Were this a high school yearbook, I would say that one of my "pet peeves" is the abuse of the word "curate" and "curator." Perhaps it's because I once proudly had the title of curator, perhaps not... but it drives me a little crazy to hear the word used as a cooler synonym for "arranging," to hear about people "curating" their Ipod playlists, their buffet dinners, their sock drawers. It will not surprise you to hear that I dislike "impact" used as a verb, and that am brought to the brink of madness by its degenerate offspring "impactful."
Now that's out of my system. Here's something important.
Andrew Taylor, the Director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration at in UW Madison's business school, writes a great blog for artsjournal.com called the "Artful Manager." The title's not so great, but it's well written and insightful and stays in front of the big questions and trends. [As long as I'm at it, consider this a plug for www.artsjournal.com and its daily email update of arts in the news. It's a shared habit here at PCMI--just started reading it a month ago and don't know what I'd do without it now.]
His most recent post, titled (wait for it!) "Curating impact through artists" talks about the new report by Alan Brown on new ways of measuring the impact of artistic performances on audiences. Taylor's blog post does a good job of spelling out some of the implications of the report. For those of us who think about ways of measuring the effectiveness and the impact of arts organizations, it's important work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment