A Curator By Any Other Name
Being a Thoughtfully Curated Reflection on the Definition of Curator
Kanye West once tweeted: "If I had to be defined at this point I'll take the title of an inventor or maybe a curator."
This is exactly the kind of statement that gives some museum curators the professional equivalent of anaphylactic shock. Others are resigned to such appropriation, or even see it as progressive.
To the extent that anyone concerned with the debate over the evolving meaning of "curator" cares about West's claim to the term, he does raise some provocative questions on the rampant appropriation of the word. Everyone from DJs to cheese mongers is taking up the mantle of curator. If West must be defined at this point (don't box him in!), he'll take the title.
I know it's just a tweet, but bear with me. West's choice of take implies appropriation of an already defined and hard-won title. Then, the flip way that he says he'll go with inventor or maybe a curator - like he's ordering food at a drive-thru - suggests that these titles are arbitrary and ephemeral. Here's the crux of the debate: is the role of curator one to be closely guarded or spread like a viral video? I can appreciate both views and at least some of what Professor West implies.
In recent years, applications of "curator" have oozed into every corner of culture - chefs curate their menus, shopkeepers curate their merchandise, and all of us curate our digital profiles. Or do we? Debate on this issue has been vigorous and, not surprisingly, boils down to a matter of definitions.
Accordingly, let's start with Webster: curator / noun / from the Latin, curare, "to care for." The term is rooted in connotations of being a caretaker; applied to museum collections, it means a caretaker of objects - a sort of nursemaid for collections.
A visit to any museum in the last few decades will demonstrate that curators do much more than care for collections. In most institutions, they're involved to some degree in fundraising, marketing, communications, publications, and various other "paracuratorial" practices.
It may be by this very expansion of the traditional role of curator that other cultural contexts have snatched up the term: a DJ is a curator of music (as is that endangered species, the independent record store owner), and an editor is a curator of information. It's here that the category really explodes: if editors and curators are analogous and anyone who's ever used social media is an editor of sorts, then we're all curators. Sort of.
Kelvin Brown at the Royal Ontario Museum isn't buying it: "there's seldom anything new realized when people are 'curating' their Facebook page." Really? I despair for Mr. Brown's view of Facebook. Perhaps he just needs some new friends. The uncanny realization about Facebook that makes some users uncomfortable is that it's based in the practice of collecting or curating people. It's a useful realization, underscoring the sense that your media diet and interactions follow the quality of your collection of people and pages. Too many Facebook users seem to think that all you can do with the platform is to scoop buckets from the media stream that rushes by every day and fling them at the digital wall. Without applying a modicum of curatorial practice - research, cultivation, knowing what to leave in (and what to leave out) - you have the social media equivalent of static. But with it, you can achieve a sort of curated social life, with meaningful interactions and - surprise - new realizations.
Facebook may be the elephant in the room when it comes to the debate over the amatuerization of curatorial practice. Alex Pareene's Salon article about Facebook's suppression of viral content producers in favor of more "high-quality" news content suggests that such a move is antithetical to the ideal, democratic nature of social media. But Pareene's argument relies on the assumption that Facebook ever was or should be a neutral, democratic tool. Despite the conservative nature of Facebook's chosen "high-quality" content (old school print media like National Geographic), perhaps we should applaud the deliberate nature of this attempt. I see it as an improvement over the seemingly random and mysterious algorithms Facebook has applied to its news feed in the past. If a forum like Facebook takes the lead by "curating" itself, it might just encourage users to improve the quality of their own contributions.
Some participants in this complex debate (see links at the end of the post) have argued that, with the infinite reach and inherently democratic nature of the web, there's no need for content experts and cultural gatekeepers - the traditional role of professional curators and editors. I would argue that the equation is just the opposite: the daily deluge of media is impossible for an individual to survey, so why not look to dedicated "curators" for guidance? Using a curated marketplace like Etsy or Uncommon Goods can be more rewarding than trying to navigate the vast cyber-market on your own. Similarly, the content curators of sites like Pitchfork can steer you toward music that you never would have heard otherwise.
At the end of the day, most engaged in this debate can agree that the terms curator and curate have been over-applied in the same vein as artisanal. But such abuse may not be all bad. Some professional curators see it as an affront and an erosion of their identity, while others embrace the increased notoriety. In any case, it might be useful to introduce the term ontography (aesthetic set theory, or the making of lists) to distinguish the now-ubiquitous social media shuffle from the highly cultivated connoisseurship practiced by most professional curators. Ontography may be hot, but that doesn't make all casual ontographers curators.
Although the definition of curator seems to be trending, when I say I'm a curator (in the professional sense) nine out of ten people look at me and say "what's that?" If that common reaction is any indication, I say the profession could only benefit from some pop cultural exposure. Whether professionally or casually, for better or worse, I'll take the title of...maybe a curator.
