The Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis is at the center of controversy over artwork that appears designed to address racial tensions but, instead, is provoking them. Museum directors came up with a Solomon-like solution, putting the artwork behind screens to appease those who might be offended. They should be wary of censorship efforts that can only end badly.

Part of the current exhibit of work by Kelley Walker, a New York-based multimedia artist, shows altered images of black civil rights protesters in the 1960s being attacked by police, and covers from the men's lifestyle magazine, King. The images appear to be smeared with whitening toothpaste and chocolate. They have been criticized as racially insensitive and particularly caustic in St. Louis, a community that is trying to heal in the aftermath of civic unrest and deep racial fissures.

Our nation's history of racial injustice is painful. If Walker's art is perceived by viewers as trivializing that past, he should be willing to defend his work and engage in public discussion. But he and CAM's chief curator, Jeffrey Uslip, who arranged for the exhibit, were described by the Post-Dispatch's Debra D. Bass as "hostile" and "terse" when questioned about the art at a public event.

Walker later wrote to the "CAM community," apologizing for failing to engage questioners whose "concerns were legitimate" and expressing regret for causing "anger, frustration and resentment." He described himself as a "staunch advocate of social equality and civil rights."

That's a good step. Why didn't he talk about it in the first place? If Walker and Uslip had been willing to discuss the work with the audience, perhaps the museum would not have had to confront calls for a boycott, calls for Uslip's resignation and demands that the exhibit be censored.

Some of those who were offended mentioned that Walker is white and originally from Georgia. Does that make a difference? He is no more or less entitled to appropriate images and use them for artistic purposes than any other person. Rather than seeking censorship, or trying to tell an artist how to make art, CAM patrons can vote with their feet and go elsewhere to see art they may find more agreeable.

Art is often provocative, and designed to be so. It can create opportunities for thoughtful dialogue about sensitive social issues. If that's what Walker intended, he and Uslip failed the audience by not being receptive to questions.

Art that is meant only to sensationalize doesn't endure. Walker and Uslip missed an opportunity to make the exhibit more meaningful by opening up that space for discussion — and disagreement — among patrons and artists alike.

It's a slippery slope whenever we contemplate censoring ideas, unless we want museum exhibits limited to smiley-face paintings and pretty flowers.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH