Lou Gelfand: Review of museum's gun exhibit draws fire
Jeffrey C. Dege
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4008019.html
Lou Gelfand: Review of museum's gun exhibit draws fire
Published July 27, 2003 RR27
A July 18 Variety cover article, headlined "Exhibit of guns at MIA
misfires," triggered a fusillade (forgive me) of complaints.
Typical was Chris Radlinski's comment:
"Mary Abbe's review tells us much more about her personal distaste for
firearms than it does about the Minneapolis Institute of Arts firearms
exhibit."
The critical analysis by Abbe, Star Tribune visual arts critic since 1984,
snubbed subtlety. Among her arrows:
- "Behind the grandiose title -- 'Three Centuries of Tradition: The
Renaissance of Custom Sporting Arms in America' -- lurks a gun show,
pure and simple."
- "Most of the guns were intended for shooting game animals, birds or
spinning clay discs, and there is something deeply unsettling about
encountering so many of them, in an art museum."
- "For a museum to start buying and showing guns -- even beautifully
crafted, historically resonant models -- can be read only as an
endorsement of gun culture. That's both unnecessary and offensive."
- "The show's heavy emphasis on contemporary guns catapults it into the
current political debates and makes the Minneapolis museum appear to be
a pawn in the gun lobby's maneuverings."
- "The institute's gun show ... is nothing more than celebratory
propaganda hiding behind a thin veneer of historical gimcrackery."
Her final two sentences shredded any doubts:
- "Bait and switch sometimes works as a marketing tool. But this show
compromises the museum's credibility and is just as likely to offend
longtime visitors."
Here are samples of reader responses:
Katherine Griffin: "In her rant, Abbe missed the point of this exhibition
entirely. It's not about killing but all about skill, art and artistry
being applied to basic raw materials."
Greg Anderson: "You have a well-respected right to dislike guns, but
you do not have the right to be critical of my personal character. The
museum is not for your own personal enjoyment and political agenda."
Mark Rurik: "I can't discern whether it's a well-assembled collection or
not based upon the review. That represents a failure of the essential
purpose of a review of an art exhibit. A more professional approach
would have been to have the reviewer beef up the substance of the piece
and write a separate commentary for the editorial section."
Abbe replied: "As the mother of a boy who learned to shoot a rifle at
age 9, I have been surprised to find myself perceived as an unpatriotic,
gun-phobic enemy of the Second Amendment.
"I don't shoot, myself, but I've picked buckshot out of many a pheasant
dinner, enjoy venison felled by hunter friends and appreciate the value
of a strong military and excellent police forces.
"But I also recognize that guns are hugely controversial today and I
remain convinced that an art museum display of them needs to address
both their beauty and their social context.
"Many critics insisted that I should have focused only on the guns'
artistry and craft. I understand that 'art-for-art's sake' position
but disagree. No matter how beautifully ornamented, guns are not
teapots. Displaying them as if they were is, as I said in the review,
irresponsible."
John Habich, senior culture editor who copy edited the review, said,
"Every review is biased; reviews are subjective accounts that include
both description and reaction.
"The best critics throughout history have considered art within the
context of social issues. Art reflects not only craftsmanship and
creativity, but also political, spiritual and moral values: of the culture
in which it was made, and of our own culture, from which it is viewed."
Managing editor Scott Gillespie responded:
"Mary is an excellent art critic who writes with authority and passion.
Unfortunately, this piece crossed the line that separates a review from
a column of personal opinion."
Comment: I read the review to gauge Abbe's judgment of the gun
exhibition's artistic value, not her abhorrence of guns. I was
disappointed.
For me, the history of custom gunstock workmanship was a learning
experience. And the simplicity of the curator's design of the exhibit
was in itself a work of art. One does not need to love or hate guns to
learn from the exhibit.
Journalism 101
The Star Tribune has reached some remarkable journalistic heights in
recent months, anchored on but not limited to its Iraq War coverage.
That's no excuse to forget fundamentals.
Wednesday's edition ignored the Aquatennial Parade held that evening.
Send those responsible to Journalism 101.
Be ever vigilant
Jim Garrity was one of many who questioned the spelling in Tuesday's
Metro/State section headline, "Near water, vigilence is watchword."
But he was the only one who said:
"May I add: In headlines, vigilance is missing."
The reader representative catches bouquets and brickbats from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Call 612-673-4450. Outside the metro
area call 800-827-8742. He can be contacted atrea...@startribune.com.
--
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging
for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were
always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a
hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
- L. Neil Smith
Pat Humphreys
A handgun should be hanging in the Louvre.
S Sheldon
But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery or
other tools of our society.
Same with swords and other weapons.
--
Help Draft General Wesley Clark for President 2004
http://www.draftclark2004.com
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbiaqtb...@jdege.visi.com...
