A lot of nonsense going on around these types of discussions. A gallery is
not a museum and is not required to have a curator.  Museums are
suffering from a serious lag in time.  The business world has downsized as
an opportunistic way for a generation of young executives to increase
profits and appear to be competent managers, thereby pleasing their stock
holders and insuring their own raises, bonuses, stock options etc.,
without having to have talent or ability.  To the dim, this has seemed
like a trend that should be copied.  In reality it is a failure that we
are all paying for as we watch those middle managers lose their positions.
This is a serious factor in the destruction of the middle class. This let
them eat cake approach to maintenance of our civilization creeps
belatedly into the museum world with the downsizing of the middle as well.
Low payed educators and programmer rush in to insure the appearance of
a successful reorganization for Directors who then collect their bonuses.
Without an academic expert (curator) working with the collection and
institutional programming there is a big question as to the value of the
institution.  Educators, programmers, PR folks, development,
administration, etc. cannot perform the basic function that is required of
a museum and makes any program worthwhile, they cannot authenticate, and
if they can't do that then how can they interpret? I have seen a number of
exhibits in the last few years put together with these new schemes where
the objects on display are fakes or mislabeled.  Traditions evolve for a
reason, they sould be approached cautiously before we all end up as
department store window designers.

Paul Apodaca