In <[log in to unmask]> "Susan M. Ward" <[log in to unmask]> writes: > >>> MARIETTA, Ga (Reuter) - House Speaker Newt Gingrich Tuesday >called on the Phoenix Art Museum to close an exhibition that >shows the American flag lying on the floor and draped over a >toilet.<< > >Although I certainly find Gingrich's comments annoying, I will suggest >that it also could be used as a reminder to all museums that we are >not doing a very good job of selling ourselves to the public. Is >there some pro-active way the museum field in general could develop a >public relations program that would give America insight into who we >are, what we do, and how its done? It seems somewhat ironic that in >this day and age of people searching for relevance, meaning, and >community connections, that the very institutions that do this are >thought of as "the bad guys." Susan: It seems to me that here was a member of the public (Newt Gingrich) who in his questioning curitorial decisions has been dismissed as annoying. As Mr. Gingrich represents a public at least as directly as any museum (he has the same fundrasising problems....but when was the last time a curator stood for public election?), perhaps his critical review should be taken as to suggest that there is a serious problem between the curator's tastes and the public.... Instead of pretending these perceptions are so light and unfounded as to be subject to a "public relations program." Perhaps a more fundimental question is... Is the role a a art museum that is publicly funded that of reflecting the wishes and tastes of the public, or revising or expanding these tastes? While I think is a place for later, I personally do not think that it should be considered an unbounded mandate for advocacy or a total freedom without limit to experimentation... Unless the curator can show that the public explicitly granted such a liberal mandate to spend its money. Mark Shanks Education Director Virginia's Explore Park