Jane,

In a message dated 99-10-05 05:34:43 EDT, you write:

<< Where a majority's cultural identity and pattern of behaviour rests on
 unquestioned beliefs as to the relative importance of their own group in
 relation to other groups, as here where people still unconsiously act as
 though all black men are criminals, then I think that an artist, or
 whoever is perfectly justified in challenging those beliefs, even if
 they do risk offending some people's sensibilities. >>

First of all, I don't see what a particular element of a group's religious
belief system has to do with its "unquestioned beliefs as to the relative
importance" of its relationship to other groups.  If the real issue is the
relationship of one group to another, attacking a religious belief or symbol
constituties a proverbial cheap shot.

I felt that your response was an interesting blend of apples, oranges, and,
perhaps, kumquats.  I don't quite see what ridiculing a religious group's
beliefs or insulting its symbols has to do with non-black people acting "as
if all black men are criminals".  This is as surely a non sequitur.  You go
on to talk about infringements on some people's rights, but I can't see how
the issues surrounding the content of this controversial exhibition relate to
questions of rights at all.  I certainly don't see how attacking the
sensibilities of Christians in Brooklyn will improve the lot of black men in
the U.K.  If there are Christians out there claiming that the Brooklyn
exhibition somehow infringes their rights, I'd say they're confused.  (And I
frankly deplore attempts to cast each and every controversy or debate in
terms of "rights"--that's a misguided approach which trivializes real issues
of personal, civil, and religious rights.  When someone attacks, ridicules,
or satirizes my personal beliefs, my feelings may be hurt, my blood pressure
may rise, and I may experience many unpleasant reactions, but I never feel
that my "rights" have been violated.  Only if my freedom to articulate or
practice my beliefs were frustrated would I feel that my rights have been
curtailed.)

Your argument seems to be constructed in terms of vague hypotheses and
innuendoes.  You seem to be saying that if a majority group somehow tramples
on the beliefs or rights of minority groups, then the majority group has it
coming if its beliefs are attacked in turn--tit for tat?  But what are you
implying?  In what way have Christian beliefs hurt minority groups or their
beliefs?--recently, that is.  (I hope you're not implying that Arnold
Lehman's promotion of this exhibition is his clever way of getting even with
Christians for hundreds of years of persecution of Jews.  I know you didn't
say that--I'm just trying to follow some convoluted logic to its possible
conclusions, not knowing what you have in mind.  To what specific injustices,
then, are the works in the Brooklyn exhibition an appropriate response or
remedy?)  In any event, it seems to me that attacking a religious symbol is a
rather petty and immature way of getting even for acts of intolerance, real
or imagined.

(Of course, the artist of the controversial dungwork, with tongue firmly
planted in cheek--I assume--professes surprise that anyone would find his
creation offensive.  I guess he didn't read the advance hype for the
exhibition.)

The original statement to which you responded concerned the perception--or
observation--that it is considered permissible to offend some groups and
their members, but not others.  To reiterate my position, I merely feel that
such distinctions are fundamentally unfair and wrong-headed.  It's one thing
to attack a group for what it does, but quite another to ridicule the beliefs
and symbols which its members, jointly and individually, hold dear.

On the other hand, if I may indulge in a bit of art criticism, I find the
whole Brooklyn Museum debacle an exercise in warmed-over neo-Dada.  The Dung
Madonna is a direct descendant of the mustachioed Mona Lisa, overlaid with
hype, cheap commercialism, and cynical manipulation of the media, politics,
and the public.  It's fascinating, but I'm not sure it has very much to do
with art.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ museum-l.html. 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).