A few weeks ago, an article in the New York Times discussed how the word curator, though once a traditional museum title is now expanding to different professions. The article, On the Tip of Creative Tongues, illustrates that clothing, music, restaurant professionals are now renaming themselves as curators in their own professional fields.
As writer Alex Williams notes, what the word curator basically means is, "To look after and preserve" which paints the traditional picture of a museum curator's job and responsibilities. Because the job description denotes thoughts of discerning eyes, great tastes, and academically-rich individuals, many outside of the museum professions are now making the title their own.
For example, in the article Karuna Tillmon James, opened a consignment shop selling designer clothing and called it, Curate Couture noting, “I knew that people in the know would gravitate toward it.” The word in this case distinguishes that although her merchandise is old, and used, curators would only choose very specific pieces, purposefully selected for their customers.
The title of curator has also be taken on by other departments of the museum. For instance, one of my internship site supervisors was the Assistant Curator of Education. It is interesting to note that there is no Curator of Education, just the Director of Education. I'm not sure where the title came from, but the title rings true to the work that she does at the museum. She is a very intelligent, talent individual that does her job very well. Is there a difference between using the work in the museum world over using it elsewhere?
From a marketing perspective, I think for non-museum professional who use the word, knowing that their customers will appreciate that their work or business is on par with a museum curator is a very smart idea. The word curator is so charged that it automatically gives a person with that title recognition, experience, and professionalism. It makes people think these professionals are the very best at what they do and customers know they will be taken care of. I also enjoy how the word is being used outside a museum, thus giving museums an more friendly or customer-oriented approach to the work that they do. It's flattering that people want to take up this title. While the curator interviewed the article was fine with the idea, I can see where some people in the museum world would be upset that their years of schooling and research can now be potentially categorized under the same title as someone who has completely different training.
What do you think as a museum professional possibly having someone else in a completely different profession share the same title as you? Can you think of other instances where specific professionals share the same title of another completely different profession? Do you think with this trend in title change that this will effect museums in any way?
Posts
In general, I like the more widespread use of the term "curator." It's fun, acknowledges the creativity of human beings and I think also acknowledges the profession of museum curator as one that is worthy of respect and emulation. In particular cases, I have mixed feelings. In NYC once I walked past a newly built apartment building that was advertising condos for sale. It had a huge banner on it that said "CURATED LIVING." What did that mean? (I still wonder.) Also, sometimes "curating" seems to be used to mean just "selecting" something, and I don't blame museum curators who feel challenged by that use, which disregards deep subject matter knowledge and everything else that goes into professional curation.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article! I'm surprised they didn't touch on the Web usage of the term until the second page because I feel like that's a significant part of the basis for the growing shift -- there's an element of bringing order out of chaos that the information overload has caused, but key as well is that the term 'curate' also imparts value on the thing curated, something difficult to establish in the online environment.
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that it is less about professionalizing the curator (whatever their field) and more about increasing the perceived value of 'curated' content or merchandise. And given the fact that (with only one exception) all of the 'new' usages they cite are to promote for-profit enterprises, I think the larger issue is that the non-profit, scholarly associations of the term are being exploited in the marketplace.
As a museum professional, I'm a little offended about how someone could have the same title. What goes through my mind is wondering if they went through school like I did and put in all the work and time. After all, there are only two schools in the US the offer curator programs. One is in Chicago and the other is in New York. On the flip side, if the dressmaker went to fashion school, I would think that she would want to be call a designer and not a curator. I can see how they are taking on the title because they do take care of things and create music shows and fashion shows but I still think curators should belong to the museum world. I think the change in title thing may convey to the public that anyone can be a curator. Just like now with blog sites, it seems like anyone can be a scholar of knowledge. One does not know what the background of the blogger is, where the blogger is coming from or what the blogger's agenda is.
ReplyDelete