28th April 2011, 01:20 PM
Greetings Invisible.......
If indeed the consultancies were to take on a formalised curatorial role (and I totally accept that many do so now anyway) they too would require a legal mandate to do so. Clear and unambiguous legislation would protect the profession and the consultancies from the potential of conflicts of interest. Consultancies (in my view) are a priori bound to work in their clients interests. It can be argued of course that the maintenence of professional standards would be in their clients interests but- where consultants are interpreting those standards whilst working in their clients interests, conflicts may arise? I think that what I am getting at is this........ if the transfer of responsibilities from Curators is actually on the cards, regardless of whom they are passed onto-they will require at least an equivalent legal mandate to those of the Curators.
If indeed the consultancies were to take on a formalised curatorial role (and I totally accept that many do so now anyway) they too would require a legal mandate to do so. Clear and unambiguous legislation would protect the profession and the consultancies from the potential of conflicts of interest. Consultancies (in my view) are a priori bound to work in their clients interests. It can be argued of course that the maintenence of professional standards would be in their clients interests but- where consultants are interpreting those standards whilst working in their clients interests, conflicts may arise? I think that what I am getting at is this........ if the transfer of responsibilities from Curators is actually on the cards, regardless of whom they are passed onto-they will require at least an equivalent legal mandate to those of the Curators.