Oooh, I'm TRYING to hold back on this one and see what
unfurls, but there are a couple of points I wanted to
address (Jay does that to me, LOL) in the post below
(excerpted)

You know, I could readily debate the monument on
either side of the equation.  Isn't a lot of artwork
an editing of the truth, for truth is simply a
subjective, and each of us has our own truth.  First
and foremost, race is an artificial construction, and
what is being objected to here is really the facial
features of the flag wavers themselves and not their
race (no such creature).

And art is not black and white, it's not required to
be an absolute reflection of something at a point of
time.  It can be a picture of what could be or should
be or is to someone other than you.  Ask a
schizophrenic what reality looks like.  Trust me when
I say it's a hell of a lot different than yours or
mine.

The statue is a synopsis of a point in time.  There is
no doubt that those who died and those who worked to
save and/or recover the victims came in many hues.
That artwork borrows from a picture, but art doesn't
have to be a true reflection of that picture (and I
can argue it the other way and, give me five minutes
and I might, LOL).

My favorite artwork at the Norton Simon is a piece by
Pannini.  I love it for the depth it contains and the
magnificence of the piece, but I love it too, for the
humanity depicted in the piece.  If you look at that
artwork, I find it impossible to believe that (since
there weren't cameras when he piece was done) exactly
THOSE people were present at THAT point of time.  Does
it take away from the picture?  No.  Does it negate
from the historical significance of that period of
time?  No.

(Don't ask me right this minute to name the piece. I
can "see it", but senior moments are just a pain in
the tush.)

What precipitated THIS note, however, is the
commentary about throwing away the history books.  For
God sakes, YES!  Much of history is revisionist and
taken from the reality or needed reality of people who
are less than objective.

Truth be known, MAD Magazine sometimes more accurately
reflects the truth than the sanitized history.  The
recordation of history is more often subjective than
objective and subject to interpretation.

But then I ramble . . .

--- Jay Heuman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Editing the truth is sickening, considering the
> monument is
> based on the real-life moment captured in the
> photograph.

SNIP

> This proposed multi-racial representation of a
> uni-racial
> moment, while meant to be inclusive, is troubling
> because it
> is a misrepresentation of a verifiable truth.

SNIP

Might as well throw out the history textbooks and
> give
> school children Mad magazine.

=====
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

Looking for a job?  Try:
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/stanmer/414

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

=========================================================
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).