Ideology in My Controversy

This blog post will discuss the information I've gathered about my controversy. It addresses basic discussion topics and gives the reader a more over-arching sense of the major groups in my controversy.


Who is involved in this controversy?

 A wide range of people are involved with the issue of conserving and protecting art. The most identifiable groups are conservators/those actively involved in the art world and people who don't understand the importance and will even actively destroy art (See Samantha De Tillio's tweet again).

Who are some of the major speakers within these groups? 

It seems as though the major figure heads of conservation tend to be associations and scholarly journals, like the Getty, the Archaeological Association, the Smithsonian, and other important associations. Most tend to focus on discussing further research to find better ways to protect art, especially art in the open that can be tampered with. 

The other group, those who are generally indifferent about art, is a good amount of the general public. There are not really any lead speakers against preserving art and architecture.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

Museums can actually have a large amount of social and cultural sway. Those who tend to be invested in museums and art are often influential and wealthy people in society. Museums and scholarly groups are respected and listened to, because they are understood to be "intellectual", and therefore knowledgable.

However, the other group is much larger. It's easy to not grasp the importance of saving art, especially if you don't believe it relates to your daily life. Indifference can be a huge problem, and they have the economic power in numbers. Museum attendance helps fund conservation projects, and helps with the continuous and careful treatment of art. Low attendance means high risk for history not getting the care it deserves (Pompeii is a prime example).

What resources are available to each group?

Museums tend to have fundraisers, appeal to sponsors, social media outlets, etc. However, as I stated before, indifference from the general public hurts funding. The other group has some of the same resources. They can go to museums, read articles online, decide if they believe art is important (though they often don't think about it until something is destroyed). Museums are dependent on the general public, who has the large pool of funds that museums need.

What does each group value?

Museums and archaeological groups value saving art in the best way possible. Some of the general public absolutely supports this, but it's hard to give a general estimation of how the public feels. 

What counts as evidence for each group?

Conservators run tests, practice new methods, have strong guidelines for restoration, and can present a restored piece to the public in all it's "new" glory. The public could argue "the past is the past", "who cares about some art a dead guy painted years ago", "it doesn't affect me daily so I don't feel the need to donate to museums."

Is there a power differential?

Museums technically would have more "power", since there is a political implication with museums as they look for senators and people in power who can help put aside additional funds for programs. However, as I have stated before, museums still need regular attendance to cover day-to-day expenses as well. 

Is there any acknowledged common ground?

Art enthusiasts not directly affiliated with museums, and most people do understand that history is important and seeing art destroyed tends to upset everyone.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

It could be assumed that neither group really wants the destruction of art or historical sites. However it's the feeling that it's not a prominent issue for most people is a dividing factor.

Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond to direct claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position? 

I believe there is a large amount of listening and interaction between the two groups, even if it's not immediately recognizable. Museums tend to rotate and trade artifacts and collections, trying to raise interest. When structures collapsed in Pompeii, government officials even were involved in trying to get people to care and visit before it would be "too late". They have active campaigns, try to designate themselves as an important tourist spot, have fundraisers and do everything they can to interest people. A museum hosts an exhibit people like, it gains interest and they try to do similar exhibits. Even controversial exhibits tend to draw a large crowd (look at my "Eggs Benedict" post for example; it drew hundreds of extra guests). There has to be interaction, otherwise a museum won't survive.