CONTENT WARNINGS: CONSIDERATE OR CONTROLLING?

GLAM Gets Mindful | Melissa Mertsis
________________________________________________________________________________
Content warnings, otherwise known as "trigger warnings," have always been in certain areas of our lives. For example, movies come with ratings that explain whether a film contains drug abuse, sexual content, or anything that may be offensive to its viewers. Music also contains "explicit" ratings that warn its listeners about profanities. In GLAM institutions, content is not always "family friendly" either - do we need content and trigger warnings in museums? It seems to depend on who you ask. 

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and the Art Advocacy Program (AAP) have joined forces to create Museum Best Practices for Managing Controversy, a guide to assist institutions who wish to display potentially sensitive content. This document outlines three strategies to enable what they call "curatorial autonomy" in exhibition creation: the establishment of a freedom of speech commitment, a plan for upcoming controversy and conflict, and a procedure for addressing complaints. A freedom of speech commitment, as suggested by NCAC and AAP, supports that art may evoke certain feelings, including that of being offended. The commitment reiterates that there is a difference between displaying an artwork, and supporting the content that artwork displays. In their suggested freedom of speech document, NCAC and AAP posit that they would not censor exhibits due to pressure - in other words, content warnings have no place in galleries and museums because they're largely a form of censorship. 

Content warning at Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2019, Royal Ontario Museum. Photo courtesy of Brooke Downey.

For others, it is difficult to separate the art from the artist, or from the institution itself. In 2017, the Metropolitan Museum of Art was under fire for the display of Thérèse Dreaming, a 1983 painting by Balthus. This painting depicts a young girl with her knee up on a chair in what has been called a "sexually suggestive" pose. Met visitors were offended by this painting, especially in light of the #MeToo movement, saying that the display of this painting encourages voyeurism and objectifying youths. A petition was started by Mia Merrell to further contextualize the painting, and provide a content warning that the painting may be offensive or disturbing to some viewers. In this case, viewers wanted to be warned of the content of Thérèse Dreaming, and ended up both offended and disgusted with what they had seen. If a content warning was provided for this painting, visitors could either have opted out of viewing this piece, or been mentally prepared for what they were about to see. 

In a more polarizing example, comedian Stephen Fry was criticized in 2016 for bashing trigger warnings, saying that people who need textual warnings about art, plays, or films need to "grow up." He further explains that different aspects of the arts are being heavily censored or omitted from current teaching because of graphic and potentially offensive content which he considers a "great shame." Jonathan Jones of the Guardian calls content warnings a "backhanded compliment." Jones sees these warnings as "daft" but also as a massive compliment to the art and artist itself; they highlight the power of art and the emotions it can evoke. 

Content warning from "Difficult Terrain," Museum London. Photo courtesy of Madi Ghesquiere. 

Personally, I think that content warnings are a tricky subject with valid arguments for both displaying and omitting them. I agree with NCAC in that visitors ideally should be able to separate the artist from the institution, but I'm not sure if this is realistic. It's extremely difficult to separate an artist from their art, especially when they are associated with voyeurism and acts involving adolescents like Balthus is. This could also lead to a larger conversation if some criminal/offensive acts are "worse" to display than others, and if so, how does an institution decide which is which? If only some "criminal" or "offensive" acts are to be displayed, it would be nearly impossible to choose which ones. Experiencing art is meant to evoke emotions and experiences, but I am not sure if there is a line that means something is "too much." I would personally like the option to opt out of seeing a human rights violation, but I would be less offended by nudity or sex, although this changes based on each visitor and their lived experience. It would be difficult to come up with a content warning that satisfies every type of visitor and their trauma, but I don't know if this is reason enough to omit them in institutions. 

I am very "on the fence" about content warnings, and I think many people are automatically opposed to them. People assume trigger warnings play into 'snowflake' culture, and that "everyone is just too sensitive" and nobody can handle anything anymore. I think there is a difference between being "too sensitive" and not wanting to see a painting of a young girl being sexualized, but I also think that it would be difficult to have a guidebook on "what is too offensive," as this is largely variable. Content warnings, whether you agree with them or not, promote art as an immensely powerful medium - some visitors would just like to choose when to be affected by it.