A Curated List of Links on the Subject
Who Wants to Be a Curator? [The New York Times]
A throwdown about the term 'curator' [museum geek]
From Pop Music to Blogging, Everyone's a Curator [Hyperallergic]
You Are Not a Curator, You Are Actually Just a Filthy Blogger [The Awl]
Ain't Miscuratin' [dis magazine]
Why Calling Yourself a Curator is the New Power Move [Details]
Everyone's a curator now [trendwatching.com]
Everybody's a curator [Chicago Tribune]
Kanye West once tweeted: "If I had to be defined at this point I'll take the title of an inventor or maybe a curator."
This is exactly the kind of statement that gives some museum curators the professional equivalent of anaphylactic shock. Others are resigned to such appropriation, or even see it as progressive.
 |
| Kanye West curated this outfit. |
I know it's just a tweet, but bear with me. West's choice of take implies appropriation of an already defined and hard-won title. Then, the flip way that he says he'll go with inventor or maybe a curator - like he's ordering food at a drive-thru - suggests that these titles are arbitrary and ephemeral. Here's the crux of the debate: is the role of curator one to be closely guarded or spread like a viral video? I can appreciate both views and at least some of what Professor West implies.
 |
| Emily Flake / The New Yorker |
Accordingly, let's start with Webster: curator / noun / from the Latin, curare, "to care for." The term is rooted in connotations of being a caretaker; applied to museum collections, it means a caretaker of objects - a sort of nursemaid for collections.
A visit to any museum in the last few decades will demonstrate that curators do much more than care for collections. In most institutions, they're involved to some degree in fundraising, marketing, communications, publications, and various other "paracuratorial" practices.
It may be by this very expansion of the traditional role of curator that other cultural contexts have snatched up the term: a DJ is a curator of music (as is that endangered species, the independent record store owner), and an editor is a curator of information. It's here that the category really explodes: if editors and curators are analogous and anyone who's ever used social media is an editor of sorts, then we're all curators. Sort of.
Kelvin Brown at the Royal Ontario Museum isn't buying it: "there's seldom anything new realized when people are 'curating' their Facebook page." Really? I despair for Mr. Brown's view of Facebook. Perhaps he just needs some new friends. The uncanny realization about Facebook that makes some users uncomfortable is that it's based in the practice of collecting or curating people. It's a useful realization, underscoring the sense that your media diet and interactions follow the quality of your collection of people and pages. Too many Facebook users seem to think that all you can do with the platform is to scoop buckets from the media stream that rushes by every day and fling them at the digital wall. Without applying a modicum of curatorial practice - research, cultivation, knowing what to leave in (and what to leave out) - you have the social media equivalent of static. But with it, you can achieve a sort of curated social life, with meaningful interactions and - surprise - new realizations.
Facebook may be the elephant in the room when it comes to the debate over the amatuerization of curatorial practice. Alex Pareene's Salon article about Facebook's suppression of viral content producers in favor of more "high-quality" news content suggests that such a move is antithetical to the ideal, democratic nature of social media. But Pareene's argument relies on the assumption that Facebook ever was or should be a neutral, democratic tool. Despite the conservative nature of Facebook's chosen "high-quality" content (old school print media like National Geographic), perhaps we should applaud the deliberate nature of this attempt. I see it as an improvement over the seemingly random and mysterious algorithms Facebook has applied to its news feed in the past. If a forum like Facebook takes the lead by "curating" itself, it might just encourage users to improve the quality of their own contributions.
 |
| Actress Krysten Ritter curates earrings! |
Some participants in this complex debate (see links at the end of the post) have argued that, with the infinite reach and inherently democratic nature of the web, there's no need for content experts and cultural gatekeepers - the traditional role of professional curators and editors. I would argue that the equation is just the opposite: the daily deluge of media is impossible for an individual to survey, so why not look to dedicated "curators" for guidance? Using a curated marketplace like Etsy or Uncommon Goods can be more rewarding than trying to navigate the vast cyber-market on your own. Similarly, the content curators of sites like Pitchfork can steer you toward music that you never would have heard otherwise.
At the end of the day, most engaged in this debate can agree that the terms curator and curate have been over-applied in the same vein as artisanal. But such abuse may not be all bad. Some professional curators see it as an affront and an erosion of their identity, while others embrace the increased notoriety. In any case, it might be useful to introduce the term ontography (aesthetic set theory, or the making of lists) to distinguish the now-ubiquitous social media shuffle from the highly cultivated connoisseurship practiced by most professional curators. Ontography may be hot, but that doesn't make all casual ontographers curators.
Although the definition of curator seems to be trending, when I say I'm a curator (in the professional sense) nine out of ten people look at me and say "what's that?" If that common reaction is any indication, I say the profession could only benefit from some pop cultural exposure. Whether professionally or casually, for better or worse, I'll take the title of...maybe a curator.
A Curated List of Links on the Subject
Who Wants to Be a Curator? [The New York Times]
A throwdown about the term 'curator' [museum geek]
From Pop Music to Blogging, Everyone's a Curator [Hyperallergic]
You Are Not a Curator, You Are Actually Just a Filthy Blogger [The Awl]
Ain't Miscuratin' [dis magazine]
Why Calling Yourself a Curator is the New Power Move [Details]
Everyone's a curator now [trendwatching.com]
Everybody's a curator [Chicago Tribune]
Comments
Post a Comment