Great advice.
3 cheers and hope you get a new hat

----------
> From: Eugene Dillenburg <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Controversy/religious subject matter -Reply
> Date: Thursday, March 27, 1997 6:08 PM
>
> At 11:19  3/27/97 -0800, Ann Harlow wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >In a phone conversation last week, he asked if I could give any examples
> >of art that "lampoons" an ethnic group or a leftist political viewpoint.
> >All I could think of offhand was a Robert Colescott painting in the
> >Oakland Museum that I would think some African Americans would find
> >offensive.  Mel Ramos's paintings are potentially offensive to women.
> >What else?  Obviously I'm dealing here with someone who already had a
> >major chip or two on his shoulder.  I asked him to come see the show
> >before writing a letter of resignation, but he decided not to.  He says
> >our claim that the artists didn't mean "to cause offense or mock
anyone's
> >devotional practices" is "like OJ Simpson saying he didn't mean to kill
> >Ron Goldman."  Dialog may be hopeless, but I keep trying . . .
> >
> <snap>
>
>
> Actually, it's been my experience that leftists find just about
everything
> offensive.  ;)
>
> "Back of the Big House" and the Sigmund Freud exhibit spring to mind as
> exhibits censored by the left.  And a few years ago, black aldermen in
> Chicago entered a private school and confiscated a student painting
showing
> the late mayor (a black male) in women's underwear.
>
> As a Catholic with a liberal mother, I would say (with caveats for my not
> having seen the show) that...
>
> a) three works which deviate from the traditional Madonna-with-Child norm
in
> an entire gallery are scarcely grounds for condemning the entire show;
>
> b) the works as described did not offend me.  They did not seem to relate
to
> the theme, actually -- other than the pun on "Madonna," what do they have
to
> do with the Blessed Virgin?  (I was expecting -- hopin, actually -- for
that
> early Surrealist piece, by Ernst, I think, of the Blessed Mother spanking
> the Infant Jesus, being watched by the three wise men: Breton, Elouard,
and
> Ernst).
>
> c) sounds to me like the person resigning has already made up his/her
mind
> to be offended, and feels entitled to that opinion.  Further dialoue will
> probably only make things worse.
>
> I have had to deal with religious sensitivy of another type.  Our
evolution
> exhibit receives a certain amount of flak from those holding creationist
> beliefs.  As a sort of pre-emptive strike, our developers placed
"talk-back"
> stations throughout the exhibit -- bulletin boards stocked with pencils
and
> index cards which encourage visitors to respond to issues aised by the
> exhibit.  This allows visitors with opposing points of view to have their
> say in public (the notes are posted for other visitors to see).  It seems
to
> have had the effect of relieving their anger; we've received only a few
> written complaints on the exhibit.
>
> (Contact Eric Gyllenhaal for more info on these talk-backs.)
>
> When we do get letters, it's been my duty to answer them.  It's
impossible
> to give blanket advice, since every person says something differen.  But
in
> general, I respond as follows:
>
>         1) thanks for writing
>
>         2) I'm sorry you were upset/offended.  It was certainly not our
> intention
>
>         3) The Field Museum presents currently accepted scienific
thought.
> Evolution            is the scienific explanation for the history of life
on
> Earth
>
>            (If there is a specific objection, like "where's the missing
> link?", I             address it here)
>
>         4) We understand that not everybody accepts the scientific point
of
> view, and            we respect every person's right to accept or reject
it.
>
>         5) Thanks again for visiting
>
> I've never had anyone write back for more.
>
> How to apply this to your situation?  Talk-back stations in the allery
might
> help diffuse any public anger, and an even turn a potential PR problem to
> your advantage. A lot of people just want their opinion to be heard.
Deny
> them that, and they'll express their opinion elsewhere -- the media,
their
> communities -- where you have less control.  Give them the opportunity
> within your gallery, and it will often stop there.  In fact, they may
walk
> away with a positive view of your gallery, even though they may hate the
show.
>
> As for dealing with letters of resignation and angry phone calls, you
might
> try to crib a few lines from your mission statement and say something to
the
> effect that your institution is dedicated to presenting art; that you
view
> the works in terms of artistic merit and not ideology; you understand not
> everyone will view the works this way or will agree with your choices,
but
> you feel they are wholly proper and consistent with your mision.
>
> Be sure to keep the debate framed in your terms.  Responing to such
> inflammatory questions as "Name an exhibit that offends the left" is
playing
> into your protagonist's hands -- by responding, you are as much as
admitting
> that your exhibit was intended to ofend the right.  Even when
apologizing,
> be very careful how you phrase it.  I never say "I'm sorry we offended
you,"
> because, from my point of view, I did no such thing.  Rather, I say, "I'm
> sorry you were upset" or "I'm sorry you took offense."
>
> Let me close, at long last, with a couple lines I used to use when I ran
the
> April Fool's newsletter at this intensely PC insitution:
>
>         "If you don't offend anybody, then you're not doing your job.:"
>
>         "If anyone found this newsletter offensive, you obviously don't
watch
>          enough television."
>
> And a happy (long) Easter weekend to all my friends, enemies, and
> indifferents, of whatever religious affiliation, political persuasion, or
> hat size.
>
> -- Gene (7 and 3/4)