Ron's Log

« Another Landmark In Computer History | Main | DHS Community & Cultural Affairs Commission - December 8 »

December 12, 2010

In 1987 David Wojnarowicz created a short film (4 minutes) entitled Fire In My Belly. Mr. Wojnarowicz died of AIDS at age 37 in 1992. That film was included in the National Portrait Gallery exhibit that opened October 30, 2010, called Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture. The exhibit continues until February 13.

This is the first major museum exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture. "Hide/Seek" considers such themes as the role of sexual difference in depicting modern America; how artists explored the fluidity of sexuality and gender; how major themes in modern art—especially abstraction—were influenced by social marginalization; and how art reflected society's evolving and changing attitudes toward sexuality, desire, and romantic attachment.

The film drew no special notice and generated zero complaints until late November when William Donohue, a notorious hatemonger whose main claim to fame is defending Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism, called it "hate speech."

It does not matter that private sources funded this exhibition: the majority of the money afforded the Smithsonian Institution comes from the taxpayers. Accordingly, I am writing today to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees asking them to reconsider future funding.

Donohue had been alerted by this article in CNSNews. The Smithsonian immediately caved.

A critique of the piece in the N.Y. Times.

The incident is chilling because it suggests that even in a time of huge progress in gay civil rights, homophobia remains among the last permissible bigotries in America. "Think anti-gay bullying is just for kids? Ask the Smithsonian," wrote The Los Angeles Times's art critic, Christopher Knight, last week. One might add: Think anti-gay bullying is just for small-town America? Look at the nation's capital.

The Smithsonian's behavior and the ensuing silence in official Washington are jarring echoes of those days when American political leaders stood by idly as the epidemic raged on. The incident is also a throwback to the culture wars we thought we were getting past now — most eerily the mother of them all, the cancellation of a Mapplethorpe exhibit (after he died of AIDS) at another Washington museum, the Corcoran, in 1989.

In its initial press release the Smithsonian says "It generated a strong response from the public. We removed it from the exhibition Nov. 30 because the attention it was receiving distracted from the overall exhibition." The same reasoning could be used to justify the removal of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. Then the Smithsonian came out with this brief FAQ. In answer to the question of why they removed the video, they say this:

Smithsonian officials and museum leaders are sensitive to public perceptions of the Institution’s exhibitions. In this case, they believed that the attention to this particular video imagery and the way in which it was being interpreted by many overshadowed the importance and understanding of the entire exhibition. Thus the decision was made to remove the video from the exhibition.

This is the video itself:

And here is a video of a protest that occurred after "Fire In My Belly" was removed. In answer to questions about the Smithsonian's reaction to the protest, the Smithsonian says...

The two people were asked to leave the museum because they were violating Smithsonian policy: They were videotaping in a no-photography area; distributing leaflets; and displaying a placard (iPad) – all of which are prohibited in Smithsonian museums. When the protestors refused to leave, Smithsonian security contacted the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. The police did not arrest them. The Metropolitan police issued the protestors a citation (barring notice), which states they are barred from the building for 12 months. The protestors were not banned from the museum for life.

Filed under Gay Issues,Libertarianism,Religion | permalink | December 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Comments

The Smithsonian did not decide it was in poor taste and reject it. They put it in their exhibit and kept it there for a month. Only when some Republicans threatened to withdraw government funding for the Smithsonian did they remove this item from the exhibit. That's cowardice.

If the Smithsonian or any museum wants to exhibit only popular and widely acceptable art, that's a decision they could legitimately make. They could find a lot of material and they would probably be very popular.

But when a museum takes on what they know will be a challenging exhibit such as this one, and decides what's in it, then they must know that they may need to have steel balls to see it through. Museums that do not foresee a possible threat like this and make themselves ready to resist it are either stupid or cowards, and the Smithsonian is certainly not stupid.

Posted by: Ron's Log at Dec 14, 2010 10:35:57 PM

Why would anyone want to watch that video? What is the point, to insult people? Make people puke all over themselves. The Smithsonian got this one right. Nothing brave about shocking people. It is cheap, it is art, but it is cheap art. It is not cowardice to recognize exceedingly poor taste and reject it. Should we regurgitate all over the floor and marvel at it then submit it to the Smithsonian?

Posted by: Snowtweetindhs at Dec 14, 2010 9:39:31 PM

The Andy Warhol Foundation threatens to withdraw support for Smithsonian exhibitions.

Posted by: Ron's Log at Dec 14, 2010 12:32:42 PM

Thank you for this, Ron.

Posted by: Earl Marble at Dec 12, 2010 7:09:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.