Continued from:Hide/Seek Timeline: Part 1

December 1, 2010

Gopnik, Blake. "Commentary: Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind". Washington Post: December 1, 2010

Green, Tyler. "Only on MAN: Smithsonian Secretary pulled Wojnarowicz video". Modern Art Notes (blog). December 1, 2010, 3:29 PM

the decision to remove the David Wojnarowicz video A Fire in My Belly from the National Portrait Gallery’s “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” was made by Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough. Until contacted by MAN on Wednesday afternoon and as recently as Wednesday morning, the Smithsonian had maintained that the decision to pull the Wojnarowicz was made by NPG director Martin Sullivan and Richard Kurin, the Smithsonian undersecretary for art, history and culture. A source told MAN of Clough’s involvement and a Smithsonian spokesperson confirmed the account.

“In the end, a decision like that is the Secretary’s,” Smithsonian spokesperson Linda St. Thomas told me.

The Castle’s admission that Clough himself made the call to pull the Wojnarowicz is also the Smithsonian’s first admission the Secretary has been involved in the controversy surrounding “Hide/Seek.”

Itzkoff, Dave. "National Portrait Gallery Removes Video Criticized for Religious Imagery". New York TImes, December 1, 2010, 11:36 AM.

Katz, Jonathan David: On Hide/Seek

Statement from co-curator of the National Portrait Gallery’s Hide/Seek:Difference and Desire in American Portraiture. Posted Facebook December 1, 2010 at Facebook: Support Hide/Seek

Kingston, Jack (Congressman, Republican, Florida)."Congressman Jack Kingston on Fox and Friends about Natl Portrait Gallery's outrageous exhibit."

National Public Radio: Smithsonian Under Fire for Gay Portraiture Exhibit, December 1, 2010

Trescott, Jacqueline, "Ant-covered Jesus video removed from Smithsonian after Catholic League complains", Washington Post, December 1, 2010; 12:00 AM.

Officials at the National Portrait Gallery on Tuesday removed a work of video art depicting Christ with ants crawling over him after complaints from a Catholic organization and members of Congress.

The four-minute video, created by the late artist David Wojnarowicz, had been on exhibit since Oct. 30 as part of a show on sexual difference in American portraiture.

The piece was called "hate speech" by Catholic League president William Donohue and a misuse of taxpayer money by a spokesman for Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumptive incoming House speaker.

Officials at the museum and the Smithsonian Institution, which includes the Portrait Gallery, said they had not intended to be offensive by showing the work and removed it to better focus on the exhibit's strengths.

"The decision wasn't caving in," said Martin E. Sullivan, the museum's director. "We don't want to shy away from anything that is controversial, but we want to focus on the museum's and this show's strengths."

An 11-second portion of the video shows a small crucifix covered with ants. The video is included in the exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture."

World AIDS Day, December 1, 2010.

See: WorldAidsDay.org

See: WorldAidsDayCampaign.org

See: Wikipedia: World AIDS Day

December 2, 2010

Atkins, Robert, to Queer Caucus for Art Discussion List.

Re the situation at the National Portrait Gallery, history suggests that letters of protest to the NPG director are good, but not enough. (Directors of the Smithsonian museums are even more insulated from public pressures by layers of bureaucracy than typical museum directors.) Likewise for discussions in February at CAA etc. Given the recent elections, it is a particularly appropriate time for direct action and drawing lines in the sand about what we queers will tolerate. Consider the below a few suggestions for how to do so. Because some of what I write below involves both the exhibition and our community, perhaps curator Katz might express and discuss his preferences regarding the organization of initiatives involving the show (see NPG below):

Consider initiatives involving the following:

MEDIA Editorials in newspapers and general media linking this censorious act with the additional outrage of it taking place on World AIDS Day/Day Without Art. Collective action by art media editors—eg linked editorials in their pubs and general media. SOCIAL MEDIA campaigns reaching hundreds or thousands--or millions--of respondent/protesters. Pressure on editorial boards (eg Village Voice) for investigative reporting. Personal contacts to presumably sympathetic writers such as Holland Cotter to enlist their voices. Contacts/Liasing with former censorship victims—eg NEA 4, Andres Serrano—whose editorial input or statements might carry additional weight with editors.

ORGANIZATIONS/INSTITUTIONS Where is the ACLU? National Coalition Against Censorship? Visual AIDS? CAA? PEN? Museum Associations? Every progressive gay and/or arts org?

NPG Given how much private gay money was involved in mounting this exhibition, mightn’t the donors be interested in expressing their opposition to such censorship? Mightn’t the living artists in the exhibition be similarly interested in expressing their views? Shouldn’t the institution be pressured to account for its actions? Hold a public meeting to discuss it? Are there sympathetic Congresspeople like Jerrold Nadler who might pressure the NPG about holding such a meeting?

