Bringing curatorial practice a bad name

I am fed up of the use and abuse of the word ‘curator’ in the current context where it is bandied about for anything from food to “designer” clothes (mostly by bored housewives from garages) to jewellery to even home furnishings. So I think I should stop using it to describe myself — it is a far cry from where I would wear the epithet like a mark of great respect and honour. This was also the time not so long ago that I would often be asked as what does a curator mean and what does the work entail.

I would be hard put to describe it in lay terms — sometimes I would end up over simplifying so much that it seemed phoney to even myself! I would end up saying that basically it means selecting what should be featured in a particular exhibition and the person opposite would look at me quizzically wondering why on earth would such a heavy duty word be needed to describe that seems so simple. Others still would nod knowingly without understanding one bit of what I was saying and not be willing to open their mouth to prove their ignorance.

The other day I was interviewed by a respected Hindi channel and newspaper and the word came up again. I think I have never described it better so hence I would like to share sections of what I said in answer to the questions. A curator essentially selects art works in keeping with the thematic content of the exhibition. It means that one must have a vast overview of a large number of artists’ works to enable one to recall their works to match the theme. It means a historical perspective of the works of large number artists over a period of time and their stylistic continuity must be on the curator’s fingertips.

Any curator worth his salt should be able to write a proper curatorial note to share with the audience the thematic raison-de-etre for the selection and its viewpoint. Most curators are unable to write coherently and hence the there is a half-baked feeling about most shows. A curator should be able to express their perspective and hence contextualise the works.

Another major reason why even so-called curated shows appear half baked is the lack of clarity about the theme but is invariably is a motley collection of artists that curators can call almost at the last minute and ask for a couple of works. It is mostly who you know rather than who fit the bill. This is why shows appear to be more like pop-up stalls that are put up for the express purpose of sale rather than an intellectual or artistic pursuit. I have nothing against sales – after all artists need to survive – but such motley collections are not curated shows and are best collections rather than selections and should not be touted as curated shows.

The point I am trying to impress upon is that curatorial practice is a serious matter and instead of bringing the whole curatorial fraternity a bad name, only shows worthy of being called curated shows should be called as such; no point in every show being “curated”. When the duration of shows is a few days or maximum a week, then this flippant approach is inevitable.

In my experience with international curators, I found that they work in close tandem with designers to put forth their works more effectively. Another reason shows are taken more seriously in the West and Europe etc is the time span for which they are on show. Most exhibitions are on show for at least two months if not more. Hence the effort is well worth it. And the results are for everyone to see. Dr Alka Raghuvanshi is an art writer, curator and artist and can be contacted on alkaraghuvanshi@yahoo.com