Dear folks one and all:

 

At the risk of opening a Pandora's Box on one of several issues Candace has raised, What About Censorship?

 

The old adage "proper prior planning prevents p***-poor performance" has some merit in terms of advanced review, contracts, museum-based control, etc.  And many of us have had episodes of displaying things that took on lives of their own quite unexpectedly -- a show from an artist whose personal life flared into view unexpectedly due to marriage, death or other activity, say. 

 

What role does the mission, the museum's policies, privacy issues, state or federal mandates regarding access, new research or discovery, and local legislation or practice play?  Is it sometimes better to pull an exhibit, hands-on module, artwork or show?  When? 

 

To take the Mapplethorpe exhibit as an extreme example, yes, the board, staff and organization supported the show.  [Devil's advocate turf follows:] What if, by way of extreme example, one of the nude images had been of an underage model depicted in a submissive posture?  And what if that information was released for the first time during the mid-run of the show?  Does the museum censor that work, pulling it from display?  What about the credibility of the information?  Does the organization have any responsibility to viewers?

 

OK--what about a science museum exhibit about stem cells, created in advance of federal rulings on the research?  If the rules change, or if information changes, what does a museum do?

 

My thought is that censorship is one option.  NOT the only option, NOT the first option, NOT a knee-jerk, undocumented option...but an arrow in the quiver of response.  AN option.

 

Your thoughts most welcome.  Thank you.

 

Liz Bleiberg

 

PS -- If the museum or the exhibit under discussion/attack receives any amount of city, state, or federal money, what role does legal opinion play, if any?