PUBLIC MEETING in NYC Perhaps such a meeting needs to be prioritized asap to enable folks to step up to the plate and to receive support for doing so. Obviously, none of this will happen on its own. Nor should such organizational actions be considered part of the curator’s role.

Bell, Ford W., President, American Association of Museums. Email quoted by Trescott, December 2, below.

The American Association of Museums, based in Washington, said the Portrait Gallery did the right thing in deciding to pull the video in question. "We concur that it should not distract from the other thoughtful and provocative work in this important exhibition. However, we regret the controversy surrounding the excellent show," said Ford W. Bell, the group's president, in an e-mail.

National Coalition Against Censorship: National Portrait Gallery Betrays Constitutional Principles . . . December 2, 2010

New York Times. December 2, 2010

Roake, Jessica.The Culture Wars: What Else Is In the National Portrait Gallery's "Offensive" Gay Show? Accessed December 3, 2010 from The Awl (blog).

Transformer Gallery: to Wayne Clough, December 2, 2010

Trescptt, Jacqueline, Washington Post: "debate over museum's censorship rages", December 2, 2010

Rainbow History Project. "Statement on Censorship at the Smithsonian."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, December 02, 2010

Since its founding in 2000, the Rainbow History Project has been committed to preserving the stories and memories—personal, geographical, and cultural—of the GLBT community in the greater Washington D.C. area and nationally. Those stories and memories are now under attack in the form of the Smithsonian Institution’s removal, at the behest of the Catholic League and other conservative groups, of David Wojnarowicz’s video A Fire in My Belly from the National Portrait Gallery exhibit Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.

That the art and activism of David Wojnarowicz, whose commitment to presenting the lived experience of those with HIV/AIDS inspired so many both before and after his death from AIDS in 1992, should be censored on World AIDS Day is doubly disturbing. The Rainbow History Project Board calls on the Smithsonian Institution to restore A Fire in My Belly to its place in the Hide/Seek exhibition and to issue an apology for its censorious actions to the Estate of David Wojnarowicz; to Jonathan D. Katz, David C. Ward, and Jenn Sichel, the curators of Hide/Seek; and to its patrons.

We must not allow artistic expression or GLBT lives and experiences to be censored in the face of political pressure.

Board of Directors: Philip Clark, Chair; Jeff Donohoe, Secretary; Jan Knode, Treasurer; Rebecca Dolinsky; Chuck Goldfarb; Patsy Lynch; Chris Man; Jim Marks; Kim Sescoe; Dan Vera

Accessed December 6, 2010 from: http://www.rainbowhistory.org/

Schlinkert, Sam. Art Censorship Controversies: A Brief History [NSFW Dec 2, 2010]

Washington Project for the Arts: Statement calling for the Smithsonian to reinstate A Fire in My Belly.

Washington Post. "Editorials. Undue political pressure on a portrait gallery".

December 3, 2010

Association of Art Museum Curators: Hide/Seek Controversy, December 3, 2010

P·P·O·W and Estate of David Wojnarowicz: Response to Smithsonian, December 3, 2010

December 5, 2010

Cameron, Dan. "Why David Wojnarowicz Matters".

David Wojnarowicz is one of the indispensable American artists of the end of the 20th century. Through his paintings, sculptures, photographs, videos, writings, performances and music, Wojnarowicz opened up art’s expressive capability at an moment in history when it was viewed by too many as a sophisticated game of style and technique. In Wojnarowicz’s hands, by contrast, art was never less than a matter of life and death.

Born to working-class Catholic, Polish-American roots, Wojnarowicz had very little by way of formal art training in art, but was instead mentored by individuals along the way. As a young man, he was sexually and physically abused, and throughout his short life suffered deeply because he never concealed his sexual identity. As a result, the recurring problem of homophobia, both societal and individual, became one of the main motifs of his work. During the last years of his life—he died in 1992 of complications from AIDS at the age of 38—his one-man battle against fear and hatred of gay people burned with an intensity that is rarely witnessed in the contemporary art community.

In 1999, I was the curator of one of only two retrospectives of David Wojnarowicz’s art in this country, at the New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC. While the exhibition was well attended and positively reviewed at the time, I can honestly say that it is also one of the few exhibitions that have grown larger in the collective memory of the international art community. Wherever I travel in the world, no matter the purpose of my visit, I invariably encounter students, artists and curators who want to ask me about the Wojnarowicz and his art. Not infrequently, it turns out they have never seen his work in person, but only in publications like the New Museum catalog or David’s own books of prose and poetry. Still, his art has touched them at the deepest level imaginable, bringing me to understand that, unlike most of his peers, the art of David Wojnarowicz continues to grow in importance.

