MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jeff Kupperman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:13:00 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
What if the Art Institute of Chicago appeared in halls a few times a year, and

the Art Ensemble of Chicago occupied a space the size of four city blocks in a

downtown public park?  Would politicians be making speeches about the evils of

free jazz?

Seriously, I think it's not just a matter of the power of visual symbols or
the relative permanence of visual art.  I believe part of the reason the
public gets so upset about museum exhibits is that museums are considered
public space--even if they are privately funded--and people expect to have
some say in the content of public space.  Even the content of TV programs (at
least on the "free" channels) is regulated, so why should museums be
different?  Not everyone can hold an exhibit in a downtown museum--or build
their own museum--so many people don't buy the argument of "freedom of
expression."  Anyway, museums are not just platforms for free speech; they
have an educational public mission, and with that in mind they need to do a
better job of explaining how they can be for the public yet sometimes find it
necessary to do things that are offensive to a significant number of people.

>I'm responding to Eric's query about why visual art seems more prone
>to controversy than music.  (Sorry, but my primitive e-mail system
>does not allow me to cut and paste.)  I think the answer lies precisely
>in the fact that it is visual.  Visual symbols such as the American
>flag (or the flag of any country, for that matter), the Christian cross,
>and the swastika, only to name a few, evoke very powerful emotions and
>ideas.  The ways in which they are "abused", "glorified", or "desecrated"
>in art determines the level of controversy that arises.  I can't think
>of any instance in music that carries the same emotional charge.  The
>only example I can think of is when Jimi Hendrix used to play the national
>anthem.  But that hardly raised the same kind of uproar that controversial
>art exhibits have engendered.  Perhaps because music is more fleeting;
>when it's over, it's gone.

>Amy A. Douglass
>Tempe Historical Museum
>[log in to unmask]

Jeff Kupperman
Atelier Aza, Tokyo
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2