Okay, I'm going to get a bit controversial here. I saw this story last week on the news in Edmonton and came across it online again today, and I can't resist sharing my (objective and professional) opinion here. Now, I am not and I don't think anyone who makes the policies at the Art Gallery of Alberta, against public breastfeeding. As a whole, the professional museum community in Canada are a fairly liberal bunch. However, keeping food and drink away from exhibits and artifacts is a very important and usually rigorously enforced policy in just about every museum. Often this is a delicate balance when a museum as a public space is used for various purposes, such as receptions of various kinds, and teas where food is served. Still, a big effort is made to keep any food away from the artefacts. This is an extremely important policy to enforce, since as part of the public trust, the museum must protect the objects in their care from damage, which food and drink can easily cause. Even if the artefacts are not directly damaged, pests of various sorts can be attracted to the areas where they are stored or displayed. Hopefully, you will never catch a museum worker eating their lunch in a storage room.
Going back to the AGA, if another patron was eating a self-contained piece of food on the same bench as the lady had fed her baby, the same request would have been made, to take it out of the exhibit room. The management stated they had nothing against the breastfeeding, just not where food was not allowed. There are benches and chairs outside of each exhibit room where the feeding could have taken place just as easily. I really hate to say it, but this is a case where public pressure and political correctness has taken over common sense (and professional expertise), and the museum management caved into it for the sake of avoiding bad publicity. The father of the baby stated that “There should be no limitations whatsoever at the AGA when it comes to breastfeeding”. Really? So how is it that someone with no museum training whatsoever should be dictating exhibition policy? If the lighting is too dim for his eyesight on a sensitive and valuable painting, should they also turn up the lights for him, thereby causing damage to the artefact?
The response from the AGA, though caving into the demands did begin appropriately defiantly, stating, “As a professional museum dedicated to the preservation and presentation of art, the AGA must maintain policies that ensure the safety of the works of art in our care". That is where it should have ended, where the museum states their reasoning, while also stating that another area for breastfeeding within the gallery would have been more appropriate, not for modesty or anyone's standards of decorum, but solely for the purposes of preservation of the galleries collection. Let's not forget that much of the works on display in the galleries are on loan from other institutions and may be extremely valuable, so the gallery has an important trust to ensure they are sent back in the same condition in which they were received.
Is it different if a baby is being bottle fed or if a 5-year old is drinking from a juice box? Where do you stop relaxing the restrictions? The answer is that no, it should not be different. Policies must be enforced consistently and not be altered to avoid being on the wrong side of a sensitive social issue.
To play devil's advocate... ;)
ReplyDeleteI must wonder what the value of a child is?
Will signs be posted?
"Breastfeeding this way -->"
Perhaps a committee could be struck to create a pamphlet to inform the public of the proper places to breastfeed?
I agree, polictical correctedness paralyzes many from enforcing important rules and safety procedures. Does anyone remember last year when two muslim women were allowed onto a flight without anyone verifying their faces matched their IDs? There are many more such cases that never even reach the national news. This case was not about breastfeeding it was about WHERE she breast feeding and the double standard she felt she was entitled to.
ReplyDeleteJimmy