You mean, were probably worried the exhibit would turn into some focal point for protests or vandalism or something, which, tbf, they could have just said and people probably would've just shrugged and went "yea, I guess that makes sense..."
If that was their reasoning it would be another matter, but, as the article discusses, that was not why they did it.
Staff at Frick Pittsburgh believed pressing ahead with its Treasured Ornament: 10 Centuries of Islamic Art exhibition, which had been scheduled to open Saturday, would be “insensitive” to the Jewish community and others, according to the museum’s director and internal emails reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
...
Elizabeth Barker, director of Frick Pittsburgh, attempted to explain the rescheduling in comments to the Tribune. “When war broke out in the Middle East, we were as heartbroken as everyone, and we realized that we were about to open an exhibition that a forgiving person would call insensitive, but for many people, especially in our community, would be traumatic,” she said.
Internal discussions at the museum also referenced the conflict as a basis for delaying the exhibition. The Tribune said it reviewed an email Barker sent to staff on 11 October, four days after the Hamas attacks on Israel, fearing it would be “perceived differently”.
The problem with this reasoning was nicely summarized by two other people in this article,
Christine Mohamed, executive director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), said the museum had effectively devalued the work of artists across an entire region.
“The decision to postpone the exhibition under the pretext of potential harm to the Jewish community perpetuates the harmful stereotype that Muslims or Islamic art are synonymous with terrorism or antisemitism,” she said in a statement.
“This false perspective not only disregards the vast and diverse Islamic world that extends far beyond the Middle East but also undermines the essence of cultural diversity and appreciation that art represents.
“It’s disheartening to witness such insensitivity when blanket statements are made about an entire religion, particularly when they have the potential to incite harm in the Pittsburgh Muslim community.”
...
Adam Hertzman of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh said the museum should not have linked its wrangling over the art show to events in Gaza.
“As with any community, some people will go see the exhibit and some people won’t. But I don’t think anyone connects it even remotely to what’s going on in the Middle East,” he told the Washington Post. “Just in general, we know that blaming any religious group for the actions of a terrorist organization or a foreign government is an incident of bias.”
Hertzman said the Jewish community would welcome the exhibition, adding: “It’s great to see celebrations of religious culture of all kinds.”
That's only good if you look exclusively at what they said, which in a politically charged environment, could be considered tactful. My position implies the local community might be inclined towards bad behavior. Regardless of how true or false that is, it remains potentially insulting, which would be sufficient reason not to publish the position in the local newspaper. Instead opt for a more palatable bit of spin.
That's only good if you look exclusively at what they said, which in a politically charged environment, could be considered tactful.
Wait, what they said when? With their original communication where they lied to everyone and said they had to cancel the show because of a scheduling conflict, or in their internal messages saying "hey, we can't show art from Muslim people anymore because some assholes who happen to claim the same religion killed and kidnapped a whole bunch of people"?
Because neither is tactful, the first because explicitly lying is wrong and likely to lead to an embarrassing situation where you get caught in your lie, the second because it's just straight up racism.
My position
Which, again, has nothing to do with anything that actually took place here and is something you just made up for this discussion
implies the local community might be inclined towards bad behavior. Regardless of how true or false that is, it remains potentially insulting, which would be sufficient reason not to publish the position in the local newspaper.
I wouldn't say that position is potentially insulting, it just is insulting. Plus, that's the exact kind of cowardice we shouldn't encourage or tolerate from museum curators (or librarians, publishers, etc. for that matter). When the people who run these institutions allow themselves to be intimidated by what might happen when they feature work from marginalized voices, the bigots succeed in silencing those marginalized voices.
I'm afraid being tactful frequently involves a little bending of the truth. Lying simply being wrong is a little oversimplified, that's all. And it's not a lie anyway, when there's multiple reasons for something and you give one, that is not simply a lie, except by omission if you were expected to thoroughly explain yourself.
I see no such standard here. It's just politics, which is messy. I'm sorry if it doesn't live up to your lofty standards for museum curator honesty and disclosure.
Probably not, nothing advocates hate more than learning someone is specifically going out of their way to avoid them having a stage. Doesn't matter if it hits the other side too, if you're fired up enough to be in the streets you're probably also fired up enough to be outraged by any act that even implies equivocation by affecting both sides equally.
