David,
Verbosity is roughly defined as an expressive style that uses excessive
words. I do not think it matters how many words you use if they are
necessary to properly explain the subject. You do that quite well.
Turbidity is, in relation to writing, defined as thick, heavy or dense
verbiage. I personally find your arguments and understanding of the issue
in question cogent and lucid(that is clear and understandable).
I have learned from both sides of the debate. Thanks.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
"David E.
Haberstich"
<[log in to unmask] To
OM> [log in to unmask]
Sent by: Museum cc
discussion list
<[log in to unmask] Subject
SE.LSOFT.COM> Small Scandal Redux (Lengthy, Yes,
But Turbid?)
02/05/2004 12:48
AM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
Here's an update, for those who haven't seen it in the papers. Recent
reports indicate that the seller of the feather art to Mr. Small is indeed
being
investigated, and that appeals to my sense of justice. Some accounts in
newspapers other than the Washington Post now claim Small said in court
that he
DIDN'T know that the importation and purchase of some of the artifacts in
his
collection was illegal--not merely that he didn't know illegal artifacts
were
present. If that's true, THAT's certainly stunning, as L. Dewey might say.
My gut
reaction is that this report is incorrect. If it is correct, however, I
hope
Small sues the pants off his lawyers for their incompetence--and names
names
in his court-mandated apology. In any event, either he said he was unaware
of
the migratory bird treaty or he didn't say that--I have no way of knowing
which report is accurate. I've been operating on the assumption that he
and his
lawyers were aware of the law, but didn't know that some of the feathers in
the collection were illegal. I do think his claim that public exhibitions
of
the collection prior to his acquisition of it, without anyone identifying
illegal items in it, was a relevant, albeit weak, defense. It seems that a
lot of
people failed to do their homework at several stages in the life of this
collection, and perhaps that was a mitigating factor when the judge gave
Mr.Small a
light sentence. The crux of my argument was the apparent difficulty of
identifying some of the feathers as contraband.
The remainder of this message is specifically in response to L. Dewey's
last
post on this subject, so anyone who doesn't want to read a continuation of
our
debate should stop here.
I wrote the following some days ago and tried mightily to resist the urge
to
send it, out of consideration for all who are tired of this thread. It's
long, partly because it includes quotations from L. Dewey's last message,
so
please don't blame me for all of it. With apologies, this is my last note
on the
subject.
First, I note that L. still did not respond to my question about where the
erroneous remark about stolen property came from. I think that issue
should be
addressed.
<<David Haberstich's most recent defense of Lawrence Small ("Re: Scandal
at the Smithsonian: L's Bells") exceeds his earlier note in both verbosity
and turbidity. However.>>
I don't consider myself a Small defender, but I believe in fairness and
accuracy. I'm sorry L. found my message verbose and turbid, as I think
that's an
unfair assessment. While I have written lengthy messages, that's not
exactly
the same as verbose. I don't think they've been turbid, but pretty clear,
and
clarification is precisely what I've been striving for. Several readers
made
comments suggesting that they considered my posts clear enough. As for the
propriety of accusations of verbosity and turbidity on a list like
Museum-L:
judge for yourself.
<<Either Mr. Small's private collecting is a sign of expertise and
indicates
how he is qualified to serve as Secretary at SI, or Mr. Small's illegal
collecting activity is the honest mistake of inexperience, abetted by
misinformation
from a lawyer. Pick one.>>
I picked the latter, clearly. I think the Smithsonian regents assumed the
former when they selected--indeed, courted--Small for Secretary (if his
collection was a factor) and now perhaps they realize that they guessed
wrong.
<<Certainly an experienced collector, especially one with such a focused
interest as to purchase one thousand pieces at a time, would be aware of
laws that
affect collecting or transport of art, antiquities and ethnographic
objects,
and would take the appropriate measures to ensure provenance and legality.
There is now several decades of international law governing the transport
of art
and antiquities, as well as CITES, in no small part because of illegal
activity in the Americas.>>
Yes, agreed. But it appears that Mr. Small was not the "experienced
collector" he was thought to be--which was precisely my point.
<<The legal charges are broad and specify his intent; "did possess,
transport, cause to be transported, purchase, offer to purchase, carry and
cause to be
carried, migratory birds and parts thereof.">>
They specify his actions, not his intent. Small and his lawyers stipulated
that he did not intend to flout the law deliberately, and apparently the
judge
accepted that.
<<"At best, Small did not exercise due diligence in regard to his
collecting
activities. He ought to have been aware of both the statutory and the
ethical
requirements.">>
Agreed.
<<D.H., please note that these are separate sentences and do not equate
collecting activity with unethical behavior.>>
Yes, but they're awfully close together.
<<The SI Code of Conduct does state that "Employees will not engage in
criminal, dishonest, or other conduct adversely affecting the reputation or
operations of the Smithsonian Institution." It certainly appears that Mr.
Small
has failed at least two of those tests.>>
Which two? Criminal/dishonest, criminal/other, or dishonest/other?
<>
Not so. I didn't say his lawyers should be expected to render a qualified
assessment of the collection. I said a qualified expert, such as an
ornithologist, should have been consulted. If Mr. Small's lawyers did not
defer to such
expert judgment and insist that it be obtained, they did their client a
great
disservice.
<>
I never said the tribal artists should be prosecuted. Not knowing
Brazilian
law, I have no way of knowing whether they themselves broke any laws. I
said
they shared blame or culpability by using forbidden materials in creating
the
works in question, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Let me be
"blisteringly"
clear, as Mr. Small would say: they're part of the problem.
<<However, my point was and is that the relationship between the artist and
Mr. Small is not an equal one. There is considerable evidence of this
inequality, as any reasonable study of post-Columbian history would
indicate. David
Haberstich's assignation of "blame" to the Amazonian artists (who,
tellingly,
remain anonymous in all of the reporting), while excusing Mr. Small, is
stunning.>>
Sorry you're stunned, L. How is the artists' anonymity telling? What does
it tell us? That remark seems a little, er, turbid, at least oblique. But
I
think the wisdom of criminalizing the importation or purchase of certain
artifacts while excusing their original creation is questionable and
ironic, and
constitutes bad policy. Mr. Small didn't kill any protected birds. Who
did,
assuming they were killed? Does the inequality of which you write justify
killing birds for their feathers by native artists while buyers are
prosecuted? I
appreciate the strategy of criminalizing traffic in order to discourage the
market and thereby help save the birds, but is the supplier of attractive
contraband guiltless?
Ignorance of the law is no "excuse" but, as Janice Klein aptly explained,
sometimes laws address highly specialized and arcane subjects and are not
well
understood, even by lawyers. (In all fairness, I don't think it's been
proven
that a Small enemy maliciously blew the whistle--that's just a possibility.
Not all concerned citizens are personal or professional enemies.)
There. I have added 70 new lines of text to this debate (including this
paragraph), compared to L.'s last 43. I hope that won't be considered too
verbose--or turbid.
David Haberstich
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
