Guidance for an unconventional phd hopeful

[anonymousbequest]

: "People debate the value of a museum studies degree" and then follow that up with, "But the registrar should teach the curator how to properly accession things, or use the database, and the educator should teach the curator how to write a label, and the grant writer should teach the curator how to write a grant for a museum..." That is miles away from collaborative work: the curator writes a label draft, shoots it to the educator, they reach a happy medium and it gets sent to the copy editor. 

 

Yes, many curators have preparators on hand, and many have the registrar team around to check up on humidity levels -- but do you honestly think curators themselves never avail themselves to enter the collections areas and handle works? That they never have to pick a paint chip and debate how something should be hung? Even at a place with preparators, I still helped a curator do walkthroughs the space, recommend layouts and hangings, estimate the proper amount of space between paintings/objects, and analyze the flow of the room -- all this after the weeks of academic research and readings. We did spot checks of the labels before they got sent off to the design folks, we make sure the preparators do what we want, etc. If you, as a curator, want to work collaboratively with your museum team you should "probably" (and I mean definitely) learn their basic trade and pick up a general museum studies book so you understand how everyone else is working and where they're coming from. 

 

I'm not saying mat something yourself if you're in a massive institution and unable to do so, but you should probably know how it's done. 

No to beat a dead horse here, but I do have an interest in making sure people reading this thread actually understand curatorial work, which you as someone with some kind of museum experience but who has not taken his/her/ze first graduate seminar in Newark, clearly does not.  Curators who are more CAA than AAM (if you get my drift) have zero need to know how to mat something.  I do need to know the kind of mat and frame most appropriate for an object, based on research about how an artist framed their work, or general framing trends at a historical time.  Then I work with a framer or prep to make that happen.  I don't assign an accession number to a new acquisition or loan, a registrar does. I give them all the information they need to do proper data entry in TMS because I have done the research on the work acquired or loaned. But I count on my collections management team to get data entry and photography done in a timely manner. If I notice that a work needs conservation, I work closely with conservators. I know about different condition issues and how best to resolve them, but not the specific chemistry of varnishes. I make visits to the conservation studio often on significant projects.  When work arrives to my museum, the preps open the crate, the registrar accessions it, does a condition report, and I decide where it's going in the galleries. Registrars and preps schedule that, and I'm there when it comes time to hang or place it. I consult with conservators and registrars on light levels and climate, so know how long a work should be on display in the space I chose. Because curators do always place objects. What you refer to above about spacing and layout as a prep job is actually a critical component of curating. We do scholarship by writing like an academic does but also in space. Layout of objects is part of the argument we are making about the set of works we have selected, either in permanent collection galleries or exhibitions.  I also write object and area labels, which then go through a collaborative editing process, and I give them a final proof after copyediting and design has finished with layout. But I don't fabricate. Or cut vinyl. That you don't seem to understand any of this should indicate that anyone reading your posts here and elsewhere on grad cafe should take your "expertise" about museums and art history with a grain of salt at the very least.

 

I do all of these things, and handle objects (but know when I shouldn't) without ever having cracked open one of those tedious museum studies manuals you recommend. I got my first job as a junior curator at a major institution right after finishing my diss. I had no significant museum experience.  It was my scholarship and a famous advisor with a big network that got me the job. And it wasn't all that long ago. I pay attention to registrars, preps, conservators, educators, development, design, etc... so I'm able to collaborate with them on their terms, and they respect my broader and deeper knowledge of art history.  

 

Good luck to you!

Edited March 15, 2014 by anonymousbequest

[m-ttl]

Your rude attitude is completely unnecessary and insulting. I'm not stupid as you'd like to think. I know precisely what curation entails. I keep trying to point out to YOU however that this thread was intended to address exploring a range of possibilities and understanding how other jobs work so you know how to best consult someone else. You've done nothing this whole time but denigrate me and my intellect and follow it up with the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about when multiple people have pointed out getting experience in smaller places can be GREAT for getting a feel for the field. My expertise in museums comes from the fact that museum studies IS my degree.

You have repeatedly shown us why art history is perceived as elitist: apparently I can't POSSIBLY know anything about what I study because my PhD isn't in hand, I'm a potential embarassment because I'm not wealthy, I should expect other people to teach me how to write labels (not professors, but co-workers!), suggesting to learn other skills in case you aren't in the most elite bastion of museums is indicative that I don't understand how they work, and to top it all off my degree is "tedious", boring, and actually knowing how museums run, work, what their goals are, what my goals should be, etc means I am just ignorant of what "real" (read: what you DEEM worthy) curation is about. Using my example about STUDENTS failing to frame properly as indicative that I think all curators should frame things and so on. You've made wild leaps of assumptions about where I have worked and where Borden has worked and place yourself at the top. You've blatantly and intentionally twisted my meaning and words to make yourself right at every step "layouts and object placement as prep for an EXHIBITION BEING CURATED". And I'm tired of it. You're making things up to call me an idiot when I've done nothing here but suggest that learning about things besides curation can be helpful for figuring out what it is you DO want to know how to do. I never said "be able to do conservation" I said "know what conservators do."

I don't know why you think I pissed in your cereal but give it a rest already. If I didn't have extensive curatorial experience I wouldn't have been accepted, end of story. Honestly I was willing to let this die in peace but I am sick and tired of the backhanded insults. I don't get what your real issue is here because otherwise we might agree. Instead you've just taken your time to pick apart things I didn't actually say and insult me with them.

Edited March 15, 2014 by m-ttl