Curators are Bridges, not protagonists
“the curator inversely translates the artist’s work by providing a context to enable the public’s understanding”
Reading the introduction of On Curating, I found myself rethinking the role of the curator—not as a mere organizer, but as a mediator, “translator” and “creator,” whose material is often the work of others. The text argues that curators today operate more like theater directors, following “a performance paradigm rather than one based on the object or commodity.” This reframing made me reflect on how mediation is now central to the curatorial process, especially in a world where artistic proposals are increasingly interdisciplinary and publics are diverse.
I was particularly struck by Mary Jane Jacob’s approach. She moved beyond institutional walls to work directly with communities, aiming to foster “more direct, spontaneous and unpredictable” interactions with art. Her critique of purely symbolic or aesthetic gestures inspired me. She sought to “unite a community” by expanding local histories through artist commissions—an ambition I find both ethical and politically resonant.
Charles Esche’s strategy also challenged me. Rejecting the spectacle of Istanbul’s iconic sites, he and his co-curator focused instead on “the working city,” engaging art in everyday, less seductive spaces. This resistance to commodification and emphasis on local interaction reframed how I view curatorial responsibility.
References：
Obrist, H.U., 2014. Ways of curating. Macmillan.
