Dare I....

[Richard Barrett]

Once again, it's not the word, which is a perfectly good one (and not just in parts ), there's no point in challenging usage, or Americanisms, both of which testify to the flexibility and adaptability of our language, it's the idea behind using "curate" in a pretentious way to make this particular activity seem more "artistic" than it is. Maybe there's no point in challenging that either, but I do find it galling, speaking as someone who finds himself at the receiving end of curation and thinks "hang on, I did this work, not you!"

[Bryn]

Once again, it's not the word, which is a perfectly good one (and not just in parts ), there's no point in challenging usage, or Americanisms, both of which testify to the flexibility and adaptability of our language, it's the idea behind using "curate" in a pretentious way to make this particular activity seem more "artistic" than it is. Maybe there's no point in challenging that either, but I do find it galling, speaking as someone who finds himself at the receiving end of curation and thinks "hang on, I did this work, not you!"

At least here your ministrations are shown due respect. No mere curation, here.

[Richard Barrett]

At least here your ministrations are shown due respect. No mere curation, here.

Indeed. At the same time one notices the rise of the term "content provider" which sort of works in the opposite way, to denote someone who just churns out "stuff" to which a curator can give context, meaning and substance.

(I'll stop now!)

[french frank]

(I'll stop now!)

Maybe I will too … after suggesting that the new, wider use impoverishes the language rather than enriches it. We used to have a word for a particular activity but that word no longer offers a distinction between two similar, yet at root fundamentally different, activities.

[Serial_Apologist]

But 'curate' itself was used in a particular way with the implication of the professional expertise of a 'curator'. How it came to mean what - no two ways - it tends to mean now (that somebody or other chose some items to put together for a particular purpose) I'm not sure. Some sort of 'care' may be inevitable, though it doesn't necessarily make for the coherent whole which one might hope for. One is free to pronounce: "I didn't think much of that curation!"

In a nutshell it's been genealogically transferred as a "power status" term from the world of art galleries, in which the power of exhibiting - tied in with arts markets and, in turn, to capitalism's investment in reproduction, and reproduction's devaluation and alienation of the original work's context and its sources of inspiration - assumes equal importance with the works themselves.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed. At the same time one notices the rise of the term "content provider" which sort of works in the opposite way, to denote someone who just churns out "stuff" to which a curator can give context, meaning and substance.

(I'll stop now!)

I was going to add that! The curator as legitimizer.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I've been happily influenced by "Americanisms" since a childhood spent watching TV Series like The Monkees, Mr Ed, Bewitched, Man from UNCLE etc at around 1730 after school in the 1960s. They catch on because humans enjoy words, playfulness, variety and aptness of expression. Uptight or Upset? Both have pleasurable nuances.

And it is the playfulness, the enjoyment of language, that the Merriam-Webster article both celebrates and appeals to (with some generosity of human spirit). It traces the origin to see where we all come from here, but recognises that it isn't just "necessity" that rules usage. I don't often have much cause to use "curate" myself, but I like the current usages, and wouldn't judge anyone for so employing the word in a given artistic or fashion context.

Why should "linguistic evolution" be driven by "the less well-educated" (how would you define this category anyway?) It can also be "driven" by - pleasure and play, fashion, imitative behaviour within any social or ethnic group.

Include the observer in the picture; consider the evolution of your own attitudes: imagine telling someone, face to face, who uses "curate" in a way that has you, well, gnashing your verbal teeth, exactly what you think - that it is "pretentious" or "unnecessary". How would you imagine their response? D'you think you could persuade them to apologise or stop? To use which words instead?

To be honest Jayne in journalism where I worked for forty years that sort of critical approach to the use of words happens all time and sometimes in a very brutal way . I once got ticked off for using the word “oleaginous” rather than oily . But I only used it ‘cos I’d heard a character use it in a play I’d been to...A mate of mine got a word wrong and a sub made him write it out 100 times.

