The dozen or so posts on this subject since this morning have run the gamut
of opinion:
a.. "Suggesting a work of art is not appropriate for a public space is not
censorship any more than putting an R rating on an art film and showing it
in an alternative film house,"
b.. "I find that statue less offensive than the incessant 9-11 coverage
that's been going on. I thought the statue was very tastefully done,"
c.. "To not show this statue I think is a tradedy in itself,"
d.. "If it was a family member of mine that was killed, I'm not sure that
I would want that raw horror on display for every visitor to Rockefeller
Center,"
I have to agree with David Becker's comment, "To me the problem is not the
work of art, so much as the choice of venue." Clearly each individual
has/will have their opinions about whether the sculpture is appropriate or
in bad taste, whether its removal is a form of censorship or reflecting
public opinion, or whether the sculpture is a memorial to those who have
tragically passed in this fashion or an horrific display. However, I feel
Jay Heuman's comment, "No-one MUST look at public sculpture. Similarly, no
one MUST read billboards, watch television, or listen to public address
announcements," is not true in practice. Certainly there is no external
force requiring that an individual watch and absorb the information; but,
don't most people look anyway? Is it not human nature to view the public
sculpture, billboard, etc. when it is first on display? Don't you look at
the new billboard or bus advertisement at least once?
It is just as wrong to censor a piece because of questionable content as it
is to force a piece with questionable content to be viewed by people who
don't want to see it. A venue as public as Rockefeller Center does not have
adequate "opt out" or warning mechanisms for those who may find the piece
objectionable. Therefore, the real issue is not whether the piece is art or
distaste, true expression or glorification, tasteful memorial or constant
reminder, mild, too gruesome, or not gruesome enough. We could debate that
until we're all blue in the fingers (from typing, get it?). The issue is the
viewer's choice about seeing the piece. TV, radio, music, books, movies, and
many museums all involve choice - the individual is presented with an idea
of the content they are about to witness, either through warning labels,
advertisements, or even word of mouth, and they may choose to risk exposure
(and its consequences) or opt out. This sculpture, regardless of opinion
about the piece itself, offered its viewers no chance to opt out. It's
either view it and (perhaps) be disturbed by it, or walk everyday with
blinders around your eyes shielding yourself from every new billboard, bus
ad, or sculpture.
Sincerely,
George Garner
[P.S.] My thanks to Teresa Witt for posting the article and everyone who has
responded. It's created an interesting discussion and kept my mind
functioning on a very tired Friday :)
National Speedskating Museum and Hall of Fame
George Garner, Director and Curator
P.O. Box 3120, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 587-2609
=========================================================
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).
|
