On Wed, 19 Oct 1994 21:44:53 -0800,
Paul Apodaca.  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>>On Wed, 19 Oct 1994 Key Yellis wrote:
>>Even if the exhibit were signed by the curator -- and I don't think NASM
>>does that -- it is the MUSEUM, not the curator, that presents the exhibit,
>>and the Smithsonian at that.  Surely that makes some kind of a
>>difference . . . <stuff deleted>
 
>A good point. Is the museum exhibition a thesis, developed by the curator,
>and articulated with help from a professional team or is the exhibition an
>institutional statement representative of those who govern, administer and
>support the museum. The answer I was brought up with is the former. Does
>that still hold up today? Are academic freedom and curatorial perogative a
>legitimate concern of the museum or has the exhibit become so important as
>an audience attraction and institutional image-definer that it is more
>important to please than to present.
>Paul Apodaca
 
I dunno, Paul, when it comes to "responsibility" for an exhibition, the
legal sense was established when we fought the "pornography wars" in the
70s and 80s. We were always reminded that it was not the artist (who made
the work) or the curator (who assembled it) who went to jail, rather it
was the "exhibitor" (And in Cinci that translated: "director").   Jim