Is there a cure for curation?

Wilfred M. McClay: “‘Curation’ lends to the proceedings a certain air of quasi-professionalism. It seeks to claim for the proprietors an exquisitely refined faculty of discrimination, a sense that ‘objective’ higher standards are being enacted and adhered to. The selection that has been made, we are being assured, was not a product of whim or fancy, let alone crass commercialism … as the word’s allusion to museums and museum work subtly suggests, the use of ‘curate’ carries overtones of social climbing, of seeking to associate oneself with the ‘better sort’ of people—tasteful, knowledgeable, attractive, suave, well-to-do.”

“The word derives from the Latin curare, to take care, and has in its historical ancestry the notion of a “curate” as one who is charged with the care of souls … Perhaps in some instances, such as that of the independent bookstore, it can even be said that the “thoughtful curation” of the inventory reflects an attentiveness to the needs of the soul.”

“But the word ‘curate’ itself may be too corrupted by misuse to be able to carry such larger meanings much longer … It is now commonplace to speak of ‘social curation,’ which means something akin to ‘the wisdom of the crowd,’ the belief that the most meaningful way of sorting through and selecting and organizing masses of data is by the aggregation of the opinions and tastes of millions of completely independent individuals. There is a good deal to be said for this view, but the process it describes is the very opposite of curation itself, a word that, if it is to mean anything at all, means the application of a conscious sensibility and organizing intelligence.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Your Thoughts?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.