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]