There is a difference in kind between a contemporary art gallery or Kunsthalle show, and a museum show. The former can be pure advocacy, whereas museums, even when they act as advocates of the work of artists they choose to exhibit, should never abandon their institutional responsibilities of critical scholarship, as Park puts it. That critics and non-museum scholars offer commentary on exhibitions is no reason to relieve museums of their own scholarly responsibility. While a certain circumspection may be in order when showing the work of living artists, this critical scholarly responsibility on the part of museums is absolute in the case of the work of artists who, like McQueen, are dead.

Where the money comes from (for instance from the fashion industry) is neither here nor there—really, it isn’t. To claim as much is analogous to claiming that universities that research the effects of tobacco on the tobacco industry’s dime are obliged to offer exculpatory results. It won’t wash.

Park hits home. Her review is uncompromising, and rightly so. Any claims that her ideals don’t take account of the real world of museums don’t take account of the real world beyond them.

Rebecca Park complains that the museum did not offer a critique of its exhibition. I believe that this complaint reflects a strange unawareness of the obvious ways that shows are organized. A few ago, Sean Scully was put on display at the Metropolitan. Many people admire his art, though not everyone does. But a retrospective is not the place for a critique. Similar observations apply to every show of contemporary art, and, I would add, though perhaps with lesser force, to historical shows.

When the museum surely depends upon support, and perhaps also upon funding from the fashion world: then, I am saying, that is not the moment to offer a critique. When teaching in Cleveland I invited speakers, including many whose ideas I took issue with. I did not introduce them by highlighting our disagreements. I presented them because I thought that they deserved to be heard.

In saying this, I am not criticizing Rebecca Park’s claims. On the contrary: I thank her for getting me to think about fundamental issues. She makes me so wish that I had seen this exhibition. I am only saying, it is the job of the museum to present exhibitions, and the task of critics to illuminate, challenge, explain. By provoking this response, she has done that! I hope that other people who know more than me will be inspired to respond, and I thank David Cohen for making that possible.