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