Great advice. 3 cheers and hope you get a new hat ---------- > From: Eugene Dillenburg <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Controversy/religious subject matter -Reply > Date: Thursday, March 27, 1997 6:08 PM > > 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)