From Troll:
Quote:quote:Greetings sir.Again I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.The actions of consultants, curators, project managers and field officers are laid bare for all "site workers" as you choose to call them.In one sense, you are absolutely right-the people that you describe as having the "power to do something about standards" are those involved in the processes.Unfortunately, the group of people that you list are indeed the species that most require a kick in the arse.As is traditional in our "profession", it is the "site workers" who strive to maintain standards.This is largely because for the group of people that you list, professional standards are seen as a dirty by-word and an obstruction to a healthy profit margin
As I said in my original reply on this thread, I do support the principle of grass-roots action - I just don't have as much faith in its practical effectiveness as you. That is no reason not to try it.
I really can't see the need for the very polarised, 'them and us' approach you take in your post. There are good consultants/curators/managers, and bad ones; there are also good site workers and bad ones. After all, most of the 'species' you castigate started life as site workers.
I spent 9 years as a site worker, then several combining the onsultancy/site worker roles, and now I have been a consultant for 13 years. I have never stopped striving to uphold standards. However, sad as it may be, I find that I can do so much more effectively now than I could as a site worker.
That is nothing to do with my ethical attitude - like most things, it is a question of power relationships. As a site worker, I could not hold my employers (the senior management of field units) to account. As a consultant, I can and do, using contract clauses.
You and I do not disagree on the principles or aims here, just on who could do most about it.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
