I have so many meandering thoughts about the subject, here are some of them:

When you ask, “What does this say about the public perception of curating?” I have to say that I don’t know if it changes the perception at all. Or maybe it mythologizes it. I have resorted to telling people that I study “art history” because when I say “criticism and curatorial practice” I am met with puzzled looks. And when I try to explain what the program is about, a typical response is, “Oh! Like Charlotte from Sex and the City!” My experience is that the perception of curating (outside of the arts industry) is still basically limited to the gallerist/dealer archetype.

I think that is a testament to how discourse about this topic can only exist within the art world, which means, in a way, that the industry is changing from the inside. It’s not some ominous “they” who are hiring fresh CRCP grads. It’s us.

Having said that, I don’t know if I necessarily believe that curatorial programs have changed the field. Not to say that the field hasn’t changed.

Maybe it has contributed to the very broad definition of what a curator is or can be, which I think is a good thing. But I think successful curators have a certain intuition or innate skill about their work. The same could be said of artists — good artists who go to art school don’t learn to become artists at school. They may learn techniques and meet people and have access to new resources, but ultimately no one can teach you how to have a good idea or where to find the drive to execute it.

My final thought is that I owe my interest in thinking about these sorts of things to OCAD and CRCP!

If you’re interested, you should read Reid Shier’s essay in full. He eventually comes to a similar conclusion that you do about ARCs: that, while the people being hired may have changed, ARCs are really operating in the same ways they always have (with boards, programming committees, public funding, etc.) and that artists still need them.

Thanks again for the comments. I love your blog!