Kevin Coffee, NMAH, asks me to elaborate on my 'damning indictment' -- I
had said that I had a gawdawful time explaining to nonspecialists just
what a curator does.
 
The misperception I run into all the time amongst non-museum folks is tha
a a curator simply tends to dusty objects, and perhaps dusts them off
sometimes.  If they've gone beyond that, they think of curators as doing
what is usually the functions of conservators or registrars.  "I'm curator
of the Queens Library's Latimer project" -- "Oh, and what do you do?"  And
when I elaborate, I get the glassy stare and "How interesting, I'm sure"
form of response.  It's not a lack of interest in Latimer: when I'm asked
"Who's Latimer?" my explanation is received with enthusiasm and high
anticipation of the exhibit, almost uniformly.
 
I have yet to meet someone, from other than the museum world and some
academics, who actually knows what a curator does.  Certainly the concept
that curators have extensive specialized knowledge, and are more than mere
antiquarians, is no part of the general public's perception of the role.
 
And as for the notion that a curator might know what's the important
historiography of a subject, and be in the best position to advise not
only on what objects should be part of an exhibit, but *why*, -- well!
 
Mind you, this is not *my* notion of a curator I'm expounding, but the
notion amongst the general public so far as I've encountered it.
 
So I'm not quite sure what's meant by an 'indictment' -- I surely don't
indict the museum world, and I don't mean to indict myself as incompentent
to explain... the indictment is of the public, if anyone, and I thought
I'd made that clear.  Sorry for any ambiguity or confusion.
 
--bayla