Culture Monster

All the Arts, All the Time

« Previous | Culture Monster Home | Next »

Critic's Notebook: Smithsonian chief digging a deeper hole

Clough Anne Cusack  Los Angeles Times Smithsonian Institution Secretary G. Wayne Clough speaks Thursday afternoon at a Town Hall Los Angeles event at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel on Pershing Square. Arranged last summer, the talk is billed as focusing on initiatives to increase local access around the nation to the Smithsonian's scientific, historical and cultural research, mostly centered in Washington.

Sounds rather routine.

Under the circumstances, however, it is anything but. Those circumstances concern censorship at what the event also bills as "the world's largest museum and research complex" -- censorship the secretary continues to defend.
 
The problem stems from the sudden November withdrawal of an excerpt of an artist's videotape from "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," a critically admired exhibition at Washington's National Portrait Gallery that had been on view for a month. (It remains through Feb. 13.)  The show's subject is gender and homosexual identity in American art since the late-19th century. It includes acknowledged masterpieces by Thomas Eakins, Georgia O’Keeffe, David Hockney, Jasper Johns and many more.

Less important work is also on view. A short, edited passage of David Wojnarowicz's 1987 video, "A Fire in My Belly," was among them, but Clough ordered it pulled.

Why? No one really knows, since Clough has remained largely mum. On Tuesday, anticipating questions at Thursday's Los Angeles address, he defended his decision in brief conversations with reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post and in an e-mail to staff. Mostly, though, he just kicked the can down the road, promising an April forum on the matter.

Clough was apparently working on the recommendation of Richard Kurin, undersecretary for history, art and culture. Complaints had been lodged by two powerful Republican congressmen, neither of whom had seen the video.

Clough's rash decision blew up in the Smithsonian's face. The Assn. of Art Museum Directors released a stern rebuke. A sharp editorial in the New York Times called the removal "absurd." A Washington Post critic argued for Clough's resignation.

Two big foundations issued a public moratorium on future Smithsonian funding, while others who contributed money to the privately underwritten show are known to be furious. Art museums and galleries around the country -- and even in Europe -- lined up to present the censored video. Last week the Museum of Modern Art went even further, acquiring the work for its permanent collection.

The Town Hall event is Clough's first public appearance since the censorship took place. An e-mail from a Smithsonian spokesman said that the secretary would "touch on" the issue in his talk and meet briefly with press afterward. Both gestures suggest we shouldn't expect a full accounting of what happened in the internal decision-making process -- or why.

That's disappointing. His defense of his actions on Tuesday -- "I think I made the right decision" -- makes matters worse. What the secretary actually needs to say when he "touches on" the controversy can be simply stated: "I screwed up."

Speculation has been rife that the decision was a blundered defensive measure, taken in the immediate aftermath of midterm elections that saw conservative Republicans assume control of the House of Representatives. Small agencies such as the Corp. for Public Broadcasting forecast a fight over federal appropriations. Expect the same for the Smithsonian.

Thirty million annual visitors might love going to its 19 museums, most of them free; but anyone who thinks appeasement will prevent an assault from the right on already modest cultural budgets is naive in the extreme. And a defensive measure that alienates supportive centrist and liberal constituencies is just plain dumb.

The Smithsonian's dilemma was ginned up by a single source: the Catholic League, which New York Times columnist Frank Rich has aptly described as "a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church." Wojnarowicz's video partly laments widespread official apathy early in the AIDS epidemic and uses a crucifix as a specific symbol of general Christian indifference. The Catholic League called it anti-Christian, but the symbol is in fact more correctly described as anti-Catholic League and its ilk.

Here's why: William Donohue, the $400,000-a-year head of the organization, and L. Brent Bozell III, who is on the league's advisory board, are ardent anti-gay activists. So are House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who called for the censorship. Whether or not Clough, his undersecretary Kurin or others at the Smithsonian were aware that they were tailoring historical scholarship to quiet ideological opposition is just one among many unanswered questions.

Yet, it certainly looks that way. And there is reason to believe skittishness led the secretary to act in haste.

Ben Davis, a reporter for the website Artinfo.com, unearthed a 2006 case at Georgia Tech, where Clough was president just prior to taking the Smithsonian post. Clough and the school were sued by a conservative Christian legal association over a gay rights issue.

Among the claimed offenses: By mandating a hospitable environment on campus for lesbian and gay students, Davis wrote, Georgia Tech policy came under fire because it "discriminated against religions promoting anti-gay views and favored religions that preached tolerance." Donohue and Bozell were making a similar complaint about the Smithsonian's hospitable environment.

At the school, Clough reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. Perhaps he thought that's what he was also doing when the National Portrait Gallery was being bullied.

If so, he is mistaken. Clough erred by choosing censorship, throwing gasoline onto a brush fire.

Backing down to bullies never works. What works is reporting bullies to the authorities -- in this case, the authorities being the American public. There are diplomatic ways to do that, but the secretary didn't even try. Apparently, he won't be trying at Town Hall, either.

Now, almost two months later, the secretary is weakly defending his administrative error. The agenda for the Smithsonian Board of Regents' Jan. 31 meeting includes the censorship fiasco, but much of it will take place behind closed doors in executive session. If Clough thinks he made the right call, then he's merely digging a deeper hole.

--Christopher Knight

@twitter.com/KnightLAT

Photo: Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough; Credit: Anne Cusack/Los Angeles Times

 


Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments (10)

To clarify, David Wojnarowicz’ film piece “A Fire in My Belly” was removed (not withdrawn) from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery by the Secretary of the Smithsonian on November 30, 2010.

How quickly the artwork was censored and whether the act of censorship was the result of an informed or uninformed decision on the part of the Secretary does not concern me.

If the Secretary can’t protect one work of art, how can he be expected to protect 136.9 million objects, 1.5 million library volumes, and 80, 300 cubic feet of archival photographs and other documents, from the opinion’s of a few selected members of Congress ?

“Our mission revolves around two key themes that date back to James Smithson’s bequest: the increase of knowledge (through research) and the diffusion of knowledge (through exhibitions, educational activities, publications, public programs, access to collections, and other means). For 160 years, the Smithsonian has remained true to this mission. Today, the Smithsonian is not only the world’s largest provider of museum experiences, but an international leader in scientific research and exploration.”

Will the Secretary be able to protect the research findings of Smithsonian scientists whose work may run contrary to religious beliefs ?

Or will the findings of scientists also be subject to removal (read as “censorship”) from the collections ?

Perhaps his decision will feel less “painful” if and when the Smithsonian receives more funding by Congress for scientific endeavors.

Imagine a future where the Secretary is recognized and rewarded for keeping art out of the view of the general public.

Only an out-of-touch museum leader would make a make an important decision, (with no apparent conception of its long-lasting consequences) and then completely disappear from the "dialogue" he supposedly supports.

Clough desperately needs some PR training.

You have a lot of nerve, Mr. Knight--it's easy to find out some prior facts and relations attending to the Smithsonian censorship, because you're interested in the censorship of gay art. But when it comes to MOCA, you give us excuses because no gay art was involved? If your politics of reviewing hinge on the question of gay art, well, then you're just another political hack. I find it rather amazing that you can downgrade MOCA censorship and thus disparage a much broader public discussion of how censorship operates in today's cultural environment of self-promotion and institutional politics. You really ought to resign because your "vision" is way too narrow for a "public" critic.....

Tempest in a tea pot, as no one outside the artiste world cares. Should it have been withdrawn after putting in the show? No. Though it seems it was already censored with such a small segment. Was it government censorship? No way. No one has said dont show it, hell its everywhere now. Though again, no one cares outside the artiste world. The Secretary probably should ahve stuck by his "curators. far too man nof that overspawned breed out there now. But didnt, perhaps he agreed with the complaints, doubt if he knew of such a tiny article in is vast stewardship.And really has affected the millions who attend everywhere, rather minisucle portests so far, and pretty much completely art grads and students screaming their own personal interests.

The Secretary has a huge job overseeing a Smithsonian where art is but a small segment. And totally reliant on government funding, the "two major foundations" are but a pittance, irrelevant and only giving small assistance to a couple of shows in their own interest. art encompases thousands of years of Human history, not a small self ghettoized segment of the current population. Art school grads in hopes of their own showings of badly done and shallow work. Politics has no place, in the art or overseeing, yet that happens everyday, to the benefitt of the artistes view of themselves.

The MoCA debacle is worse. True they commissioned and so owned the "work of art". But no one harmed the video, just withdrew a piece some felt to be offensive, doesnt matter what you think or want to believe. It is basically a public institution, it would not exist without the federal government. The two rather important congressmen had complaints from their citizens, and fundraisers, and acted accordingly, like Boxer and Feinstein wouldnt. The secretary made a choice, it has alot more to do than worry about some tiny art show. Deitch decision was far worse, hiring an artiste whose work is always controversial then Destroying it. Now THATS political. Even if about $$$. Isn't it always?

art collegia delenda est

"Was it government censorship? No way. No one has said dont show it, hell its everywhere now:"

Your out of your mind. If what was done by these two brain-dead brown shirts, John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- a not-too-disguised threats to retaliate based on the content of the art -- doesn't amount to government censorship, then you really are hopeless. And any real American congressman who understands and values what America stands for, would have defended this work in the face of the typical ignorant, pea-brained complaints which seem to arise whenever the Jesus-worship is discussed, even if they disagreed with it. Instead, they showed themselves to be nothing more than common thugs.

OK, how many congressmen have defended the "work"?
The work was not censored, it is more available than ever, just taken away from a government sponsored facility. Not nearly s bad as MoCA's destroying a work of 'art". That never had a chance to be seen. This video can now be seen in its original long form with no one calling for it to be destroyed or hidden, not the cut short version as was originally shown. Thats not government censorship, but responding to constituents concerns. Thats democracy.

It was then the Secretary's decision. And he is sticking by it, because it is a tiny part of his job, and probably doesnt even concern himself with art at all. Its not like art in America is relevant to 99%+ of our lives, it is now a playground for the nouveau riche and effete. No one cares. Thats YOUR fault.

I would really like to see the art world raise its voice to elected officials who would stand in opposition to these "two powerful Republican congressman." We should be directing our energy to influence those who have comparable influence with the Smithsonian. I volunteer to coordinate a campaign if enough people are motivated. I'm sure Americans for the Arts would help me. I've raised this on my blog... Marching and angry Tweeting might feel good, but will it get the right result?

Pleese, artistes are the most selfish cheapest laziest people on earth. Tyler Green barely raised $1k to give to 750 kids, thats barely a buck a kid. what, a pencil and erasure each? Cheap, cheap, cheaP. They dont put their money or effort, of limited mental, spiritual or physical energy into anything that wont promote themselves.

you might get 200, that happened already at the Met. Wow, impressive.
Nothing is cheaper than talk. Or contempt art pieces.

What a coward you are Knight.
JVK

Very funny Christopher, now where is the first one with my initial point?
JVK




Advertisement

Explore the arts: See our interactive venue graphics


Recent News



Advertisement

Categories


Archives
 


From screen to stage, music to art.
See a sample | Sign up