Locating the “sýningarstjóri”
Before we let it collapse into a job title, neat and tidy, signing off an email signature, let’s pause again, and ask again: what is the sýningarstjóri here, now, in Iceland, in practice?
This entry follows What even is a sýningarstjóri?, published by KOK in December 2025, but resists any type of closure. The topic is a live wire, an invitation, but also provocation, charged by questions that can barely wait. In an effort to activate a broader conversation, and with the support of The Nordic House, a group of individuals; museum directors, cultural professionals, artists and curators gathered to continue this inquiry together. Not necessarily to resolve, or re-think-up, the term, but to test it. To press on its edges as it stretches across various institutions, structures, economies and individual practices. Leaning into the friction rather than attempting to smooth it out, what emerged from these conversations was not a fixed definition, but a shifting set of positions that the sýningarstjóri inhabits, often simultaneously, and always in relation to others.
No fixed definition arrived.
What surfaced instead was a restless movement between roles, voices and structures. The sýningarstjóri as interlocutor, mediator, translator, anticipator, producer, host. A quiet technician of context. A visible organiser of far too often invisibilities. At times a therapist, co-conspirator, bridge, buffer, amplifier. At others, the one who absorbs pressure so something else, an artwork, idea, relation or conversation, can remain open, receiving and alive. Still, the term itself, sýningarstjóri, felt incomplete, overly complex, and inaccurate in its translation of a role it is meant to multiply and uphold, rather than risk flattening. The question of whether it actually names the work, and acknowledges the experience of those who perform it adequately seemed urgent. Or whether identifying, and working through, the current instability in positioning what takes place in Iceland in relation to the international context of curating might contribute to recovering what is often lost in this conversation here and now? Perhaps the role currently exceeds the Icelandic translation? Perhaps we need to think up a new term?
This inquiry emerges from a shared need to better understand how the role is currently practiced in Iceland, without prematurely fixing it, and aware that it does not, it cannot, exist in a vacuum. Not to delimit it, but to strengthen it. Not to close the conversation, but to build, or tap into, a language that can hold complexity amongst peers and those who insist the role matters, is close to heart.
This is not a position taken against artists or artist-curators, but celebrates the long-held tradition of curating in artist-led history in Iceland. Instead, it recognises the porous, collaborative and often entangled nature of these positions within a functioning art ecology. But, being porous is not the same as the inability to recognise, and overlap between roles does not mean the inability to distinguish.
If the sýningarstjóri moves between voices and structures, it also moves between speeds, expectations and forms of visibility. At its most vital, the role does not dictate meaning but shapes the conditions through which meaning can emerge, circulate and be contested, and it's a matter of recognising the framework of creativity through which this can and does happen.
There were questions that could not wait.
There was urgency in the room. Not necessarily polite or composed, but important questions that arrived with an intensity that nearly resisted moderation. A pressure. A concern. At moments, even a misalignment with the intent of the gathering, or perhaps a misunderstanding of the shared goal here. They carried frustration, investment and rightfully demanded to be taken seriously.
If the central inquiry circled the role of the curator in Iceland today, these questions pressed outward, toward institutions, toward responsibility, toward a future:
How do you define the role of the curator within the museum?
Do you think a clearer definition of curatorial positions within museums influences how curatorial practice develops in Iceland?
How do you see the future of the curatorial role at the National Gallery of Iceland?
Do you believe museums in Iceland may also need to function as learning platforms for curators, given the limited formal educational opportunities in the field?
How do you imagine curatorial practice evolving in Iceland over the next decade?
How would you define the relationship between independent curators and art institutions?
How do you see this relationship evolving in the future?
How might emerging curators be better supported in pursuing experimental or critical projects within institutional contexts?
Does the institution have a defined approach or policy regarding curatorial practice or supporting independent or emerging curators?
These questions did not resolve. They remain with us, circulating, insisting and unfinished. That is also the point: to carry the dialogue forward at a moment when expectations placed on curatorial work are expanding, while the structures and resources that sustain it remain uneven, unclear and often limited.
Clarity does not necessarily mean control.
In this sense, the position held here, also in relation to KOK, is not that of a lobbyist seeking to formalise or centralise authority, but closer to an activator, an awakener. In some ways, the most important insight was that clarity does not mean control, and that is not what KOK is about either. The aim is not to centralise curatorial authority or impose rigid definitions, guidelines, or rules to be followed (we get that an officially registered and framed association needs to develop to take on that work, and this is not that), but to speak honestly from situated experience and commitment to the field. To strengthen the conditions under which curating can open space: for experimentation, for collaboration, for the relational labour that binds artists, curators, institutions and audiences.
