ “highlights” news stories. Real Curators have a responsibility beyond that of their own ego or self-importance.
Pete, this is spot on. Again, thank you so much. CO tries to offer people information about exhibitions in an effort to get people to attend exhibitions presented and prepared by professionals who actually “curate” decorative arts and design-oriented objects. We aim to include every exhibition we can, not just personal preferences, and this is really the *heart* of our mission as a not-for-profit project. Thanks again for having the courage to offer your thoughts and it’s particularly nice to see someone mention the role of capital and commerce. Bravo.
AMEN.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Why do you insist on having someone ask themselves.. “Am I a curator?” if the correct answer is not even asking? In order to become a “curator” there are necessary requirements and responsibilities to fulfill. Isn’t that what makes a true curator? The correct answer to “Am I curator?” should be one that is able to be measured according to your responsibilities and the environment in which you work. By dismissing the question you have utterly failed to give anyone insight into what being a curator actually means. Are you a curator? If so, enlighten the rest of us by explaining what the title “curator” entails. This should include a reasonable definition and list of requirements both academically as well as the requirements found in a workplace. Presenting the “curator” as a mysterious entity does not help to define the position or to eliminate the “fakes.”
Jasmine, I think you’ve misunderstood the intention of the question.
Elitist dribble.
As Emilie said, “Great article, but I think it would be more persuasive if you provided a definition of the word ‘curator,’ as you see it.”
Also, your point that the word “selecting” was not used is just silly. Looking at your Wordle two of the biggest words are “making” and “choices” which is a pretty good definition of “selecting.” Also add the other big words such as “information,” “connections,” “sharing” and “new” and you’ve got a working definition of a blogger.
What’s missing between the role of a blogger and a curator is the “to care for” part of the definition, but still I think the term at least sorta applies especially to art/culture blogs such as Boing Boing and Laughing Squid.
Instead of a negative article attacking all who live outside of the museum world who use the term curator, I’d like to see your opinion on what the role of a online digital curator would be.
> So, I’ve come up with the carefully designed test.
> Ask yourself: Am I a curator?
> The correct answer is: If you had to ask yourself that, you are not a curator.
I didn’t think the test was applicable to me, so I skipped to the answer. And in doing so, discovered that I am… er, somehow… a curator. Even though I didn’t ask myself the question because I thought I wasn’t. I imagine that that carefully designed test could use some re-design.