Paper short abstract:

Does participative curating mean to avoid and counteract hegemonial classistic, racist and anti-feminist tendencies in curating? I want to discuss these questions based on my research on curating an exhibition about the work of transnational operating home-carers.

Paper long abstract:

Exhibitons on migration were already participative before the hype on participation1 reached the museum-world. When the great cultural, historical and anthropological significance of migration was realised in the 1990s, practically no museum had built a collection around this topic. So curators were forced to, although they were - pretty obviously - lacking both empirical value as well as theoretical reflections about participation in and for exhibitons.

Until now, though one can find critical literature2 about participation, the role of curators is a subject seldom dealt with. Astonishing, because long before participation was discussed in museology, Architect Markus Miessen described in "The Nightmare of Participation"3, the importance of curators in depriving participation of innocence. Translated for museology: Curators have to realise their action as hegemonial, as defined by Trinh T. Minh-ha: "Authority of special groups over others..."4. This means, that linked attributes like classism, racism and anti-feminism cannot be avoided by participative approach and have to be dealt with. Rather should be asked, if participation strengthens ‚curatorial arrogance', as I call it, and intesifies these topics.

Being a curator myself, I tried to find answers in conducting participative research with transnational operating 24-hour-home-carers on (re)presentation of their work in an exhibition. One reason for curators not acting as equals in exhibitons, I found in the origins of anthropolocial resarch-methods, that are just being continued in display. At SIEF I'd like to discuss my thoughts on how we can encounter curatorial arrogance and make exhibitons a non-discriminating space.