Thanks for all the comments and questions received so far.  I didn't feel
like I could take the time to go into detail when I wrote my message, but
I'm sure it made many of you curious--just like the folks around here who
are coming into the museum to see what the fuss is about.  There are
three specific art works that caused three individuals to write letters;
of these only one asked that the works be removed.
1) Pastel by M. Louise Stanley, "Annunciation."  In her usual rather
cartoon-like style, a present-day young woman (self-portrait) is looking up
from her book, rather quizzically, as a nude male with wings (the angel
Gabriel) is coming in through the window.  On the floor, a cat is eating
a white dove.  The original artist's statement next to it said, "This is
your basic annunciation, except Mary won't be a virgin because the cat
has eaten the dove."
2) Tiny oil painting by Colette Calascione, "Dead Dove."  A nude young
woman, also looking uncomfortable (or sad), is perched in front of a
window.  On the windowsill next to her is a red rose in a white vase.
Above is a white dove, hanging by one foot from a string, with its throat
cut and blood dripping onto the woman's white turban.  The window is
surrounded by white draperies.  The artist's statement we received refers
to a series of works and does not shed any light on the meaning for her
of this particular one.
3) Installation piece by Lee Roy Champagne, "Mandala of Modern, Mortal,
Mundane, Material Mattel Madness of Mandatory, Monetary Meditation of the
New Millennium," or "Madonna and Boy Toy with Fig Leaf."  The altar-like
ensemble includes, chained to a "mandala" of flashing neon lights, a "My
Size Barbie" doll and several regular-size Barbies with pins stuck in
them, a Ken doll that I think resembles Michael Jackson, piles of skulls,
some with gaudy oversize eyeballs added, and lots of black-painted roses.
Kneeling on the glitzy plastic-covered bench activates speakers blaring
out Madonna singing parts of "Material World" and "Like a Virgin."

These are obviously open to multiple interpretations.  From what little
I've been able to gather, the dead doves (as symbols of the Holy Spirit)
bother people, the cartoony style of the Stanley piece (and her
statement) make them think she's spoofing the Annunciation, and various
things about the Champagne installation bother them, despite the artist's
rather lengthy statement insisting he does not intend to mock any
religion but rather to call attention to the worship of false idols in
today's society.  He printed up the statement on little pseudo-"holy
cards" and had a girl in a Catholic-school uniform passing them out at
the opening reception where these three individuals (probably
collectively) decided to take offense and write letters of protest.

At least one faculty member (in religious studies) has seen this as an
opportunity for class discussion and a writing assignment. The president
and the academic vice president are behind us all the way, but my
immediate supervisor and several members of the Gallery Advisory Board are
unhappy to hear that anyone has been made unhappy.

As for the proposed discussion, one conservative Catholic faculty member
(not one of the complainers, but allied with them) said he would not
participate because such forums at St. Mary's tend to create "more heat
than light."  There has been considerable discussion here over the past few
years of what it means to be a Catholic college, to celebrate the
Catholic tradition, etc.  This tension may be one source of the strong
reactions.

My sense of the students is that they'll react like the rest of our
visitors--some will be upset by the show, especially if they have been
told they should expect to be, some will be delighted, some will be
puzzled, and some will continue to ignore the Gallery's existence.

I'm thinking about asking a few faculty members with different reactions
to the controversial works to write short pieces about what they see in
them, which could then be made readily available in the gallery.  I hope
this would help further mutual understanding.  It is along the lines of
what Mia Llarena described being done with the audience at a play--but
that's a more captive audience than the fluid one in an art gallery.

Assuming we also organize a "public" forum, would you suggest:
1) it be announced to the outside public or just our faculty, students &
staff?
2) we have a designated panel or just a moderator calling on anyone who
wants to speak?

I only got one comment on the role of the director versus the curator in
screening art works.  Not only do I have plenty of other things to occupy
my time, it just doesn't seem quite right to interfere.  What do others
think?

Thanks,
Ann