David makes some very interesting points about censorship. After first reading his post, I thought he was simply wrong: for curators there is choice along with benevolent censorship. My argument was something like this: if I go to the grocery store, I censor myself from buying food that is fattening or that contains stuff that's bad for me, even though I like some of those foods and may look longingly at them. But I choose to buy the Kiku apples over the Fuji apples or maybe to buy bananas instead of apples. I have a limited appetite and a limited amount of money to spend, so I have to choose, but one choice could be as good as another. However, that argument doesn't work as an analogy to what David has written. Do you see why? Because I know which foods are good and which should be censored, which are "bad for me." None of us can know which art is "good" and which should be censored, which is "bad for us." On what grounds could a curator claim to have simply be making a choice (which kind of apple) versus a censorship (which is good for you and which is not)? In fact, I think a curator is on safer ground claiming censorship (what is more "nutritious") than simple personal choice (what he/she thinks tastes better) reference use of public or museum funds. Self-censorship, the other "type" that David writes about, seems to me to be so patently obvious that I simply agree with him. At the same time, I would say that I'm not sure it can be called censorship in the sense that what it's working on or with is emerging as it's being censored. I'm not preventing something from being seen or shown, I'm shying away from or toward something that is about to be seen or shown. I have to choose on the fly, in the moment. On reflection, given time to make deliberate decisions, I may make different choices. Is that not what the making and showing of art can be about? My grace note to the curators would be that the good ones present questions, not answers.