To the editor:

To begin, how refreshing to witness a verbal dispute of more than 140 characters, and printed in ink on paper!

I would like to make a few observations on Ms. Kate Chase’s original letter condemning the pop art installation at the intersection of Old Harbor Road and River Road, and the satirical response submitted by Ms. Howell.

Ms. Chase clearly feels that the fork sculpture is an affront to the natural beauty of its riverside location. Ms. Howell clearly feels that Ms. Chase’s letter was an affront to the values of free expression and playfulness that the fork represents. The question is, which affront is more serious?

Pop art as a genre has its fans and its detractors, but in this case the location and not the artistic merit of the fork is the issue. To Ms. Chase, that intersection along the west branch of the River is sacred ground, and when she calls for a referendum, one assumes that she would want to designate the Westport River waterfront and its surroundings a protected area for historical and ecological reasons, a designation that would apply to aesthetic as well as environmental changes.

These kinds of decisions are made on large and small scales every day — I feel confident that they never come at the expense of school budget considerations — and the balance between preservation and free speech must always be struck carefully.

There are comparable national examples — presumably one could not erect a Warhol-esque soup can on the edge of the Grand Canyon (or a sculpture of a can and a spool of yarn—can-yarn!) or a huge model of a shoe tree in the midst of the Redwood Forest in California. These are public lands and the fork sits on private land, so the legal implications are different, but for Ms. Chase — and for others — the emotional weight is the same. Some places and spaces are meant to remain un-commented-upon and un-winked-at.

So, though I watched Gilligan's Island regularly as a child, I side with Ms. Chase in this un-tweeted war of words.

Constance Mariner

New York City