The Walker Art Center needed to redress the situation it created with the scaffold sculpture, but how can an artist and arts administrators agree to be party to a public burning of art? ("'Scaffold' sculpture to be dismantled, then burned," June 1.) They considered it art yesterday, but tomorrow it goes up in flames? In one cultural setting, this might make things better, but the historical resonance in another cultural setting makes a bad situation even worse.
Kip Wennerlund, Minneapolis
• • •
So, we are burning art for ideological reasons in America now. To paraphrase Heinrich Heine: Where they burn art, they will also burn people in the end.
D. Morgan MacBain, St. Paul
• • •
The dispute about the new artwork in the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden raises some questions. Is it not a totalitarian, antidemocratic impulse to suppress (burn) an artwork that one finds offensive? Who defends the First Amendment freedom of speech and liberty of artistic expression when a leading art museum like the Walker won't do it for an artist it chose to display? Is our important arts community speaking out to defend its right not to be censored?
When does any group gain possession of a particular image (the scaffold/gallows has a long history across many cultures) and therefore the right to decide how, when and where it is displayed, and whether or not the rest of us can experience it? And to what group will the Walker next give veto power over the art that it will display and permit the rest of us to see? And how is healing and reconciliation promoted by suppressing other people's opportunity to view, experience and discuss a work of art? TPT will soon be broadcasting Ken Burns' "The Vietnam War," a work that will undoubtedly provoke painful, traumatic memories for many who actually lived it, both here and in Vietnam: Should it therefore also be suppressed?
George Muellner, Plymouth
• • •
The large lead photograph on the cover of Thursday's Star Tribune features Walker executive director Olga Viso extending her hand and reaching out to Dakota elder Sheldon Wolfchild in a gesture of gentle physical support. For people who have been asking in disbelief how Viso could have thought Sam Durant's "Scaffold" was suitable for the new Sculpture Garden, and how she and Durant could have made this decision with absolutely no dialogue with the Dakota community, this image offers a little insight. The troubling, very tired and marginalizing narrative of powerful, privileged people heroically helping Native Americans remains. So after all of the protests, all of the statements and all of the meetings, the Star Tribune selects an image that completely reinforces racism — powerful privileged person assists Native American person.