This is a question that has absolutely NO answers. I am bringing this up to begin a rational debate about how a not/non-profit gallery/museum/exhibition space can satisfy everyone and keep income flowing. It is hard enough in our politically correct world today to keep everyone happy.
Is there a line, which should never be crossed, when accepting money from a group/organization/person that is controversial. I am going to put this out there, should The Met be penalized for hosting one of its biggest events, The Met Gala hosted by Vogue. The #MeToo generation says objectification is wrong, well that is what Vogue does. I know this is a stretch, but should a company be limited in their choices because of what they produce or views. And then should an institution face a slap when it does business.
Do the artists realize that it takes money to put on exhibitions: Transport, Insurance, Electricity, Heating/Cooling/Humidity control, Packing not to mention ALL involved individuals working on an exhibition – sometimes years. Where exactly should an institution limit its access to funding, money does not just fall out of the sky.
I wanted to do an exhibition on the Cigarette in Portaiture. I thought it was so interesting that individuals would actually choose to have their portraits showing them smoking. I was shot down immediately, why – politically incorrect. But, what an interesting topic, and I am and always have been a non-smoker.
DASHIELL HAMMETT – SI, National Portrait Gallery
As I said at the beginning, there is really no correct answer. I just thought I would put this out there regarding the latest ongoing debate in London at the Design Museum.