On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Eric Siegel wrote:
> >    I don't get worked up about desecrating the flag, but I do get worked
>    up about bad art.  And I am particularly concerned that the museum
>    community is losing its credibility by making hard and fast
>    commitments to protect *any* sort of artistic expression.  Can't we be
>    discriminating?  Can't we say that some stuff, even if it is
>    provocative, is just dopey?  Or is provocation itself now an artistic
>    virtue, so that the more provoking a piece is, the more it is worthy
>    of being considered art?
>
>    I think that there is an important distinction between controversial
>    exhibits that posit different historical viewpoints and controversial
>    exhibits that present art that is in some way enraging.>
>


And there is also a difference between the activities (1) of curating a show
and deciding to include certain objects as worthy, and (2) of choosing to
"protect" certain cultural works.  If we choose to give curators the
authority to make some pronouncements about what they consider good or
important or notable art, that doesn't mean that we have to bow to their choices
,
but it does mean that their choices should at least be considered.
Evidently somebody that we museum folk at least give the status of
professional authority to was deciding that the ideas communicated in these
objects could present some different ideas (provocative? perhaps so).

They deserve protection because they are ideas, and they deserve special
protection because they are likely to suffer at the hands of those who
would deny them The light of day.

The course of time and the negotiations and conflicts among various interest
groups will participate in the decision ofthe longterm worth of these
ideas, but they gain even more if they are so hounded that they must go
underground.

Richard Perry
UC San Diego
[log in to unmask]