At 11:19  3/27/97 -0800, Ann Harlow wrote:

<snip>
>
>In a phone conversation last week, he asked if I could give any examples
>of art that "lampoons" an ethnic group or a leftist political viewpoint.
>All I could think of offhand was a Robert Colescott painting in the
>Oakland Museum that I would think some African Americans would find
>offensive.  Mel Ramos's paintings are potentially offensive to women.
>What else?  Obviously I'm dealing here with someone who already had a
>major chip or two on his shoulder.  I asked him to come see the show
>before writing a letter of resignation, but he decided not to.  He says
>our claim that the artists didn't mean "to cause offense or mock anyone's
>devotional practices" is "like OJ Simpson saying he didn't mean to kill
>Ron Goldman."  Dialog may be hopeless, but I keep trying . . .
>
<snap>


Actually, it's been my experience that leftists find just about everything
offensive.  ;)

"Back of the Big House" and the Sigmund Freud exhibit spring to mind as
exhibits censored by the left.  And a few years ago, black aldermen in
Chicago entered a private school and confiscated a student painting showing
the late mayor (a black male) in women's underwear.

As a Catholic with a liberal mother, I would say (with caveats for my not
having seen the show) that...

a) three works which deviate from the traditional Madonna-with-Child norm in
an entire gallery are scarcely grounds for condemning the entire show;

b) the works as described did not offend me.  They did not seem to relate to
the theme, actually -- other than the pun on "Madonna," what do they have to
do with the Blessed Virgin?  (I was expecting -- hopin, actually -- for that
early Surrealist piece, by Ernst, I think, of the Blessed Mother spanking
the Infant Jesus, being watched by the three wise men: Breton, Elouard, and
Ernst).

c) sounds to me like the person resigning has already made up his/her mind
to be offended, and feels entitled to that opinion.  Further dialoue will
probably only make things worse.

I have had to deal with religious sensitivy of another type.  Our evolution
exhibit receives a certain amount of flak from those holding creationist
beliefs.  As a sort of pre-emptive strike, our developers placed "talk-back"
stations throughout the exhibit -- bulletin boards stocked with pencils and
index cards which encourage visitors to respond to issues aised by the
exhibit.  This allows visitors with opposing points of view to have their
say in public (the notes are posted for other visitors to see).  It seems to
have had the effect of relieving their anger; we've received only a few
written complaints on the exhibit.

(Contact Eric Gyllenhaal for more info on these talk-backs.)

When we do get letters, it's been my duty to answer them.  It's impossible
to give blanket advice, since every person says something differen.  But in
general, I respond as follows:

        1) thanks for writing

        2) I'm sorry you were upset/offended.  It was certainly not our
intention

        3) The Field Museum presents currently accepted scienific thought.
Evolution            is the scienific explanation for the history of life on
Earth

           (If there is a specific objection, like "where's the missing
link?", I             address it here)

        4) We understand that not everybody accepts the scientific point of
view, and            we respect every person's right to accept or reject it.

        5) Thanks again for visiting

I've never had anyone write back for more.

How to apply this to your situation?  Talk-back stations in the allery might
help diffuse any public anger, and an even turn a potential PR problem to
your advantage. A lot of people just want their opinion to be heard.  Deny
them that, and they'll express their opinion elsewhere -- the media, their
communities -- where you have less control.  Give them the opportunity
within your gallery, and it will often stop there.  In fact, they may walk
away with a positive view of your gallery, even though they may hate the show.

As for dealing with letters of resignation and angry phone calls, you might
try to crib a few lines from your mission statement and say something to the
effect that your institution is dedicated to presenting art; that you view
the works in terms of artistic merit and not ideology; you understand not
everyone will view the works this way or will agree with your choices, but
you feel they are wholly proper and consistent with your mision.

Be sure to keep the debate framed in your terms.  Responing to such
inflammatory questions as "Name an exhibit that offends the left" is playing
into your protagonist's hands -- by responding, you are as much as admitting
that your exhibit was intended to ofend the right.  Even when apologizing,
be very careful how you phrase it.  I never say "I'm sorry we offended you,"
because, from my point of view, I did no such thing.  Rather, I say, "I'm
sorry you were upset" or "I'm sorry you took offense."

Let me close, at long last, with a couple lines I used to use when I ran the
April Fool's newsletter at this intensely PC insitution:

        "If you don't offend anybody, then you're not doing your job.:"

        "If anyone found this newsletter offensive, you obviously don't watch
         enough television."

And a happy (long) Easter weekend to all my friends, enemies, and
indifferents, of whatever religious affiliation, political persuasion, or
hat size.

-- Gene (7 and 3/4)