As I’m sure many media-savvy Dopers are aware, the Brooklyn Museum recently exhibited some photographs in which Jesus is portrayed at the last supper as a naked woman.
Mayor Guiliani didn’t like it. He said that he was going to form a “decency” commision to oversee what goes on at the Brooklyn Museum. He justified this by saying the museum receives a lot of tazpayer money, and standards should be set for what tax money is paying for.
Now for the IMO portion of the OP:
I think anyone who spends money on something has the right to set standards for how that money is spent. Personally, I don’t believe the government has any business subsidizing museums, but the fact is that they do. The taxpayers are paying for (at least a portion of) the museum’s existence, and as such, they should have a say in its operation. The mayor, as the representative of the taxpayers in NYC, has decided to set those standards. Personally, I do not agree with the standards he is setting, but I think he has the right to do so. If the people don’t agree with his standards, then they should elect a new mayor (which they will, RG can’t run again in 2002.)
As for private museums, which don’t receive taxpayer money, they can do whatever they want, and I would never support any form of government regulation or oversight.
Taken as given that the government does fund museums, it also has a responsibility to the public beyond that of making the public happy with the way the money was spent. This responsibility is to fund good art and present it correctly.
In furtherance of this aim it is only responsible of the government to hire people knowledgeable in the area in order to get the best advice, and to take that advice. This is really no different than any other governmental function. In this sense, people who don’t like the decisions should show some patience.
This particular problem occurs because most people have an opinion about art and not about asphalt, so the two responsibilities come into conflict. That, and modern art sucks. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, really. “Serious” art has pretty much fallen off the edge of the American intellectual horizon, which is shrinking all the time anyway.
It is fun to see that New York is no more cosmopolitan than Cincinnati.
friedo:I think anyone who spends money on something has the right to set standards for how that money is spent. Personally, I don’t believe the government has any business subsidizing museums, but the fact is that they do. The taxpayers are paying for (at least a portion of) the museum’s existence, and as such, they should have a say in its operation. The mayor, as the representative of the taxpayers in NYC, has decided to set those standards.
Bullsh*t (or should I say “elephant dung”?) Mayor Giuliani has not officially undertaken the task of setting decency standards for taxpayer-funded exhibitions as the official representative of those taxpayers. He is simply attempting to choke off funding in retaliation for an exhibition that he has retroactively decided doesn’t meet his personal standards of decency.
As the current division of labor now stands, the Mayor’s official responsibilities do not include the office of Public Censor. The people officially in charge of deciding what gets exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum are, as Tominator notes, the curators and other officials who work there. If the Mayor, or any other mayoral candidate, wishes to add the office of Public Censor to his slate (either directly or vicariously via a “decency commission”), let him run for election with that as part of his platform, and the voters can let him know what they think of it.
In the meantime, it’s inaccurate to say that the public has no input into the museum’s artistic choices. Taxpayers are perfectly free to stay away from the exhibit if they don’t like it, and as a matter of fact taxpayers have been attending in record numbers (thanks largely to Giuliani’s publicity). So the Mayor’s so-called “setting of standards” appears in fact to be much more a personal exercise of power to suppress something he finds personally offensive than an act of public service that genuinely reflects the wishes of his constituency.
Whether tax money should fund museums at all is a debatable question. Whether Giuliani’s reactions to the “Sensation” exhibit qualify as a legitimate exercise of his public position, IMHO, is not.
Were this a private museum, I would agree with you. But the fact remains that taxpayers who will never go to see the exhibit are still paying for it. For them not to have a say, then, in the operation of the museum, is wrong. Now, whether that political power should be expressed in the form of the mayor or an appointed official is not really that important. My point is that the power should exist.
The only way I would support allowing the museum to operate without the oversight of government is if public money was not used to fund it. And that’s fine. I think there are more important things that public money could be used for. But we can’t just give people money and then let them use it to do something that the people of New York do not like. (Again, I see the mayor and the city council as representatives of The People, and it is their responsibility to spend The People’s money on things which The People agree with.)
I love nudity, sex, and porn as much as the next guy, but if the majority of people who pay taxes don’t, then there’s no reason their tax money should go to support nudity, sex, and porn.
Well, I’m not using welfare, but I’m still paying for it. Does that mean I get to decide who is “moral” enough to receive benefits? The government pays for lots of things that a significant number of the population are opposed to (missile-fucking-defense comes to mind).
But the city government of New York, which I am proud (and slightly afraid) to live under, is not strictly analogous or representative of “the people,” nor must it follow the same rules as a private actor. The courts have determined (I think correctly) that the city may make judgements about good art and bad art, but it may not refuse funding because it does not like a particular message. To his credit, Mayor Giuliani has been quite honest about his motivation for setting up a decency board. Since we can now be certain of his intentions, however, we are right to tell him that the government cannot use funding to support only messages that it finds politically acceptable, to the detriment of politically unacceptable messages. Giving money to artists who express a political opinion that the mayor agrees with – and giving money only to these artists – is de facto publicly funded propoganda.
The Brooklyn Museum is not a city-owned museum.It is a private museum which simply gets some funding from the city,as do a variety of other non-profit organizations. If it were totally funded by the city, it would be part of a city agency,and some appointed official would have a say in dtermining what is exhibited.Since it’s private, all the city can do is cut off whatever funding it provides, but it can’t do that on the basis of the message,and really shouldn’t do it even on the quality of a single exhibit. Sure, a lot of people (but not the majority,as far as I can see) have been offended by these exhibits. I’m sure there are people who have been offended by exhibits at every museum (including the Museum of Natural History). Did anyone ever consider cutting off funding to an exhibit about evolution because creationists would be offended?
And as far as taxpayers not having to pay for things they don’t want, I didn’t want to pay for Judy Nathan’s police protection, and neither did many other people, but Rudy didn’t care about that.
How much of the Brooklyn Museum’s budget is subsidized by the city, and what is it allocated for? It could be going for stuff like building staff and utilities with the money paid to the artists tied to admissions revenue. Even with the fungibility argument, how much of the public’s money can it be said is being consumed by the display of each of the tiny handful of works that have been controversial?
If, then, city officials are given some say in running the museum, how much say should they have? Simply being included on the voting board? Or having abolute veto power over every piece that may in any way be offensive any group? Or just Catholics?
But, by and large, their money isn’t supporting nudity, sex and porn. Same thing for the NEA and so many other arts organizations. But, nekkid gets the press. It gets folx riled up. When the Brooklyn Museum of Art has an exhibit of items collected by folx with a local connection, Rudy’s not on the front page. Nor is the museum. It’s wrong to skew this arguement to say that the museum only exhibits contemporary/abstract art or controversial art.
For the record, the work that’s causing all this furor is titled Yo Mama’s Last Supper by Renee Cox and is part of an exhibiton of works by African-American photographers. Last Supper is part of a group of works called “Flipping the Script.” According to the New York Times, Rudy has not seen the exhibit nor the work in person.
Mayor Giuliani has not officially undertaken the task of setting decency standards for taxpayer-funded exhibitions as the official representative of those taxpayers. He is simply attempting to choke off funding in retaliation for an exhibition that he has retroactively decided doesn’t meet his personal standards of decency.