[ardcarp]

Didn’t do Humpty Dumpty any good though - he should have done a risk assessment before he sat on that wall.

Well at least (to the great amusement of my 6-year-ols-grandson) all the king's horses and all the king's men had scrambled eggs for breakfast again.

I'm definitely signing off now.

[jayne lee wilson]

To be honest Jayne in journalism where I worked for forty years that sort of critical approach to the use of words happens all time and sometimes in a very brutal way . I once got ticked off for using the word “oleaginous” rather than oily . But I only used it ‘cos I’d heard a character use it in a play I’d been to...A mate of mine got a word wrong and a sub made him write it out 100 times.

Not sure which "critical approach" you refer to here, let alone anything "brutal" (!?). All I've been asking for is an open mind, and a generous, less judgemental approach to the different usages of others.

Most of the attitudes here are very judgemental - highly critical of a certain type of usage of the word "curate"; my final paragraph simply asked them to imagine the human, inter-reactional effect (on both sides) of putting their mouth where their semantic money is....

(the "gnashing teeth" phrase was of course a humorous quote from the MW article I linked to above...)

[Ein Heldenleben]

Not sure which "critical approach" you refer to here, let alone anything "brutal" (!?). All I've been asking for is an open mind, and a generous, less judgemental approach to the different usages of others.

Most of the attitudes here are very judgemental - highly critical of a certain type of usage of the word "curate"; my final paragraph simply asked them to imagine the human, inter-reactional effect (on both sides) of putting their mouth where their semantic money is....

What I was saying is that in contrast to the very mild-mannered comments or “criticisms “in this forum in some professional spheres wordsmiths can be slightly more “brutal” in the their handling of poor style , spelling or choice of word. So when you ask whether I can imagine saying to some one that curate is being misused all I can say is yes.

[jayne lee wilson]

What I was saying is that in contrast to the very mild-mannered comments or “criticisms “in this forum in some professional spheres wordsmiths can be slightly more “brutal” in the their handling of poor style , spelling or choice of word. So when you ask whether I can imagine saying to some one that curate is being misused all I can say is yes.

And then, what then? Its their potential responses I'm wondering about......

But maybe this debate should end on a cliffhanger....
(now there's a word worth analysing.... clouds of association all over the page (or the blackboard...what fun we had)....)

[vinteuil]

.

... many of us just find 'curate' as a verb, in this context, pretentious. It's not an old word tracing its roots to curare - it's a back-formation from (English) 'curator'.

I don't find it adds meaning - and it certainly doesn't add much joy to the world


.

[french frank]

What I was saying is that in contrast to the very mild-mannered comments or “criticisms “in this forum

Yes, I also think there have also been some reasoned arguments which deserved consideration. All criticism is by definition "judgemental". It's what the word means.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I also think there have also been some reasoned arguments which deserved consideration. All criticism is by definition "judgemental". It's what the word means.

If you have access you might find this amusing. I’ve never worked for the Telegraph . It’s only a matter of time before curate is on the list..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/style-book/banned-words/

I think it’s written by Simon Heffer.

Most news outlets have their own style guides . Words like iconic , brilliant and fantastic can only be used if they relate to religious imagery, luminosity or fantasy respectively . They must not be used just as another way of saying good or impressive . I was once lectured at length by the boss about a piece with the , in his view , appalling Americanism “awesome” in it . “ Did it inspire awe ? “ he repeated or was it just big ? He went on and on about slipping standards etc. I nodded sagely without admitting I’d written it....

[Ein Heldenleben]

And then, what then? Its their potential responses I'm wondering about......

But maybe this debate should end on a cliffhanger....
(now there's a word worth analysing.... clouds of association all over the page (or the blackboard...what fun we had)....)

Well you can see my response to it in the above snippet of autobiography...
I think the origin of the word cliffhanger is thought to be from Hardy’s serial version of ‘A Pair Of Blue Eyes’ isn’t it?