On Sat, 28 Jan 1995, rich jones wrote:
 
> Eric:  The full text of your post certainly makes clear your position on the
> "last act" controversy.  I think in time we will be privvy to all or most of
> the facts surrounding the exhibition, its storyline/text construction &
> desconstruction and the issues swirling around the director, the secretary
> and the BOT.  Until then, maybe we should keep our heads about things and
> maintain our civility by not launching verbal "nukes" at those on the front
> line, at least until we know who the culprits really are.
>
> Sometimes it can be very frustrating when we find ourselves supporting an
> indefensible position. Enlightened self-interest sometimes saves us from
> ourselves.  Sometimes it doesn't.  If it is determined, like I believe it
> will be, that the Smithsonian momentarily lost its head about the Enola Gay
> exhibition, then those who advocated vehemently for the minority
> point-of-view should be commended for sticking up for what they believe in,
> complimented on their professional accumen and if they were directly
> involved, replaced.  For those holding the minority view who were not
> directly involved, the whole experience should give one reason to pause and
> to evaluate their world view.
 
 
 
And on January 28, Stacy Roth wrote a lot more than this:
 
Subject: Re: Balancing Viewpoints
 
> I toyed with the idea of how one could present the Enola Gay issues through
> live interpretation as adjunct programming to a "traditional" exhibition.
> (Hmmmmm. If you do not like the notion, wait till I put on my flameproof
> suit, please.) I threw out the idea of interactive first-person characters
> because I don't feel it would be in the best taste to take liberties with
> the thoughts and feelings of the living, considering the emotionality
of the > issue.
 
Rich, and Stacy, this is quite an emotional issue.  I think Stacy
has hit upon a most significant point here: it is not in good taste to
take liberties with the thoughts and feelings *of the living*.
 
Moreover, not the easiest thing to do, either, since they are still
around, first person, to voice their very deeply held feelings.
 
Taking sides, revising historical projections, or bringing the decision
process into a 1990s framework for an "enlightened analysis" is very
likely to upset the living who were there in the 1940s.  My best hindsight
tells me it was a mistake.  Moreover, choosing a point in the 1990s when
the very future of public financing of the arts and cultural
establishments is at stake -- well, it was a courageous but less-than-
well-thought-out decision.  It may hurt a lot of institutions outside the
Smithsonian's rarified circle.  I hope it does not.
 
david laro
[log in to unmask]