Stop it. Just stop. Do you have a business card? Read it. Does it say “Curator” under your name? No? You are not a curator.
I dunno. I need to give this a few more read-throughs, but I still find myself at odds with the sentiment. Granted, I’m in the camp of playful remixing of ideas, and challenging capital-c ‘Curatorial Authority’…so what do I know, right?
This notion that curation is sacred? I’m on board (ish): things that are sacred, that are holy? These mysteries are meant to be shared with people. (Back to School! Shakespeare for everyone, am I right?)
I’d love to get other peoples’ thoughts on this, and welcome points/counterpoints.
Oh, man. Mike sums up my thoughts on this - in the sense that they’re conflicted. I love the idea of curation as a concept. Part of this goes towards my graduate work (public history) and I delved into the cabinets of curiosity that everyone at some point discovers. I love the idea of curating on a small scale, or curating in that you’re collecting things you love — content curation is not an easy thing, and I think the difference is that link-aggregating sites (Buzzfeed, HuffPo) argue that what they do is curate, when that’s not necessarily the case.
Of course, that argument could be made. They don’t post *everything* that’s on the internet, but I think there is a nuance to curation that is missed.
On the other hand! Curation - in this I mean the museum concept - has been in the hands of the (white, privileged, male) powerful for so long, that what Mike touches on is a really important point. There is a need for us to challenge Cultural Authority (and, I would argue, the Academy) in the sense that we need to be asking the tough questions of curators / museums as well as using this as a chance to remix what they tell us and adapt it for ourselves.
This needs to be a way longer rant. Another day.