A Time to Redefine : Open Thread

One of the things I learned early on in debating folks on politics is that if you don't start off ensuring you're working from the same definition of what you're talking about, you'll go rounds and rounds for hours assuming the other guy has slush for brains, just as he'll be convinced the same about you. An agreed-upon, clear definition is critical to productive communication. That's why, in case you haven't noticed, I frequently get all giddy about a good definition, redefinition, or useful coinage. Facilitating clear communication is more than an art form, in my opinion, it's manna from heaven.

A very insightful comment was posted here the other day by Mark Creegan. In response to the Think! post discussing what Dalton and Powhida have focused on trying to facilitate for #class, Mark wrote:

I think it seems that this hodge podge of reflexive actions is important and note that a good number of the participants are bloggers where you would normally find reflexive insight. Figuring out ones relationship to the art world and how one wants to exist within their particular conception of that system is an ongoing process and to do that in this communal setting is interesting and refreshing. My take on most of these events is that they seem less of a rant (although I am sure ranting will happen) fest than a renegotiation of ones relationship to the process and structure of making and thinking about art. A thousand participants will leave with a thousand different re-definitions.

Indeed, based on just the opening last night (and a test run event on Friday), I think Mark has nailed it. One conversation I had Friday evening, for example, was with Stamatina Gregory (who with Jovana Stokic will be hosting a discussion this Friday at #class, February 26, 6pm – 7 pm, on "Bad Curating"). We got into how the meaning of the word "curate" has been watered down to where people now talk about curating their wardrobe or the furniture in their apartment. What it means to "curate" in a fine art context has become so unclear that Stamatina and I eventually agreed that trained professionals with art history backgrounds and years spent developing a first-hand knowledge of select art objects will probably need to redefine themselves, or perhaps just relabel themselves, to ensure the vocabulary we use to discuss what they do is clear.

One of my first (personally somewhat painful, but eye opening all the same) points of clarity in this was when New York Times critic Holland Cotter, who was kind enough to review an exhibition I was listed as having "curated" at another gallery (before we opened our own), discussed my role instead as having "organized" it. Initially I was somewhat insulted, but in hindsight I recognize he was absolutely correct. Just because I was willing to have "Curated by Edward Winkleman" printed on the invite in no way altered the definition of the word in Mr. Cotter's mind.

Unfortunately, over the years, such claims have altered the meaning of the word in many other people's minds, and so I agree with Stamatina that it behooves fine art Curators to redefine themselves. Trying to reclaim the word from its widespread usage today is probably a losing battle.

Not being much use in coining catchy phrases myself, I'll use this one example to open a thread on "curate" and other such terms that people in the art world might take advantage of this economically imposed time to reflect to renegotiate their relationship to or the definitions of. What would you call, for example, "trained professionals with art history backgrounds and years spent developing a first-hand knowledge of select art objects"? Scholarly curators?

If you feel your personal position within the art world could use some redefinition (Gallerist vs. Dealer, Painter vs. Artist, Collector vs. Philanthropist, etc. etc. ) feel free to muse on that here as well.