On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:13:44 -0400, David Hupert wrote:

>One might have thought the "Sensation" sensation was laid to rest for this
>list after the extensive postings it engendered.  Mr. Bing has resurrected
>it in order to throw a few stones at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.

        I believe, based on the NYT's article, that the Brooklyn
Museum of Art allowed itself to be used and thus prompted the AAM to
establish the new guidelines to prevent other museums from entering
unethical agreements.  My point of revisiting the controversy is to
ask this list what they now think of the museum's conduct in view of
the overwhelming defense of the museum by MUSEUM-L posters at that
time.    
 
>While a critically reflective assessment of the behavior of the staff and
>trustees of any public institution is always in order, equally in order is
>an understanding of the uses of art.  The Mayor chose to denounce the
>painting without having seen it or a decent reproduction of it.  He
>characterized it as the Holy Mother splattered with elephant dung.  That
>the dung was carefully contained, placed and decorated, that it was
>consistent with the artist's other work, and that it has procreational
>meanings in other cultures was of no interest to Guliani.  To him art is
>not a philosophical essay that reveals complex and subtle aspects of the
>artist and his time, it is just another political tool.  The pre-prostate,
>unannounced candidate for the senate was able to attack his opponent's
>stance in favor of uninterrupted funding for the museum as advocating
>public support for "bashing the Catholic religion."

        Let's keep politics out of this discussion which should be
about the conduct of museum officials.   To quote the NYT's:
        "In the "Sensations" exhibition, Mr Lehman [Director of the
Museum] gave Mr. Saatchi a central role in determining the artistic
content of "Sensations" to such extent that the senior museum
officials repeatedly expressed concerns that Mr. Saatchi had taken
control of the exhibition."

        One can only guess what the exhibition might have been if the
museum curators had been allowed to exercise their professional
talents.  The point is that the Director chose to deny them that
control, a control the new guidelines requires.   
Somehow, I thought that the professionals on this list would be
cheering the AAM's guidelines and thanking them for insisting on
ethical conduct with lenders.  As a Trustee of an art museum, I do.
 
>We in the profession have the responsibility to look and listen carefully,
>and try to understand the implications of the images and surrounding
>situation of the works entrusted to us to care for and exhibition.  For us
>the facts come first, and the first facts are the physical reality of the
>object.  This does not mean that we have to like the work or consider it
>good art, or display it if we deem it to be lacking in quality.  But,
>dismissing an intellectually disturbing work of art as objectionable should
>also be a signal to immediately instigate a reflective assessment.  Think
>of early reviews of Courbet or 1930's German government labeling of
>"degenerate art."

I don't think anyone would argue against your general thesis above.
But when the Brooklyn museum's senior officials claim they were not in
control, your argument becomes  academic and does not apply to this
case.
>
>We should also try to understand that collectors and lenders are not inert
>cyphers but passionate believers in the works they own, and often informed
>and useful partners in the exhibition process.  The museum still retains
>ultimate responsibility for its presentations, just as it does when it
>hires architects and designers.
>
Of course we need and welcome lenders.  However, one must never
overlook the undeniable fact that exhibiting private art in an art
museum is almost a guarantee to boost the value of that art.  Thus
there is a built in conflict of interest between the lender and the
museum.  The guidelines support the museum's authority, and, we all
hope, will make arrangements between lenders and museums  both easier
and in the best interest of the museums.

>The new guidelines are welcome additions to the ethical framework that can
>protect museums from inappropriate behavior.  Howling at a "violation" of
>these ex post facto disclosure guides undercuts any moral compass we might
>gain from them.  If tomorrow we decide that all trustees be required to
>reveal all of their holdings of art and equities many museums would have a
>lot of explaining to do.  Before ascribing to the Brooklyn Museum the role
>of civilization's most venerable profession, consider the receptive posture
>of most museums.
>David Hupert

        "Howling," ?   Are you saying the New York Times is " Howling"
and  undercutting the moral compass of museum officials?  To me they
are doing their professional thing of informing the public on a
subject the public is very much concerned about.  To again quote from
their article:  
 "Mr. Able [President and CEO of AAM] said the guidelines were
reflections of a new reality of museums and other non-profit
institutions.  The public is demanding more accountability, more
openness."

If you feel it is wrong to write and discuss this subject on MUSEUM-L,
where would you discuss it?  Or are you saying that we should all be
quiet and hope the problem will go away.   Sunlight is always a good
disinfectant, and it may get rid of the smell of dung in the
galleries.

John A. Bing
Laguna Art Museum

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