|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| THE ART OF CONTROVERSY | |
 October 8, 1999 
|
||
|
|
After a report on "Sensation," a controversial exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, a museum director and a culture critic debate.
|
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And now some commentary on the implications of
this case from David Ross, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern
Art, and formerly head of the Whitney Museum in New York, and Matthew
Rees, a writer on politics and culture for the Weekly Standard magazine.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Rees, what do you think is at stake here, beyond the Brooklyn case itself?
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
A responsibility to not offend? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DAVID ROSS: I think every museum director, every curator, every board of trustees which, by the way, is the governing body here -- there is a board of trustees at the Brooklyn Museum, just as there is at SF MOMA --has a responsibility to think clearly and carefully about what they present and to make judgments based on their own sense of aesthetic value and quality. Now, that said, these are the most debatable terms we can have. And when we have issues like those that are raised by Chris Ofili's paintings, those issues should be broadly and openly debated. I don't in any way reject the idea that there are people who find the work offensive and difficult and maybe even disgusting and insulting to the sense of who they are, and their own sense of their relationship to God. That's a very serious thing. But in relationship to that feeling, the obligation then is to talk about it; to let the expression of that work of art generate a useful dialogue, because this work of art is a serious thing. It's not something that was just done to make someone angry or to insult someone. Chris Ofili is a very serious painter. Now, let me respond quickly, if I can, to the other comments, because $7 million is a big number. But that's not what is being used by the city to fund this exhibition. As we know, no city money is going into funding this exhibition. That's the money that goes into providing the basic resources, one-third of the budget of that museum so that the city of New York and especially the people of Brooklyn can be served by this great museum. And the real issue here isn't that there are hundreds of examples of other cities and other mayors and other museums being similarly attacked for works of art that may be unpopular or difficult. The problem is the precedent this sets. If one mayor, one city, can reach into a great museum like the Brooklyn Museum and threaten it and bring it to its knees based on the feeling of that mayor, which I don't doubt is a sincere feeling, then I think the doors are open to a kind of censorship that would create an enormous chilling effect in this nation. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Matthew Rees, your view of that?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| A commercial aspect | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Rees, what about the argument that the trustees could fire the director or that nobody will come to see it if it was really offensive to people, what about just letting that sort of procedure take care of it? MATTHEW REES: I think that would be perfectly reasonable if there were not government money at stake. And I think also there is...we're all adults here. I like to think we are. And the ideas that perhaps some of these people will show a little bit of judgment and realize that perhaps this is so offensive and the idea that it should be on display at a city museum, they know that this was going to create a great deal of controversy and it's going to bring attention to the museum. But at what price? ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ross, I wanted to ask you about that. There is a commercial aspect to this that offends some people, too, that the museum did this because it would make news, it was provocative and that's what museums have to do to get people to them now. What's your response to that?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Matthew Rees, we're just about out of time but very briefly your response? MATTHEW REES: Well, I don't think there's anything particularly avant-garde about this. I think what would be truly radical, perhaps would be to put on more traditional classical, representational art that would appeal to our better interests as opposed to this, which appeals to our more prurient interests. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Thank you both very much for being with us. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
DAVID
ROSS: Well, I think the main issue is whether or not as a nation, if
we want to really generalize this, we respect what artists do, what
they try to do, the effort that they make to take their most personally
held feelings about themselves, their place in the world, and their
place in society, their sense of religiosity that they may hold very
privately and try to express that to others. That is the essence of
being an artist; one human being expressing something extremely private
and personal and trying to touch other people with that effort. That's
what we celebrate. That's the essence of why we so carefully have to
protect the freedom of artists to be able to explore their own feelings,
to be able to communicate freely and not to have the fear that by communicating
something that may offend someone else, that somehow they may bring
upon them the wrath of government. 
MATTHEW
REES: Well, Mr. Ross and his allies are framing the issue as one of
artistic independence, when the issue really is subsidized irreverence
or subsidized decadence in many respects. He says that the issue at
stake is whether or not we're going to take artists seriously. I'd like
to see all of the other examples in which Mr. Ross thinks we're not
taking artists seriously. It's not as if museums are shutting down displays
throughout America. The reality is that this is an extreme case with
an extreme exhibit that involves $7 million of taxpayer money. And I
think there's a very strong argument for certainly not having the government
fund these sorts of exhibits, and perhaps displaying a little bit of
judgment when deciding whether or not to put these kinds of exhibits
on display. 
ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH: Before you respond directly to that, as a museum director,
how do you see your responsibilities to the public to not offend certain
sensibilities? 
MATTHEW
REES: They like to frame this around things like the First Amendment.
There is no government right to subsidized art. This is not an issue
of the government shutting down newspapers or publications or displays
that it simply doesn't like and finds offensive. This is a case in which
you have an exhibit that is offensive to millions of people who live
in New York City. And I think it would actually set a very useful precedent
if it suggested to some of the artists and the people who put on the
displays that perhaps they should think twice before having an exhibit
like this at a city-funded museum. 
DAVID
ROSS: Well, the Brooklyn Museum does many things to bring people to
it, just as well all do. I think the Monet show brought a lot of people
and there is nothing much provocative about Monet today, although in
his own time there were probably people who hated it. The reality is
that when government decides to support museums or libraries, then the
rules of the First Amendment apply. So since we are in that condition,
the kind of decisions that have to be made by those who have the stewardship
of our museums as their responsibility are made within the framework
knowing that the First Amendment grants us certain protections. I believe
that that board of trustees and I know that Arnold Lehman and his colleagues
thought about that all very seriously. The commercial side of this is
an easy attack. Was this show considered to be popular? We already knew
it was popular from its showing in London. But I think if Arnold didn't
believe that the works in there and the artists in that show were worthy
of serious merit and worthy of generating a critical discussion, around
the exhibition of their newest work, then I don't think he would have
done it. Yes, there's a little show business in museums these days,
but there's nothing wrong with that.