I think that's going to really depend on what kind of person you are.
As I originally said, I think had they gone "we are museum. museum protect artifacts. exhibit closed, go away. oh, and fuck you." people would've been mildly irritated, but fine. Their attempt to be tactful about it, ironically, backfired. That actually happens somewhat often to people, just in general. Tact is often very challenging, people do not have to interpret your words the way you think they normally would. It doesn't really follow any rules, it's extremely situational and inconsistent. Like rng. It depends most on exactly which specific words you used, not the content of your idea.
I wonder if Dune part 2 will get screened at all.
Should make the "Islamic Art" exhibit out of all the videos and pictures from the 10-7 atrocities committed by Hamas.
There's your exhibit, you can make a pile of Israeli victims and Palestinian victims from just this one war and add to it every day.
Guess which pile is already bigger?
There is only one pile, victims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Sure, bud.
Because all of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims are responsible for Hamas?
Are all of the world's 16 million Jews responsible for Israel?
You mean, were probably worried the exhibit would turn into some focal point for protests or vandalism or something, which, tbf, they could have just said and people probably would've just shrugged and went "yea, I guess that makes sense..."
If that was their reasoning it would be another matter, but, as the article discusses, that was not why they did it.
The problem with this reasoning was nicely summarized by two other people in this article,
That's only good if you look exclusively at what they said, which in a politically charged environment, could be considered tactful. My position implies the local community might be inclined towards bad behavior. Regardless of how true or false that is, it remains potentially insulting, which would be sufficient reason not to publish the position in the local newspaper. Instead opt for a more palatable bit of spin.
Wait, what they said when? With their original communication where they lied to everyone and said they had to cancel the show because of a scheduling conflict, or in their internal messages saying "hey, we can't show art from Muslim people anymore because some assholes who happen to claim the same religion killed and kidnapped a whole bunch of people"?
Because neither is tactful, the first because explicitly lying is wrong and likely to lead to an embarrassing situation where you get caught in your lie, the second because it's just straight up racism.
Which, again, has nothing to do with anything that actually took place here and is something you just made up for this discussion
I wouldn't say that position is potentially insulting, it just is insulting. Plus, that's the exact kind of cowardice we shouldn't encourage or tolerate from museum curators (or librarians, publishers, etc. for that matter). When the people who run these institutions allow themselves to be intimidated by what might happen when they feature work from marginalized voices, the bigots succeed in silencing those marginalized voices.
I'm afraid being tactful frequently involves a little bending of the truth. Lying simply being wrong is a little oversimplified, that's all. And it's not a lie anyway, when there's multiple reasons for something and you give one, that is not simply a lie, except by omission if you were expected to thoroughly explain yourself.
I see no such standard here. It's just politics, which is messy. I'm sorry if it doesn't live up to your lofty standards for museum curator honesty and disclosure.
Probably not, nothing advocates hate more than learning someone is specifically going out of their way to avoid them having a stage. Doesn't matter if it hits the other side too, if you're fired up enough to be in the streets you're probably also fired up enough to be outraged by any act that even implies equivocation by affecting both sides equally.
I think that's going to really depend on what kind of person you are.
As I originally said, I think had they gone "we are museum. museum protect artifacts. exhibit closed, go away. oh, and fuck you." people would've been mildly irritated, but fine. Their attempt to be tactful about it, ironically, backfired. That actually happens somewhat often to people, just in general. Tact is often very challenging, people do not have to interpret your words the way you think they normally would. It doesn't really follow any rules, it's extremely situational and inconsistent. Like rng. It depends most on exactly which specific words you used, not the content of your idea.
I wonder if Dune part 2 will get screened at all.
Should make the "Islamic Art" exhibit out of all the videos and pictures from the 10-7 atrocities committed by Hamas.
There's your exhibit, you can make a pile of Israeli victims and Palestinian victims from just this one war and add to it every day.
Guess which pile is already bigger?
There is only one pile, victims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Sure, bud.
Because all of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims are responsible for Hamas?
Are all of the world's 16 million Jews responsible for Israel?