First example shifts off an art news story to raise a broader issue.

Informants of History

What? A Shocking headline from the NYTs blazed across my browser last night, “Civil Rights Photographer Unmasked as an Informer” (13 September 2010). The photograph

of the Memphis sanitation workers strikers signs “I am a Man” was taken by Ernest Withers. His legacy as the “original civil rights photographer” was also the subject of a recent International Center of Photography exhibit. On Sept 12—oddly, the same day the exhibit closed—a two-year investigative report was released and published by The Commercial Appeal documenting Withers close collaboration with two agents of the F. B. I in the 1960s. Robbie Brown’s coverage in the NYTs highlights how Withers “provided biographical information and scheduling details to two F.B. I. agents in the bureau’s Memphis domestic surveillance program.”

Ernest Withers

Evidence suggesting that Withers was paid is the most damaging to his reputation. Historian David Garrow, quoted in the article, notes that many civil rights workers who gave confidential interviews with agents were automatically classified as “informants.” Withers passed away in 2007 at the age of 85. In light of these revelations, he is unable to defend himself, a point his daughter Rosalind makes in the article. She views the report as inconclusive.  I tend to side with her skepticism, mainly because the report was just released and the most inflammatory charges in it are making news. My thoughts are stirred by a remark by Brown who writes: “But now an unsettling asterisk must be added to the legacy of Ernest C. Withers, one of the most celebrated photographers of the civil rights era: He was a paid F.B. I. informer.”

Must an asterisk be placed by his name? If he was, in fact, a paid informer for two years while in Memphis, does that diminish his commitment to civil rights? Does his body of work suffer as well? His images of Martin L. King and others are what we “see” when we study the history of the civil rights era. They are part of our collective consciousness. What questions do you raise over his alleged actions? Is this an ethical controversy, an artistic one, both? Does an artist’s legacy rest on the impact of their work or can revelations of unsavory personal conduct transform the experience of viewing art? (S.T)

_____________________________

Second example launches from the subject to take a position about it.

Grounds Zero Performing Arts Center

In a recent article, Robin Pogrebin states that there is now ONLY four months to build the performing arts center in Ground Zero (“Ground Zero Arts Center: Time Is Not on Its Side”).

This is a project that is hopefully going to be accomplished, but a cultural affairs officer says that this project has a narrow opportunity. If in four months, the money needed to build (40 million to secure the project and about 50 million more for costs) the underpinnings needed for the center is not available, then the project will be canceled. It is said that the reason for the performing arts center to be at Ground Zero is because it is the “key to urbanism of the whole district.” It also seems that the project will not be started until after 2013 or 2016 until the PATH station is finished.

A debate is going on whether or not the arts center should move to Liberty Street. It will cost more money than at the World Trade Center (around 300 million).

I believe that the performing arts center should be built at Ground Zero because it is double the money to build it at Liberty Street. At the same time, I do not believe it is fair that they give them such little time to have the money ready. We are gaining a lot if we build the center, not only tourists but New Yorkers will enjoy a new art foundation.

So the question is do you think that it is worth building a performing arts center? Do we really need one at Ground Zero? Should they build it at Liberty Street even though costs are higher? Is it fair giving them such little time to gather the money needed? (Student