It’s the blind leading the blind in the Indian art world. Everyone wants to be a curator, but very few actually are. What we have instead are writers, critics, editors, even gallerists slipping into curatorial roles without the rigour, the eye, or the backbone the job demands. It’s a free-for-all—and it’s damaging.
Curating is not about assembling names or copy-pasting theory. It’s not a caption contest or a LinkedIn announcement. It’s a practice. It needs study, patience, long-term engagement with artists, materials, contexts. Most of what passes for curating right now is sloppy. Flimsy ideas forced into a theme, safe choices hidden behind inflated language. No edge, no tension, no real vision.
This isn’t just bad taste—it’s bad ethics. It wastes the artist’s labour. It shortchanges the viewer. It confuses collectors. When a show lacks integrity, it shows. And no amount of wall text can cover that up.
Gallerists posing as curators are the worst offenders. They’re often driven by sales, not ideas. They’ll throw together an “urgent” group show with the same five names on rotation, then call it a “critical intervention.” It’s insulting.
Critics-turned-curators often bring baggage too—more interested in writing about the work than building it up. There’s a difference between commentary and curation. One observes. The other commits.
India deserves better. Contemporary art here is full of sharp, urgent voices. It needs curators who can hold space, not just fill it. Who listen. Who challenge. Who can sit with doubt instead of forcing clarity for a checklist.