The principle that one misdeed deserves to be redressed before another, because it stems from a situation of greater violence, is wrong.
Where should we “draw the line” between sacrificing great art and supporting artists who are predators and bigots?
Bagh-e Hind began with the question: Is it possible to recontextualize historical South Asian paintings and objects through lyrical, olfactory interpretations?
In September when the Art Institute of Chicago announced that the current docent program would be dissolved, the backlash was swift.
If artwork exists in some protected category, as Michelangelo’s “David” seems to, why then is a painting showing a female nude deemed “unacceptable”?
The sculpture was commissioned by the first Jewish commodore in the US Navy, Uriah Phillips Levy, who faced anti-Semitism throughout his naval career.
Two recent films about Deaf culture have been lauded by hearing audiences, but set deafness and music at odds in superficial ways.
With growing calls for repatriation of colonial era objects and against illegal trafficking of antiquities, hiding them away from public view in a chamber of secrets is doubly unethical.
The noble ambitions of these shows doom them to be listicles, box-ticking exercises struggling to meaningfully speak to the issues of our sociocultural moment.
A commitment to trans subjects, and their queer communities, is manifested as a holding environment made approachable by our concern, grounded in intimacy and legacy, enfolding any viewer who will stop, listen, and receive love.
To do so before they have returned the Maqdala treasures and the Benin Bronzes and the Easter Island statues and the Maori heads, before a coherent set of precepts for decolonization has been articulated, would affirm the wrong principle.
Over a century after Wright designed a workplace that borrowed features from the home, designers are at it again, but who does a homey office really serve?