Columns

Letters to the Editor

EDITOR: Let me start with Emily. She wears her white guilt like a badge of courage, nurturing it in some perverse form of white pride ["African Nightmares," Emily Hall and Charles Mudede, March 7]. Deal with it. In the end, the heinous acts committed by the West have more to do with the fact that the perpetrators were human than they were white. If Africa is the cradle of humanity, it is also the cradle of all things human. Africans were doing all the things Europeans would end up doing (good and bad) while Europeans were figuring out that not crapping in the same cave they sleep in is a good idea.

Now Charles. He is a perfect example of why the term African American is such a misnomer for so many. He exposes himself as no more African than I am German. The only exhibits that don't "scare" him are those tinged with Western influence and exposure. This of course made him useless as Emily's African trump card.

There is more to Africa than what Europe and America did to it, a lot more. Open yourself up to that and you begin to realize that the West is only one way of being human, not the only way and not necessarily the best.

Nick, via e-mail

EDITORS: I never knew art criticism could be so subjective. I learned more about Emily Hall's feeling of white guilt and Charles Mudede's perspective on colonialism than anything about SAM's African Art exhibition. Maybe if they had taken time to listen to the audio tour (I would have found this a prerequisite to writing a visual art column), they would have learned something, instead of just rehashing what they learned in a freshman-year non-Western civ class. Granted the "colonialism of looking" is a valid point, and these works for the most part are not meant to be displayed for Westerners in a sterile museum, but couldn't the same be said of the Elgin friezes, the Venus de Milo, and the entire contents of the Asian Art Museum? Why so much outrage over African art? Is white guilt enough reason to keep these artifacts hidden from public view? I understand why the writers responded more warmly to the contemporary pieces that comment directly on the tragedy of colonialism and the insult of the Western orientalist view of Africa, but why does the art that stands on its own so offend the writers? Art writers who rely on their own arrogantly inflated mastery of art history instead of actually informing themselves about an exhibition write incredibly pompous art criticism.

Ryan Hicks, via e-mail

EMILY HALL RESPONDS: Criticism is subjective. That's why it's called "criticism," and not "reporting." And I'm quite startled by how much was read into that article that wasn't put there by Charles Mudede or me. I can't find the "outrage" that so upset Mr. Hicks. Could it be that there was the teensiest bit of projection going on?

My intent was to look at the art and talk to an African friend (and Charles was born in Africa to African parents) about the differences in perception between a Western viewer and an African one. The dependence on the audio tour means that the galleries were full of people plugged into their headsets, and glaring at us in annoyance for talking. What this suggests is that, far from promoting the "dialogue" that this kind of show wants to engender, the museum encourages us to accept the view coming through the headphones. Is this is a question of museumology and curatorial choices, or of cultural bossiness? Now that's a dialogue I'd like to have.

DEAR EDITOR: Monica Drake's review of Reagan In His Own Hand [March 7] is the typical tripe one hears from a conformist who's never done any original thinking. If Drake needs to get down to attacking the spelling and punctuation errors in a journal, I have to question the rest of her "insight" on this review.

The basis of the book is exactly what it says: It's thinking in his own hand. It's not some glossed-over musings designed for digestion by the masses (looking forward to Clinton's book?). Reagan is loaded with imperfections and paradoxes that are easy pickings for a publication like The Stranger--but when you need to resort to attacking the free thinking that one does at the cost of spelling and punctuation in a journal, it doesn't say much.

John Kueber, via e-mail

JOSH: Congratulations on your article on [Seattle City Council Member Margaret] Pageler and your response to [Council Member Judy] Nicastro [Five to Four, March 14]. Hard to imagine that I had such hopes for Nicastro at one time--it sure doesn't take long for a person to drop ideas and hopes and become nothing but worried about the next election.

Kathy Barker, via e-mail

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: Last week, we incorrectly reported that displaced tenants are eligible for relocation funds from landlord Paul Allen because Allen is breaking the lease. ["In Other News," Bryan Bingold, March 14.] Actually, the issue is not the lease. City code makes funds available when tenants are displaced as a result of substantial rehabilitation, demolition, or change of use. As we reported, Allen is asking tenants to leave for "future development plans" or "possible demolition."

Also, relocation money is divided between Allen and the city.