Diversifying Curatorial Stewardship – A Conversation

We invited industry leader Delia Barker to work with us on a research and development project called Diversifying Curatorial Stewardship, which aims to map demand and capacity for sustainable pathways towards a more diverse leadership in curatorial roles within the dance sector and is supported through investment from Arts Council England.

To give an insight into this research project, Delia and our Artistic Director and Co-CEO Freddie Opoku-Addaie, recorded a conversation to share their reflections on the process so far, their own career journeys, and ambitions for change across the dance and wider arts ecology.

The title might sound like a bit of a mouthful, but for us, it sums up our aim to address the gaps in curatorial practices within the dance world. When Dance Umbrella (DU) first invited us to help shape this initiative, we knew from the outset that our challenge wasn’t just about diversifying who sits at the curatorial table—it was about reshaping the table itself.

In our early meetings, we focused on curation through a dance lens. We wanted to understand the change DU hoped to achieve and design an intervention that would be both meaningful and sustainable. But we knew we couldn’t attempt to tackle everything. DU had to focus, and in doing so, we began asking difficult questions about representation on stage and the power dynamics behind it.

Power was a theme that surfaced repeatedly. It became obvious that there’s always someone holding more influence when it comes to artistic decisions, and this power dynamic affects who controls curatorial tastes. We were surprised to find that even those we assumed had power often felt they were subject to forces beyond their control. This led to revealing discussions about how our sector is used to the same people holding onto curatorial power for extended periods. This not only slows down progress but also creates a climate of fear, as individuals worry about losing their influence.

Another key part of our conversation was around who we felt was least represented. We decided to focus on centring Black, Brown, Asian, and East Asian women—groups who are often underrepresented in curatorial spaces. While it might sound like a straightforward decision now, these were deep and challenging conversations. We explored lived experiences and how it feels to be ‘othered’ in certain spaces, especially when discussing terms like “Global Majority”, which we found to be both empowering and limiting at the same time.

Our focus on Black and Brown female-identifying producers wasn’t about excluding anyone—it was an intentional decision, and I’m glad that we all felt confident in that choice. With a clear direction and understanding of who we wanted to involve, we brought together three distinct groups: artists and producers, venues, and festivals. The generosity of everyone involved reminded me that solutions don’t rest in just one person; they come from diverse perspectives.

Throughout our discussions, care became a recurring topic. We heard a lot about the pressures faced by those stepping into spaces as the “only one” or the “first one.” Money also came up repeatedly—how vital it is for enabling people to see work, build knowledge, and curate differently. A lightbulb moment for me was when we discussed the word “risk,” which is often negatively associated with diverse curators and is a mantle sometimes absorbed by individuals as a reason why they are not progressing. What if we reframed this and associated “opportunity” in relation to diversity?

Another standout conversation centred on value. Specifically, how lived experience is valued (or often not valued) in curatorial spaces. It was difficult to hear how exhausting it can be for individuals to simply exist in certain spaces, let alone use their curatorial voice. Conscious or (apparently) unconscious bias often skews judgments, and many people spoke of the burden of having their lived experiences either ignored or repurposed by others in power as if they were newly discovered insights.

One question that kept surfacing was: “Who is considering the lens through which this work is being viewed, and how does it affect the artist, the work, and the culture?” It became clear that curatorial practices need to diversify to see lived experience as an asset to be nurtured, rather than an obstacle to be overcome.

To wrap up, I want to return to the theme of care. While we heard about the need for care, we also heard about its absence. There is a much broader responsibility to prepare and support Black and Brown curators who are breaking barriers. Institutions need to recognise, support, and place these diverse curators at the heart of their operations—from top to bottom, and across every department.

The word that kept ringing in my ears throughout this process was “performative.” We don’t need any more performative gestures. Curators who are building their practice want to work with partners who are genuinely committed to diversifying programming. This is what will lead to greater appeal and engagement from broader audiences.

Any action in this space must be rooted in authenticity, care, and humility. DU is applying these principles throughout this process and in its outcomes. With years of institutional knowledge, an incredible network, and a trusted reputation, DU is in a strong position to facilitate this change.

Since our first meeting in February, we’ve had so many rich conversations, and I’ve only just scratched the surface here. There’s so much more to explore and act upon, but the journey towards diversifying curatorial stewardship in dance is well underway and I’m sincerely hoping that DU get the support to move forward with their timely intervention.