Hi Anna,

The underlying question here is what people have the right to do - or
not to do.  Do some people have the right to remove from public view a
sculpture they deem offensive even though others may find solace in it?
Do others have the right to impose the presence of a sculpture in public
space that others deem offensive?

Obviously, there mustn't be a simple "yes" or "no" answer.  That
oversimplifies human psychology.  This was a terrible tragedy.  To
forget it is not helpful to anyone . . . like a victim of violent crime
who tries to forget, but is merely covering depression or pent-up rage
with forced (or medically induced) serenity.  Feelings are meant to be
felt, not denied . . . yet, all must deal with their feelings in their
own time.  A paradox.

Anna wrote:
> I disagree.  I would be with you on this if the sculpture were
> sequestered in some private space or even in a gallery with
> an introductory note about its content.  But to say we have
> a choice of NOT looking?

Everyone makes dozens of choices every day.  Selective perception is a
natural, evolutionarily-developed process.  Imagine if you HAD TO see,
hear, taste, smell and touch everything . . . you'd not have time to do
anything else!  NOT looking is as much a choice as looking.

> Public space is just that: public.  Intrusions into public space
> come in many forms: light polution from urban spaces or
> trash strewn in the street, for example, are not the same a
> television which you must turn on to engage.

And yet, who determines what is an appropriate intrusion?  What if two
groups disagree with the other group's determination?  Who gets to
impose upon the other?  Majority rule . . . ?

> In order to decide that you DON'T want to look at something
> like a public sculpture, you would have to see it first, even if
> your decision not to look appears instantaneous, you would
> have to absorb enough visual information to make a decision
> not to continue looking.

I'd have to say that with all the news about this sculpture, people who
don't want to see it can simply avoid that area of Rockefeller Center.

> The issue here is not the merit of the work, but its placement
> as part of the public landscape.

Clearly, we define "public" differently.  (I see publicly-owned and
publicly-accessible as different.)  We also think of "public space" as
functioning differently.

> Your posting raises another red-flag issue for me: your
> suggestion that we "tune out" our surroundings.  This ability
> to turn off the visual is not a skill we--as a species--should be
> cultivating.  We have lost so much as it is (can you imagine
> having to see and quickly perceive danger in the wild?  a
> subtle rustle of leaves could spell doom to a human who is
> not paying attention to the visual environment.  Our culture so
> poorly serves the visual now, should we become even more
> skilled at this, we will certainly lose a measure of our humanity.

"Humanity" is as debated a term as "art."  We all know what it means,
yet we cannot define it.  Humans - as a species - have killed maimed and
oppressed and enslaved and pillaged from billions . . . and, I'm sure,
committed other evils we cannot even imagine.  Perhaps I'm pulling out
the rug from under the feet of this supreme species?  In my view,
"tuning out" our surroundings once in a while is, to be certain, a
blessing.  But sooner or later, the boil must be lanced . . . or it
bursts open.

Sincerely,
Jay

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