To the Editors:
Bruce Gago, there is much to be addressed in your article "No More Terrible Art" (The Dartmouth, Jan. 22). First, it reflects your lack of respect for intellectual freedom, although you briefly and superficially claim to uphold it (within the bounds of your judgement). Instead of criticizing the meanings of these works, you deny that there are any at all, broadly strike down contrary opinion with hyperbolic statements, and overuse the adjective. The effect is a strange distortion of what is found in Upper Jewett Corridor. Your article would have carried far more weight had it been built on any kind of criticism that could be digested seriously, instead of on outrage at what you deem a visual offense where you eat.
Art is a genuine expression of human perception, despite the ramifications it might incur. Because you support Christian imagery in Rollins Chapel, you obviously have some sense of this. Your appeal to common decency, however, does not follow your line of argument. A vague notion like common decency does not deserve the right to prevent certain types of art from being displayed. An indigenous American Indian may object to a window with a crucifix in it, just as a Cambodian once turned into an ox might object to socialist murals (although Orozco was not so "communist" as you may believe). Perceptions of common decency vary from culture to culture, and rest on collective experience. Art can project that perception, but it also can be singular, unique. Dartmouth, as an institution devoted to expose its students to what the world will offer them, has reason to support both types.
There is too much black and white in your criticism, Mr. Gago. The world is a gray place. Learn to live beneath the surface and appreciate its deeper side.
