"Community Curating": Whose Side Are You On?

On a recent tour of the National Museum of the American Indian, I was surprised by the presence of "community curated" exhibits. These community curated exhibits allowed leaders from different native tribes to put together the kiosks showcasing their tribes. At the entrance to each tribe's enclave, there were pictures and blurbs introducing each of the community curators. The exhibits included traditional artifacts, such as boots and weapons, but also featured wall texts with tribal history and personal anecdotes.

When I expressed interest in these community curated exhibits, the cultural interpreter who was leading our tour explained that there were some setbacks to the well-meaning idea of replacing the traditional museum curator with a team of knowledgeable native leaders. First was the issue of content selection. While the community curators may be able to most effectively choose the artifacts and stories that best represent their tribe's culture, they are not necessarily in tune to the needs of museum visitors. For example, the cultural interpreter mentioned that a lot of visitors to the Cherokee exhibit were looking for information about the Trail of Tears. However, the community curators of the exhibit had decided not to include the Trail of Tears, as it had not directly affected their branch of the Cherokee tribe. Another setback of community curators is the fact that most do not have a background in art or museum studies. Museum curators are professionals who study and practice for years before compiling their own exhibits. Community curators may know more about the art and artifacts from their personal experiences, but they may not necessarily know how to choose objects that work best in a museum setting.

In an ideal world, community curators would work side-by-side with museum curators to offer visitors the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, for reasons of economy and politics (what else is new?), this is not always the most feasible solution.