Curatorism: In Praise of Folly

Even as their interventions influence standards of assessment, their choices may not always do justice to complex art practices, argues Girish Shahane, as he sheds light on the new status of curators in the context of contemporary art.

- Girish Shahane

The Fridericianum, Kassel, Germany. Photograph by Nils Klinger.

THIS ESSAY IS TAKEN FROM THE CURATING ART ISSUE OF ART INDIA VOLUME XVII, ISSUE II, 2012-13.

The history of the word, curate, though fairly well known, bears repetition. Its etymology suggests a caretaker, and it was originally used in noun form, with a stress on its first syllable, to describe priests, ministers of souls. After centuries in a spiritual domain, the word moved into the secular sphere, where, in the slightly altered form of curator, it came to denote people in charge of repositories and sports grounds. India being the only country where cricket pitches are considered more important than museums, the world at large associated the word curator primarily with keepers of artefact collections. Through back-formation, curate began to be used as a verb, with an accent on second syllable, to describe the things curators did.