>>No process, no review.  Once we make a decision to put something on view,
>>it stays put until the exhibition ends.

Jula Moore writes:
>But what do you respond to people who question why it's staying?

Julia-
I haven't run into this situation very many times. I try to anticipate
reaction in much the same way you have described below, which sounds like a
very good and thoughtful process (only being a smaller and less public
institution, I do it on my own).  In those cases of viewer complaints that
have come up, I have simply written what I hope is an empathetic and
non-condescending letter in response that explains why the piece was
selected to appear and why it is thought to be of continuing value to the
exhibition.

However, the post by Bruce Kato to which I originally responded seemed to
ask for examples of a process for *reconsideration* of objects a viewer
finds objectionable.  I took this to mean that the museum administration
would convene some sort of tribunal in which the fate of the offending
object hung in the balance.  This would be a reactionary process rather
than the preemptive one you describe.  Perhaps I misread Bruce's question,
but the examples he gave make me think I understood him correctly (text
quoted at bottom of this post).

Bruce appears to be asking about a process for after-the-fact
reconsideration of curatorial decisions, and it seems to me a rather
shocking notion, i.e., that a museum would formalize a process whereby it
would consider whether or not to acquiesce to public pressure over
temporary exhibitions.  Of course you could say that the museum is looking
for measured responses, such as the posting of disclaimers or warnings.
But creating a process for the sole purpose of post-curatorial review will
lead, inevitably, to more extreme actions. Once empowered, poeple tend to
take their responsibilities seriously, so in some cases its better not to
empower.  Museums should not have censorship committees.  They should do
their homework on the front end and then be ready to stand their ground,
come what may.

- Stephen Nowlin, Williamson Gallery, Art Center College of Design

Julia continues:
>I've run into this situation many times.  Sometimes it happens because we
>have no idea that a certain object will strike someone as objectionable
>(honestly!), and sometimes we know it will be objectionable and make the
>conscious decision to let it ride.  Sometimes something we think will be
>objectionable (or has been objected to elsewhere) doesn't raise even an
>eyebrow.
>
>While we have no formal procedures, we try to anticipate possible objections
>in our Program Team (program area department heads plus the marketing head)
>and work them out in advance internally, often with a written
>question-and-answer piece (i.e. we ask the questions we think people will
>ask, and then we answer them).  Sometimes the piece turns into something we
>post or write up into a handout, which forestalls the objections.  Right now
>we are working through an especially controversial exhibition for March with
>a focus group of board and community people:  we are NOT using the group to
>decide whether or not to proceed (we have already decided to go ahead), but
>to help us anticipate what the problems could be and how to forestall them
>creatively.

Bruce Kato's original post:
>I am interested in developing a formal process for administrative review of
>exhibitions or objects on temporary exhibit that a patron may find
>objectionable.  I am unaware of any examples that currently exist within the
>museum community.
>
>The closest policy that I have found is the review or request for
>reconsideration process used by most public libraries when a book is being
>challenged by a patron.  If a material is questioned, the patron is asked to
>fill out a Library Material Form, which is reviewed by the Library Board.
>The Board acts as the review committee.  If the Board's decision does not
>satisfy the patron, an appeal may be made to the City Council.
>
>If any of your institutions have developed similar procedures, I would
>appreciate receiving examples.
>
>Thank You.
>
>Bruce Kato, Chief Curator
>Alaska State Museums
>395 Whittier Street
>Juneau, Alaska  99801
>[log in to unmask]