Mark Ast asks: Is it possible that we might open-up a debate on this issue,
which intrigues
me greatly:

Speaking from the point of view of an art museum, I believe that it is
practically impossible to avoid politics. I suppose that for history or
science or some other museums, there is the possibility of avoiding a
"political agenda". As long as you don't deal with history, science, or some
other "controversial" subject. And choosing to present art in a way which
deals only with formalist or aesthetic issues is, I believe, a very narrow
conception of the role of the art museum.
All curated exhibitions have a point of view.
All art is political.
As a curator, I prefer to take a strong point of view. As a director, I
encourage other curators I work with to do the same. In order to do so, one
must seriously challenge one's own beliefs, anticipating the questions and
responses of your audience.
For examples:
Native American art is a good example of an area in which it is virtually
impossible to do an honest exhibition without dealing with politics. Last
year, we organized an exhibition featuring four contemporary Native American
artists whose work deals specifically with the issues of being Indian in
America today. It was pointed and effective. The first response for a lot of
visitors was confusion. "This isn't Indian Art--where are the beads, the
pots?" By the time they were done looking at the exhibition, they realized
that Native Americans are not an historical construct, not a romantic vision,
but living peoples with more than their share of 20th century reality.
A few years earlier, we organized an exhibition of historical Native American
art from the southwest. In crafting the labels for the exhibit, I felt it
would be dishonest to discuss the history of Navajo weaving without
mentioning the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo, and the consequences of
the campaign that put the Navajos there.
When the Gulf War broke out, we postponed a planned exhibition and invited
all the170-some artists who had participated in our exhibitions over the
previous two years to create works which responded to the war. Despite a very
short notice, 65 artists showed up with works which, with the exception of
two which pictured Saddam as a bad man, were critical of the war and the
politics which led to it. Despite media reports of 97% approval ratings for
the government's policy, we got no negative responses from the public. To the
contrary. And the show was highly publicized, locally, and on CNN, etc. and
well attended.
Not all exhibitions are so overtly political, of course, nor must they be
controversial, but if one tries to educate--through text labels, artist
statements, lectures, etc.--it is difficult to be honest without espousing a
point of view. "Presenting the facts" is a phony stance. Museums are no more
capable of "objectivity" than are journalists. We may get the same "facts"
from the NYTimes and USNews &WR, but we don't get the same story. Why should
we pretend that museums are somehow uniquely capable of presenting
information neutrally?

There, Mark, that should stir it up.

John Vanco, Director, Erie Art Museum
[log in to unmask]