[curatorial.net] beginning on line discussion

[geoff cox]

Dear Paul et al
I thought I would try to respond to some of the issues briefly. I too  
am concerned that the terms are a little ill-defined.
One could begin to define what curating refers to descriptively and  
etymologically - taking care of objects and souls for instance - but  
also how the term has begun to be used quite differently  
historically. Clearly in 1987 (the date your research takes as a  
point of departure), the term was used differently than it is now  
where almost all arts practice or cultural production (even everyday  
activities) can be loosely described as involving curatorial  
concerns. So on the one hand, blogging or tagging can be seen as  
curatorial endeavour (where everyone is a curator of sorts - the cult  
of the amateur, if you like) and on the other, curating has become  
deeply institutionalised and professionalised - perhaps as a  
defensive reaction against its popularisation. The power relations  
around participation and expertise seem to play off eachother here -  
along vertical and horizontal axes - and with respect to  
individualised and collective production.
Post-duchamp, the distinction between artist and curator makes little  
sense either. If the term curator is substituted for commissioner or  
producer then a set of other issues are foregrounded that highlight  
the political economy but also the symbolic capital invested in the  
role.
I am left wondering whether the term itself makes much sense these  
days. Perhaps its use can only ever be tactical, and needs to respond  
to historical conditions.
This is a bit rambling but I though I'd send it anyway.
Geoff


>
> [curatorial.net] - mailing list of the Curatorial Network
> curatorial at curatorial.net
> http://www.curatorial.net/mailman/listinfo/curatorial
>
> List Archive
> http://www.curatorial.net/pipermail/curatorial/
>
> Curatorial Network website
> http://www.curatorial.net

--
geoff cox
gcox at plymouth.ac.uk