Literature regarding curation is, indeed, geared towards either art curating (and the evolving role of the contemporary art curator), the related area of connoiseurship, or the broader and slightly different field of museum (collection) curatorship and curatorial practice. Digital content curation is all the rage in the last few years, and it stands to reason to try to contextualize and relate the concepts, discourses and research agendas across disciplines.

One, potentially interesting, additional area to look into is the growing, and to a large extent important, literature on digital curation, currently dominated by research traditions in archival science and information management, and stemming from earlier work on digital preservation and e-science. Some introductory references are .

Beagrie, N. (2008). Digital curation for science, digital libraries, and individuals. International Journal of Digital Curation, 1(1), 3–16. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2

Thibodeau, K. (2007). Critical Competencies for Digital Curation: Perspectives from 30 Years in the Trenches and on the Mountain Top. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr2007/papers/thibodeau_paper_7.pdf

Yakel, E. (2007). Digital curation. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(4), 335–340. doi:10.1108/10650750710831466

Relevant work has been done, among others, by the Digital Curation Centre (UK), the California Digital LIbrary (USA), SILS/UNC (DigCurr I and II projects, USA), as well as the Digital Curation Unit-IMIS, Athena RC (Greece) with which I am attached.

My own critique to the dominant approach is perhaps best summarized in a 2007 paper I presented as early as 2007 at the Museums & the Web conference, and then republished in 2008 in an edited volume. My main point of departure - and argument - regards the impossibility of understanding digital curation outside the curatorial traditions, and epistemic work, that shapes the relationship between people, objects and knowledge in each field: therefore, in the field of cultural heritage, the curatorial and research work that links museum curators, archaeologists, art historians, science historians etc. with "mediating tools" such as artefacts, documents, but also conceptualizations, middle-range theories, observational and analytical apparatus and methods, as well as processes of producing "everyday knowledge" through gallery interpretation and public communication. Here's the reference:

Dallas, C. (2007). An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.), The International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting Proceedings. Presented at the ICHIM07: International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/dallas/dallas.html

One direction of research, which I am currently pursuing with my colleagues at the Digital Curation Unit-IMIS, Athena RC (http://www.dcu.gr) in the context of EU projects such as DARIAH, EHRI, eCloud and LoCloud, is to attend to the scholarly practices that take place in the arts and humanities with regard to accessing and curating all kinds of "objects", from artefacts to archival materials, and scholarly objects including digital documentation. In the University of Toronto Museum Studies program, I am also scheduled to teach in winter 2014 a new course, entitled "Constructing and curating digital heritage". On the whole, I believe there's a lot of interest in looking how the entire area of curation is re-shaped by intellectual perspectives of post-colonial thought (e.g., in the guise of "indigenous curation" - some really interesting work there by Kreps, Srinivasan, Boast and others), and by social media, "user-generated content" and (participatory) "co-curation" practices. Some thoughts about this are in a recent interview I gave to the DigCurV project:

http://www.digcur-education.org/News/Ahead-of-the-CurV-Newsletter/Feb-2013-Issue-4/Interview-with-an-Expert-Prof.-Costis-Dallas

Literature regarding curation is, indeed, geared towards either art curating (and the evolving role of the contemporary art curator), the related area of connoiseurship, or the broader and slightly different field of museum (collection) curatorship and curatorial practice. Digital content curation is all the rage in the last few years, and it stands to reason to try to contextualize and relate the concepts, discourses and research agendas across disciplines.

One, potentially interesting, additional area to look into is the growing, and to a large extent important, literature on digital curation, currently dominated by research traditions in archival science and information management, and stemming from earlier work on digital preservation and e-science. Some introductory references are .

Beagrie, N. (2008). Digital curation for science, digital libraries, and individuals. International Journal of Digital Curation, 1(1), 3–16. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2

Thibodeau, K. (2007). Critical Competencies for Digital Curation: Perspectives from 30 Years in the Trenches and on the Mountain Top. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr2007/papers/thibodeau_paper_7.pdf

Yakel, E. (2007). Digital curation. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(4), 335–340. doi:10.1108/10650750710831466

Relevant work has been done, among others, by the Digital Curation Centre (UK), the California Digital LIbrary (USA), SILS/UNC (DigCurr I and II projects, USA), as well as the Digital Curation Unit-IMIS, Athena RC (Greece) with which I am attached.

My own critique to the dominant approach is perhaps best summarized in a 2007 paper I presented as early as 2007 at the Museums & the Web conference, and then republished in 2008 in an edited volume. My main point of departure - and argument - regards the impossibility of understanding digital curation outside the curatorial traditions, and epistemic work, that shapes the relationship between people, objects and knowledge in each field: therefore, in the field of cultural heritage, the curatorial and research work that links museum curators, archaeologists, art historians, science historians etc. with "mediating tools" such as artefacts, documents, but also conceptualizations, middle-range theories, observational and analytical apparatus and methods, as well as processes of producing "everyday knowledge" through gallery interpretation and public communication. Here's the reference:

Dallas, C. (2007). An agency-oriented approach to digital curation theory and practice. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.), The International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting Proceedings. Presented at the ICHIM07: International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/dallas/dallas.html

