At 11:40 PM 9/25/99 -0400, Doug Powles wrote:

>Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani stepped up his attack on the Brooklyn Museum of Art
>Thursday, threatening to terminate its lease with the city and possibly even
>seize control of the museum unless it cancels a British exhibition that
>features a portrait of the Virgin Mary stained with elephant dung.
>
>IS THIS ART?

By asking that very question it seems clear that Giuliani has framed the
debate: Is this really a test of the exhibit or is it a matter that relates
to governmental interference in the business of museums. Giuliani is
infamous for trying to decide for everyone else what quality of life and
quality of culture  is suitable for you and for me.

Personally, I don't care whether these items are art or not. The purpose of
the exhibit, obviously, is to present that very question for us to
consider. Whatever I decide, I don't want Mr. G. to predetermine it.

However, just from reading today's NYTimes, are more granulated version of
the issue begins to take form. I'll now quote part of a post I made this
morning to the CAAH list:

>... according to today's NYTimes most of us have drastically
>misunderstood the significance and meaning of the image of the Madonna made
>with elephant dung. According to the Times, in the tradition of the African
>artist who crafted the work, Elephant dung does not carry the connotation
>of filth that our society puts on it, but rather looks at it as a symbol of
>regeneration. Subtract from this work any culturally derived connotation
>carried by the so-called pornographic images used to make up the piece, and
>look at the content in terms of essential human biological activities, and
>what we have from Giuiiani and his supporters is at best a crudely
>unintelligent misunderstanding of a work made by an African who is
>reputedly a devout Catholic. Once we understand the significance of its
>symbology this is a much easier work to understand. (I believe Panofsky
>said that. <g>)
>
>
>At worst this is a cynical effort to harvest the expected revulsion of a
>population who has no need or will make an effort to try to comprehend the
>context of anything before they voice their knee-jerk shouts of "blasphemy"
>and outrage. (It is not impossible that one intention of the artist was to
>mine and expose this kind of culturally derived outrage. In that sense he
>may be successful and Guiliani has fallen, expectedly, into his trap.)
>
>
>If the purpose of an exhibit such as the one at Brooklyn is to cause us to
>re-examine our own presumptions and parochial attitudes, as far as Guiliani
>& Co. is concerned, that's not an issue. What is important to them is how
>much mileage they can get aout of it. They don't evern care about the
>damage they are doing to our cultural institutions in the process --
>indeed, he has never considered the damage he leaves in the wake of his
>political ambitions. What hurts most about this entire affair is the power
>that can be brought to enhance ignorance and closedmindedness. And what
>disturbs me most is the cynical and manipulative use of ignorance to
>further this guy's political agenda.
>
<deleted reference to CAAH letter writer>

>Further, I disagree with
>her assumption that museums (Public Museums in this case) must determine
>what they show on the basis of understanding the mood of the public.  Of
>course the public is always in the equation, somehow; but, let's face it,
>sometimes you have to go against public prejudice.  (Haven't we had this
>lesson once or twice in our discipline?) And then, of course, there are
>some opinions that are just too stupid to respect. We live in a democracy
>where differences of opinion (based on credible witness) are played out
>before the public. More and more it looks like we live in an idiotcracy,
>where to serve his own interest some demagog is allowed to nip away at our
>fundamental values and our cultural institutions. In the end, I don't think
>this furor has anything to do with the exhibit -- in fact, I saw nothing in
>it that would draw me out to Brooklyn to see it. But it does have a lot to
>do with the role of politics in making cultural policy. And that's more
>dangerous than any imagined assault on public decency.

Robt Baron

===========================
Robert A. Baron
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/

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