Wow.  It's entertaining reading, but I can't help wishing *I* had this much
leisure time . . .

Carolyn Breedlove
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Indigo Nights <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: The Art of Rudy


>Dear David Drafted:
>
>> Acerbic?  Moi?  I'm wounded.  But I'll have to haul
>> out the old thesaurus
>> myself to see if sarcasm (as in "perimenopausal mind
>> vacations") is
>> synonymous with acerbity!
>
>To Which Indigo Lightly Replies:
>
>Oh, don't drag out that old, heavy book, dear.  Go to
>http://www.yourdictionary.com  Not to worry.  They are
>close though not exact fits.  You have, of course,
>heard of quid pro quo, have you not?  (smile)
>
>After Some Clarification, David Continued:
>
> You responded
>> with your characteristic eloquence, lucidity, and
>> vigor, so I am both
>> gratified and satisfied.
>
>Indigo Bats Her Eyes and Responds:
>
>We aim to please.  So glad to be of service, my dear.
>
>David, Obviously Envigorated by the Dialogue, Further
>Stated:
>
>I do think, however, that
>> to construe a simple
>> request for clarification as an attempt at public
>> comeuppance is unfair.
>
>Indigo Draws a Deep Breath, Musters Her Courage, and
>Then Whispers:
>
>Dear Heart, sometimes dealing with your writing is
>like dealing with the web software whereby you can
>click at any point on the site, and it will
>immediately take you to some further point of
>clarification about a specific word rather than to
>take them en toto.
>
>Now, Love, do understand I've a young grandson I adore
>who stops me for every word he doesn't understand
>(sure makes a grandmother proud, that boy does!), but
>it sometimes makes it tough to communicate.
>
>People who are more shy than I may simply whither and
>not meet the challenge.  After all, this is polite
>company, and one is supposed to be refined.
>
>But a volley that comes across as (now where was my
>dictionary site again, must check for the right word
>because this is David reading it, LOL) pithy, given
>the right concurrent set of circumstances, can often
>be counted on as being responded to in kind.
>
>David Then Continued to Clarify:
>
>> As someone else correctly remarked, the real issue
>> that Giuliani raises is
>> public funding for controversial art, rather than
>> the question of censorship
>> per se.
>
>To Which Indigo Injects:
>
>See, I told you we'd have to get into faith-based
>initiatives (FBIs).
>
>If public dollars can be used in support of
>(charitable) actions accomplished by religious
>organizations, than one should be able to use public
>dollars for controversial artworks.
>
>David Resumed:
>
>(Since most significant art ends up
>> offending someone in some way, I
>> personally think that any level of government which
>> wants to make a
>> commitment to supporting the arts must learn to
>> accept the fact that some of
>> the art which it funds, directly or indirectly,
>> inevitably will prove
>> controversial or offensive to someone.)
>
>Indigo Excitedly Injects:
>
>Amen, my brother!
>
>Then David Said:
>
>But if the
>> issue, or one of the
>> issues, is tax-funded support, I think the argument
>> that anyone, including
>> Giuliani, who is offended can simply elect to stay
>> away is facile and beside
>> the point.
>
>Indigo Sits There Puzzled, Trying to Figure Out What
>to Scratch.  Choosing Her Head, She Replies:
>
>Well, that's the first time I've been called facile in
>a long time instead of ornery.  Why thank you, I
>think.
>
>Gathering Her Composure, Indigo Swiftly Infuses:
>
>But it is PRECISELY the point!
>
>David Educated By Adding:
>
>In any event, it is simply not true that
>> everyone who is offended
>> by an exhibition will boycott it.  I'm reminded of
>> the woman quoted by the
>> Washington Post years ago during the Mapplethorpe
>> controversy who, on her
>> fourth visit to the exhibition, said that it was
>> more offensive every time
>> she saw it.
>
>Indigo Asks:
>
>Is that like I'll stop beating my head against the
>wall when I figure out that it hurts?
>
>David Put His Foot In It and Said:
>
>> Some of the most egregious examples of censorship
>> (or attempted censorship)
>> in recent years have been justified on grounds of
>> racial sensitivity, as in
>> the attempt to remove the "n" word from the
>> dictionary and the successful
>> removal of photographs from a Library of Congress
>> exhibition.
>
>Indigo, Incensed, Infuses:
>
>Oh, Homey, you HAD to go there, didn't you.  Hate
>words, words that are intended to be of harm to
>another do not belong in public.
>
>She invites David to sit down for a drink the next
>time he comes to LA (she'll have Crown Royal with Diet
>Coke, thank you) so we can discuss this at length off
>list.  Under her breath she mutters, "didn't you read
>the part where I indicated I've been discussing hate
>speech for a couple of days--ergo my the exacerbation
>of my contentious nature?"
>
>David Continued With:
>
>The value of
>> Giuliani's wrong-headed tirades is that they remind
>> us that religious
>> minorities also have sensitivities which deserve
>> some consideration.  The
>> challenge for public institutions like museums is to
>> find ways to present
>> controversial and provocative aesthetic and
>> historical issues, confront them
>> with educational, sensitive explication, and
>> facilitate intelligent
>> dialogue--not merely provoke politicians and
>> offended groups into
>> denunciations.
>
>Indigo, Patting Her Foot, Looking At Her Nails,
>Impatiently Offers:
>
>So if a lot of the pictures of the baby Christ are
>naked, should we stash those away because someone
>might think they're inciting pedophilia?
>
>And, more importantly, do we know the museum in
>question hasn't offered some "padding" for its
>"poignant" message.
>
>Indigo Hollers Back to the List:
>
>Do we have someone on list from the represented
>organization that can describe how this exhibition is
>presented or, better still, do we have a web site that
>depicts it?
>
>David, Nearly Through, Pronounced:
>
>Dialogue stemming from managed
>> controversy can be beneficial,
>> but polarization is seldom useful, it seems to me.
>
>Indigo Responds:
>
>Agreed.
>
>David's Grand Finale Was:
>
>> Let's try not to make it "messy", OK?
>
>Indigo Excitedly Offers:
>
>No, let's not.  I didn't win the lottery.  The maid
>and my mother are both dead, and I don't do housework!
>
>Come to LA, David, and we can talk.
>
>
>
>=====
>Indigo Nights
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>=========================================================
>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
>
>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).