David Langman talks to Peter Ireland, Wanganui based painter and freelance curator of photography

With the appointment of Athol McCredie as Curator Contemporary Art at Te Papa, perhaps this will signal a reactivation of their collection?

It's certainly a hopeful sign. I'm not sure how much involvement he'll have with photography though, and in any case, decisions at Te Papa seem much more committee-based, which tends to make things slower, more institution-oriented and less adventurous. If he could bring to the institution the acute critical intelligence that marked Witness to Change - still the best ever NZ photographic show in my view - and Fields of Golden Daffodils it would be refreshing and reassuring. But, those shows were 16 and 10 years ago respectively, and although since then he's been busy as curator at the Manawatu Art Gallery, the period has not brought forth shows of such significance. To date, it's absolutely fair to say that Te Papa has been big on promise and short on delivery.

When viewing Looking Back I almost had the sensation of being spoilt with an exhibition solely of photographs. This is perhaps an indication of the paucity of exhibitions dealing with this medium. Photography, by and large, has been accented into the mainstream, but often without an understanding of its peculiarities. Do you think there is a need for more thorough investigation of photographers' work?

Yes, yes, yes and yes! We're back to that making sense of things I guess. Of course, there's no such thing as a definitive state- ment,there's no "accurate" way of reading something. Especially in art, it's all speculative, and that's precisely what makes it so interesting. Just because it's speculative doesn't mean it's without value. I never make any claim in what I do other than it's just my view. If it has a value, then that's integrally part of it. But it's a view constructed on a number of things: a 35-year history - "career" if you like! - of looking long and hard at an awful lot of images right across the board, of thinking about these images - why they were made, why they were framed the way they were, what they might provide as illumination to our culture - then reading as widely as possible.

Then there's the 30-year experience of putting shows together. They must be touching someone otherwise I wouldn't be getting these further opportunities to do them. But, it's just my angle, that's all. Curating is a quite creative business, and the strong and focused view of an individual can be as illuminating as that of an artist, which is precisely why we go on valuing their work. As Gauguin said in his Journal, nothing of importance was ever accomplished except by individuals. No big deal, but it's true. That's why people continue to laugh at the old joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

Over the past few decades the public institutions have coasted along photographically either by importing ready-made shows like the Hallmark and Magnum, or relying on big solo shows like the Mapplethorpe, the Boyd Webb, the Les Cleveland (very good show that it was) and shortly, the Auckland Art Gallery's Friedlander show. There's nothing connecting any of this. They're fine if you're photographically literate - well, mostly! - but if you're not, what do you make of them? They're like towns on a map without any connecting highways. The "thorough investigation" you speak of should be the construction of these highways.

The Looking Back selection seems quite a personal choice, rather than say a best of... Nonetheless there are many gems. What were your criteria?

I can only go back to what I said before about a strong, focused view of an individual. If it had been a really personal choice - as in "favourites"- it would have been a very different show. I'm not in the business of using such opportunities in that way and I feel that your notion of a "best of" is getting perilously close to the definitive idea, which I reject absolutely.

In many ways curating can be a mysterious business. OK, you start out with a certain idea about the point of the show, and usually by the time you become aware of what the point might be, several key images have already tethered themselves to it almost unconsciously. As this process continues and refines the images kind of take over and almost select themselves. You learn to let them!

Sometimes you find that images you'd set your heart on get eliminated by what happens further down the track. A key element in the construction of Looking Back was the McLeavey space. It's a remarkable and potent space, and the patina of its history is palpable. The show was put together for that space. The narrative of the show was built around the space, its entrance, its two rooms, its doors and windows. The precise location of each work and their exact relation to one another was known by September 2000. Not because I'm a control freak (well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it) but because that degree of detail is necessary to tell the story. It's my belief that the comprehensibility of the images and their symbolic value is increased by that care of context.

The response to the show - which has been quite overwhelming - provides evidence for this belief. And as long as this approach seems to have value then I'll continue doing it. I don't have a policy document or anything - I just try to stay alert and do relevant shows!