I do wonder how museum curators feel when internet types collect links and call themselves curators. Enraged? Happy to see curation flourish? Ambivalent?
As a journalist, the less I see the word 'curation' user to describe the kind of work I do, the better.
Paul M. Watson added Emile Silvis.
Yes I've wondered about this too. I am but a humble educator, I have known curators who put themselves on pedestals and perhaps would be enraged, then again there are some who are very helpful and approachable, but I think even they would consider the word curation to be inappropriate for sharing links.
I can imagine the real curator's negative reaction to the average internet user collecting links in a haphazard fashion. But what about someone who really takes care in hand-selecting only the best links, and categorising them according to a proper taxonomy?
Good point Emile, adding context during link aggregation is a valuable activity. As my colleague Markham says though, he is a journalist and that is sufficient description.
To me this seems closer to a bibliography than a collection
What is a 'real' curator? Even the role of a museum curator can be fluid. In "A Brief History of Curating", one reads, "...the curator's true raison d'être remains largely undefined. No real methodology or clear legacy stands out in spite of today's proliferation of courses in curatorial studies."
So what is a real curator?