One direction of research, which I am currently pursuing with my colleagues at the Digital Curation Unit-IMIS, Athena RC (http://www.dcu.gr) in the context of EU projects such as DARIAH, EHRI, eCloud and LoCloud, is to attend to the scholarly practices that take place in the arts and humanities with regard to accessing and curating all kinds of "objects", from artefacts to archival materials, and scholarly objects including digital documentation. In the University of Toronto Museum Studies program, I am also scheduled to teach in winter 2014 a new course, entitled "Constructing and curating digital heritage". On the whole, I believe there's a lot of interest in looking how the entire area of curation is re-shaped by intellectual perspectives of post-colonial thought (e.g., in the guise of "indigenous curation" - some really interesting work there by Kreps, Srinivasan, Boast and others), and by social media, "user-generated content" and (participatory) "co-curation" practices. Some thoughts about this are in a recent interview I gave to the DigCurV project:

http://www.digcur-education.org/News/Ahead-of-the-CurV-Newsletter/Feb-2013-Issue-4/Interview-with-an-Expert-Prof.-Costis-Dallas

This very interesting question of extending the concept and application of curatorship beyond the traditional museological domains was the topic of a session at the American Anthropology Association meetings in November 2012 entitled "Crossing Exhibition Borders: Telling Museum Stories in Unmuseum Places," which was co-chaired by Melissa S. Briggs and John J. Bodinger de Uriate. I greatly appreciate Costis Dallas' contribution on digital curation, especially considering my involvement with the Great Lakes Research Alliance for the Study of Aboriginal Culture (GRASAC), which has produced and continues to develop a database of Great Lakes aboriginal culture heritage. In the AAA session, however, I focused on curatorial practices spilling over into temples and marketplaces in the recursive visual culture of contemporary China. Other papers addressed curatorship in university teaching and indigenous casinos as curatorial representational practices. This is a relatively new field of investigation so far as I know. You can access my AAA paper and powerpoint, entitled "Marketing New Nationalisms," through my Researchgate profile.

l think rigidity is a flaw in the set up of curatorial departments in many museums. There appears to be little room for inter-departmental exhibiting strategies. Imagine using paintings, sculpture, ceramics, etc, from a variety of periods and eras to enliven and elucidate an exhibit on the transition from the Belle Epoch to Modernism in France instead of an exhibition of one or the other periods separately, for example. Imagine using Venetian Renaissance and Dutch 17th century paintings to give actualization to the traditions of the use of light in photography, for instance.

The comment on inter-departmental exhibiting had me thinking. There was a small but excellent exhibition at the Holburne Museum Bath earlier this year. Called Painted Pomp it encompassed both portraits and existing garments from the period (1600-1620) which echoed the garments that appeared in the portraits. In addition there were reproductions of Jacobean garments made originally for the Globe Theatre, and a video loop showing how the people wearing them were clothed from undergarments through to the final appearance, which helped tremendously in understanding what was under the garments in the portraits and how they were kept together.

The original post spoke of "people in the social media spaces" acquiring the characteristics of curators. There is a move within some museums to get non curators to do one off exhibitions in order to gain a different view or insight, I am thinking for example of the Musee de la Mode et du Textile getting Christian Lacroix to curate one of their exhibtions.

In the Spring 2013 volume of Museum Anthropology (36(1):33-50), Emily Stokes-Rees discusses multiethnic performances in the exterior spaces of museums in Singapore as "ways in which the whole environment created by the museum can be manipulated to communicate ideas about culture and history." This interesting discussion reminds us of the importance of intangible cultural heritage in today's curatorial toolkit!

There is the whole debate about MoMa including video games in their collection to be considered. There they are curating interaction design and more specifically the code. Any thoughts on that whole topic? Something libraries vs art museum should be doing? Anybody think this is something MoMa will regret acquiring?

In recent years, websites like Tumblr and Blogger have not only served

as platforms that allow users to exchange ideas and information but

also permit individuals to post photos and documentation of artworks.

With the ability to borrow images from, users are able

to juxtapose documentation of any artwork from any era next to one

another. Bloggers may appropriate pieces as disparate as equestrian statues from classical antiquity with Dadaesque readymades, creating unique

exhibitions otherwise difficult to physically curate. These online exhibitions echo the progressive ideas put forward by André Malraux who foresaw a ‘museum without walls’ coming into being that ‘will carry infinitely farther’ the revelation that ‘far more great works [are] available to refresh our memories than even the greatest of museums could bring together’

Prior to photographic reproduction, many artists’ exposure to

their predecessors was limited to physical visits to a museum or personal

collection. Now, in Malraux’s museum without walls, one could view any

artwork, anytime, anywhere. For him, the best way to witness the narrative of art history was not by viewing it in a gallery but in the museum

without walls.

Today, blog sites offer precisely what Malraux intended. Few bloggers,

though, have gained as much recognition for this as the artists who

operate VVORK.com. Run by European artists Aleksandra Domanovic,

Christoph Priglinger, Georg Schnitzer and Oliver Laric since April

2006, VVORK has posted artworks as diverse as Dutch Baroque artist

Might want to look at Starr and Griesemer 1989 in Social Studies of Science 19(3):387-420 and follow up that line of thinking if you haven't already.

In networked environments, collaborative exchange is a fundamental part of artistic and cultural production and has led to shifts in the understanding of the artwork and authorship, which in turn has fundamental consequences for curatorial practice. Curators need to place more emphasis on and develop strategies for documentation of works that are created by multiple authors and constantly develop over time. When it comes to online art, a collaborative process and model is almost a necessity and naturally affects the roles of the curator, artist, audience, and institution. Collaboration leads to an increased openness of the production and presentation process; it requires awareness of process, and its results are not necessarily predictable.

Network structures and collaborative models tend to create zones of cultural autonomy—often formed ad hoc by communities of interest—that exist as long as they fulfill a set of functions and then often disperse or move on. This does not necessarily mean that networks create new models of democracy or self-governance, since they are supported by numerous protocols and governing structures and inextricably connected to the technological industry. The existence of networks has opened up new spaces both for autonomous producers and DIY culture, and the industry of market-driven media. Artistic production oscillates between the poles of openness of systems and restrictions imposed by protocols and the technological industry.