Don Homuth
wrote:
>But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery or
>other tools of our society.
*Some* guns are well designed and art-like. Some are simply ugly.
>Same with swords and other weapons.
Exactly the same with swords and other weapons as well.
John Hanson
in mn.politics:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:18:54 GMT, "S Sheldon" <use...@sodablue.org>
>wrote:
>
>>But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery or
>>other tools of our society.
>
>*Some* guns are well designed and art-like. Some are simply ugly.
Mine are mostly of the ugly variety.
D. A. Tsenuf
"John Hanson" <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:m3tdivcjumojse3rd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:08:53 GMT, Don Homuth <eno...@spam.com> wrote
> in mn.politics:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:18:54 GMT, "S Sheldon" <use...@sodablue.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery
or
> >>other tools of our society.
> >
> >*Some* guns are well designed and art-like. Some are simply ugly.
>
> Mine are mostly of the ugly variety.
>
Threre are very few guns that are really ugly..
Anything that is well designed has it's own beauty..
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote (paraphrased):
>
>A handgun should be hanging in the Louvre.
Are you telling me there aren't any firearms in the Louvre?
--
[Liberty] is the first thing and the last thing. So long as it prevail
the how is thrilling and stupendous; the moment it fails the show is a
dull and dirty farce.
- H. L. Mencken
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery or
>other tools of our society.
>
>Same with swords and other weapons.
I haven't seen the exhibition, yet, so I won't judge it. I will claim
that an exhibition of gunsmithing is appropriate for an art museum.
The real complaint, I think, against the "review" is that it provided
no meaningful information about the exhibition by which the reader could
judge whether it was worth attending.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Threre are very few guns that are really ugly..
The Nambu automatic pistol.
>Anything that is well designed has it's own beauty..
Assuming one goes with functionalism as the sole aesthetic criterion.
Jeffrey C. Dege
Function is the primary aesthetic criterion. The rest are secondary.
--
I have noticed also myself, gentlemen, that when men seek for nothing in
warfare but only life at all costs, they are generally the ones to die,
and that with disgrace and ignominy; but when they recognize that all
men must die, for this is their common lot, and strive only to die with
honor, these I generally see growing to old age, and while they live,
much happier.
Learn this lesson yourselves, for now is the time we need it: be men
yourselves, and encourage others to do the same.
- Xenophon, "Anabasis"
Don Homuth
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:11:08 GMT, Don Homuth <eno...@spam.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:02:15 -0500, "D. A. Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Threre are very few guns that are really ugly..
>>
>>The Nambu automatic pistol.
>>
>>>Anything that is well designed has it's own beauty..
>>
>>Assuming one goes with functionalism as the sole aesthetic criterion.
>
>Function is the primary aesthetic criterion. The rest are secondary.
Function is the primary functional criterion. Whether or not one is a
Bahaus minimalist or one who prefers the more florid types of
decoration is open to aesthetic concerns.
I have a friend who has one of those overly-done engraved and filled
revolvers. It's "too pretty to use" sez he. Something like that is
Neither functional nor beautiful. It's merely bizarre.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On 30 Jul 2003 18:50:40 GMT, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:11:08 GMT, Don Homuth <eno...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:02:15 -0500, "D. A. Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Threre are very few guns that are really ugly..
>>>
>>>The Nambu automatic pistol.
>>>
>>>>Anything that is well designed has it's own beauty..
>>>
>>>Assuming one goes with functionalism as the sole aesthetic criterion.
>>
>>Function is the primary aesthetic criterion. The rest are secondary.
>
>Function is the primary functional criterion. Whether or not one is a
>Bahaus minimalist or one who prefers the more florid types of
>decoration is open to aesthetic concerns.
Decoration can serve function, or it can simply augment function.
But it can't fix lack of function.
--
This right to privacy, I am inclined to believe, is just as valid as the
right to free speech, and might be very well erected into a permanent
limitation upon it. It is not mentioned in any Bill of Rights that I
know of, and yet it is plainly one of the inalienable possessions of
every free citizen of a free state, and many of our laws recognize it.
Every such free citizen has a right to announce his views on any subject,
but he has no right to force any other citizen to listen to him.
Thus the latter's right to privacy takes precedence of the former's
right to free speech, and if it is not supported by the Constitution
then it is at least supported by every consideration of logic, fairness,
good order and common decency.
- H. L. Mencken
S Sheldon
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:18:54 GMT, S Sheldon <use...@sodablue.org> wrote:
> >I'm not going to say I agree with Dege.
> >
> >But I do agree that guns are pieces of artistic work, just like pottery
or
> >other tools of our society.
> >
> >Same with swords and other weapons.
>
> I haven't seen the exhibition, yet, so I won't judge it. I will claim
> that an exhibition of gunsmithing is appropriate for an art museum.
But you've already judged.
That's what's wrong with your posts here.