In a message dated 95-11-14 11:44:32 EST, [log in to unmask] (Nmhm Afip) writes: > Have museums ceded some curatorial control over exhibit content as a > result of the recent controversies? Have sponsors begun demanding > some curatorial control over the exhibit content? > > You're right, I must have fell asleep while I was deleting. Are you kidding???? The Enola Gay exhibit has a disclaimer on its first text panel WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN. It's nuts. Okay, so they didn't address the controversial topic, but it sure is hard not to fall into the big gaping hole left in the middle of the exhibit. That was a case of changing the entire exhibit to please "sponsors." And what about the O. Orkin Insect Zoo. It would be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous. Actually it is funny, but it opens the door for so many evils: The R. J. Reynolds Planetarium? How about the Betty Crocker and Aunt Jemima Dinosaur Hall? Aaargh. Once companies get their names on the walls, it's only a matter of time until they want the exhibit's contents to coincide with their public image. Of course, without sponsors, there will be no exhibits what with NEH et al. being sent to the Land of the Lost. Is that the kind of response you were looking for? - Adrienne