 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yavar, may I also say I enjoy your posts and respect your opinion (99% of the time. I guess this falls into the 1%). I'm not going going to try to go through ALL your (very long) lecture point by point, but you have some assumptions that I think are incorrect.
Fair enough, and I thank you for taking the time to respond to them.
I'm not sure what qualifies you to declare as a fact, "This is BS."
I'm not sure what qualifies you to state I'm declaring a "fact". It should be obvious to anybody that is my OPINION.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have said, "as a fact". I should have phrased more like, "I'm not sure what qualifies you to rule, "This is BS."
Actually, no. I'm also mixed...half Hispanic. But like you, "I don't pretend to fully comprehend the degree of injustice experienced by Black people and Native Americans in this country, but I can certainly understand ..."
I completely agree that Wayne's statements were terrible. My argument is with tainting his film work by association.
I appreciate you making clear that you agree about Wayne's statements. I don't see how the removal of the exhibit is "tainting his film work". If anything tainted his work, Wayne did, *by making those statements*. Just like how it's difficult for people who care (and who are aware), to watch a Mel Gibson performance without it being tainted in some way (and that's a case where I *do* actually admire Mel Gibson as an actor and a director).
By the way, exhibits don't usually last forever, and it's not a tragedy or something to complain about.
I don't think it's a tragedy (did I say that? No.), but I do think it's OK to complain about.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Apologies if it came across that way. Complaining about it in the way that you did, made it seem as if someone (Wayne? Wayne fans?) was wronged by the removal of the exhibit. I don't think anyone was wronged except for the people Wayne was speaking about.
I am also fully aware that museums rotate their collections and often exhibit only a small percentage. (If there is anything I find fault with sometimes in your posts, it is that you often assume ignorance in your readers and it ends up seeming like a lecture. I note this even when I agree with your points).
Fair enough. I will grant you that I have a sometimes-bad tendency to lecture.
My disagreement is not that any exhibits should not fully deal with Wayne's horrible racism or even with his noxious politics, but that from the article, it seems like everything from the exhibit was being locked away only for the use of researchers and kept from the public. Maybe that is a bad assumption on my part. But if that is the intention...I think it's wrong.
The way you phrase it, it sounds like censorship. But I would point out that 98% of museum holdings are just as much "locked away only for the use of researchers"...and even were it not for Wayne's racist comments coming to light, resulting in this exhibit's premature end...eventually it still would have ended (just not as soon), and the items would have been just as much locked away as they are now.
Ok. This is the kind of lecturing I'm talking about. I know all about the history of Confederate monuments and their connection with the Reconstruction and Civil Rights era. I'm pretty sure most people here are aware also.
I'm afraid I wouldn't bet on it.
But you misunderstood my point. Those statues need to be removed because they are in public places, courthouse, parks, etc. No black American should have to go to the city hall or such to get driver's license or vote or whatever and have to walk by a statue celebrating "Our Hero, Robert E. Lee". My point is that removing an exhibit from a MUSEUM or other Academic institution is not the same. An exhibit about any actor, director, artist, etc. no matter how vile their personal views should not be left out of the view of people seeking information in a museum setting. Especially if there is contextual explanation, information, and interpretation.
I personally think Ayn Rand, for example, is a terrible writer with particularly vile opinions. But I would not object to seeing her in an exhibit on famous writers as long as there is relatively balanced context.
Now, I haven't seen the exhibit, so I can't speak to if it "celebrates" Wayne or not. Memorabilia about some films and personal items were mentioned. Personally, I cannot see why anyone would object to "here's his hat", "here's his saddle", etc.
But I don't think there is that contextual explanation, information, and interpretation at the John Wayne exhibit, nor was it really suggested as a solution. But I would submit that (from my experience) exhibits at USC were actually free and open to the public (how's a university different from a courthouse? I guess USC is a private college, but in this case I reiterate: their exhibits were open to the public as far as I recall). Even if those exhibits were only open to say USC students, how do you think a Black or Native American student might feel if they saw that exhibit celebrating John Wayne (please don't seriously argue with me that any John Wayne exhibit is not going to be celebrating him and his career)?
So...Am I overreacting? Probably. I will admit a bias, like you, but in the opposite direction. I like Wayne in his films. But I've never had trouble separating the art from the artist. A lot of people seem incapable of that. I would certainly not object to any exhibit that along with his contribution to film, it also explained his shortcomings and dark side. He is certainly not a "victim".
Since the institution, USC, did not present adding that context as an option (and who knows if the John Wayne estate would have been okay with it? I doubt it...), what would you say, if that were definitely *not* an option? Would you be okay with its removal then?
This may getting too political so I think I will stay out of more discussion. In the long run, you may be right about one thing...it's probably not something to get too worked up about. But I do hate having assumptions about me made.
I would hate that too. Thanks for the reply, again.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2020 - 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
riotengine
(Member)
|
This is BS. I'm very liberal politically and I strongly disagreed with John Wayne's politics, but I also strongly disagree with this hiding or canceling of film history. Despite my distaste for Wayne's politics, I loved him as a actor and I loved most of his films. This bowing to pressure from small noisy groups is a mistake.
If you make a comparison to the removal of Confederate statues and such from public spaces to museums, it doesn't hold up. At least, the items are still in a place where they can be viewed by the public and historical context provided. This John Wayne removal takes it out of a University exhibit (a sort of museum-like display) and puts it into an archive seemingly available only to students, scholars, and researchers...not for public view. Better they should give the items to the Autry Museum or the Academy Museum so they can displayed and explained.
And please, I realize this touches on politics, but let's keep any discussion to the context of preserving film history/culture etc. for the public and not go into rants against "liberal activists" or "cancel culture" or any of those things that set some people off and lead to nasty arguments and blocked threads.
I agree, absolutely. For exactly the reasons you state.
Greg Espinoza
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