Locating the sýningarstjóri, then, is less about fixing a title than about creating the conditions for a practice to develop, to be recognised, and to act meaningfully within a responsive art ecology.
Another line of questioning surfaced around the knowledge and preparation that allow curatorial work to develop meaningfully within institutions. International frameworks tend not to describe the curator through strict credentials, but through responsibilities and areas of competence. Reference was made to the Code of Ethics for Curators, not as a model to replicate , but as a reminder that ethical frameworks already exist and are widely used guidelines. These describe curators as individuals who are “highly knowledgeable, experienced or educated in a discipline relevant to the museum’s mission.” The document highlights their work in research, interpretation, stewardship of collections, as well as communication with the public.
Within this framing, curating is not positioned loosely, but as a practice grounded in knowledge and accountability. The document describes tasks that require sustained attention and various forms of expertise. These include conducting research and contributing to scholarship, documenting the provenance of objects, ensuring collections are acquired legally and responsibly, interpreting artworks and artefacts accurately, respectfully and facilitating public access while keeping preservation in balance. These responsibilities are not restrictions on who can curate. Rather, they signal that the work of the curator carries a particular responsibility toward artists, objects and audiences.
At the same time, institutional realities, including those in Iceland, are more fluid. Curatorial work is already carried out by people whose job titles do not necessarily reflect it. Project managers, educators, coordinators or even front of house staff sometimes take part in developing exhibitions, working with artists or shaping public programmes. Instead of labeling this a problematic, we might more productively be able to accept it as a point of departure for developing newly defined curatorial pathways within existing institutional structures.
One possibility to recognise and develop this labour more explicitly. Staff who contribute to exhibition-making could be recognised as curatorial assistants or assistant curators, with opportunities to build research capacity, shape narratives and work collaboratively with artists and institutions over time. Some may eventually grow into curatorial roles. Such pathways do not necessarily require large structural change or significant new funding, something many institutions cannot meet or sustain. But, instead it builds on the knowledge and commitment that already exists within museum teams.
This approach allows curatorial expertise in an institutional setting to develop through practice, mentorship and shared experience. It also acknowledges the labour that is already taking place in institutions while givin.g it room to grow and open the circle for voices that reflect our current society to the table.
This does not suggest that curating should follow one educational path, nor that artists or artist curators should be excluded from the field. Many of the most interesting exhibitions emerge from collaborations between artistic, scholarly and organisational perspectives. At the same time, ethical frameworks around curatorial practice suggest that institutions benefit when curatorial work is recognised as a distinct form of knowledge and responsibility that needs time, support and critical attention.
Seen from this perspective, the question is not who is allowed to curate, but how institutions can cultivate conditions where curatorial thinking and responsibility can develop, be recognised and sustained. Supporting mentorship, continuing research opportunities, collaborative models and ongoing dialogue between institutions and independent practitioners may help curatorial practice continue to evolve in Iceland while maintaining the depth and care that the work requires.
For further reading on these international ethical frameworks see
A Code of Ethics for Curators, Curators Committee, American Association of Museums (2009)
https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CurComCodeofEthics.pdf
***
NOTES/LEFTOVERS:
Interlocutor
Mediator
Interpreter
Storyteller
Bridgebuilder
Context maker
Fortune Teller
Future Seer
Producer
Facilitator
* Contextual Note: This conversation and critical exploration of the role of the sýningarstjóri in Iceland emerges from a desire to understand how the role is currently defined and enacted across our different professional contexts. The initiative is not positioned against artists, artist-curators or existing practices; it seeks to celebrate and uphold collaborative, creative approaches to curating. The emphasis is on recognizing curatorial work as a vital, empathetic and generative contribution to a healthy art ecology—not as a means of elevating “star curators” or overriding existing institutions. The aim is to clarify and develop curatorial practice in dialogue with Iceland’s current structures, histories and cultural realities, while engaging with international frameworks and discussions. This is not about reinventing the wheel, but about supporting the field in ways that strengthen both artists and the broader art environment, and potentially contributing to a thoughtful, sustainable and contextually informed definition of curating in Iceland.
Illustration by Lu Fraser