The censorship of David Wojnarowicz’s work from the National Portrait Gallery is an act of unspeakable aggression against artists, writers, intellectuals, people affected by AIDS, and especially the entire LGBTQ community in this country and throughout the world. Right-wing politicians and religious leaders, sensing weakness on the part of our nation’s cultural community, have described Wojnarowicz’s video in deeply hypocritical terms, even going so far as to describe it as ‘hate speech.’ This Orwellian use of language to defame an artist who himself was the victim of hatred against gay people shows that the stakes in this battle are much higher than might be imagined.

The extreme right’s attack on this most vital of American artists must not be allowed to stand, if only because it is transparently clear they have no intention of stopping with Wojnarowicz. If we sit by and let this censorship occur without protest, the forces of censorship and homophobia will grow bolder and more aggressive in their attacks on artistic freedom in this country. Perhaps they believe that, because he was gay and died of AIDS, Wojnarowicz is vulnerable. It is up to us to prove that, on the contrary, when they picked on David, they drastically underestimated his importance to those of us in this country, and in the rest of the world, who don’t condemn what our most important artists have produced—we honor it by proudly showing it in our museums.

Learsy, Raymond J. "Culture Wars Return to Washington and New York." Huffington Post. Posted: December 5, 2010 11:18 AM. Learsy is a scholar and author of "Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip on Our Future".

Logan, Brian. "Hide/Seek: Too shocking for America," Guardian (London).

These images, from America's first major exhibition of gay art, have outraged the country's right – leading to one of them being banned. Accessed December 6, 2010 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/dec/05/hide-seek-gay-art-smithsonian

National Portrait Gallery Protest Mike B. and Mike I.: SilenceStillEqsDeath.

Protesters display censored art ("A Fire in My Belly" by David Wojnarowicz) inside the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC, days after pressure groups and members of Congress had it removed. Both protesters were detained and banned from all Smithsonian properties for life. More action is planned -- for updates see SilenceStillEqualsDeath.blogspot.com Category: News & Politics Tags: censorship, David Wojnarowicz, fire in my belly, video, gay, AIDS, ant, ants, crucifix, cross, Smithsonian, National Portrait Gallery, Boehner, Catholic League, Donohue

New York City Meeting to Take Action Against Censorship

Sunday, December 5, 3-5 pm. PARTICIPANT INC. 253 East Houston St. FOR INFORMATION, to join the mailing list email hunterr5930@yahoo.com or phone: (212) 966-1091

December 6, 2010

Atkins, Robert, to Queer Caucus of American Art Discussion List: "Frohnmayer Fiddles, Artists Burn", November 28, 1989

Davis, Ben. "Arts Policy. Outraged Museums and Artists Unite in Protest of Smithsonian Censorship." ArtInfo.com. December 6, 2010.

Katz, Jonathan David: "a larger issue", December 6, 2010

New York Times: "Editorial: Bullying and Censorship. New York Times. Published online: December 6, 2010. Published in print on December 7, 2010, on page A32 of the New York edition.

Excerpt:

In an appalling act of political cowardice, the Smithsonian Institution last week removed “A Fire in My Belly,” a four-minute video clip, from an exhibit called “Hide/Seek” at the National Portrait Gallery. The privately financed show explores identity, gender and homosexuality in American portraiture.

The video, by David Wojnarowicz, is a moving, anguished reflection on the artist’s impending death from AIDS. It shows very quick glimpses of challenging and, at times, disturbing images, including masks, a meatpacking plant, various objects on fire and the artist undressing himself.

. . .

The Catholic League is entitled to protest, as are members of Congress, although the bullying from Mr. Boehner’s office was chilling. Mr. Clough had a responsibility to defend this work and to reject censorship. He failed. On Monday, the Smithsonian announced that the exhibit will remain open, as planned, until Feb. 13, but without Mr. Wojnarowicz’s video. That is not remotely good enough.

Smithsonian News Release: Smithsonian Stands Firmly Behind "Hide/Seek" Exhibition

The exhibition at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” which opened Oct. 30, recently sparked a great deal of controversy.

One of the exhibition’s 105 works—a short segment in a four-minute video created as a complex metaphor for AIDS—was perceived by some to be anti-Christian. 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, which includes works by American artists John Singer Sargent, Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, Annie Leibovitz and Georgia O’Keeffe.

“Hide/Seek” is scheduled to continue as planned until Feb. 13.

The museum and the Smithsonian stand firmly behind the scholarly merit and historical and artistic importance of the exhibition.

Acknowledging that some visitors may prefer not to encounter some of the subject matter in the exhibit, the museum installed signs at both entrances, reading “This exhibition contains mature themes.”

December 7, 2010

Smithsonian Institution Newsdesk. Smithsonian Q&A Regarding the "Hide/Seek" Exhibition. December 7, 2010

1. Does the Smithsonian stand behind the "Hide/Seek" exhibition or are you going to close the show?

The "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" exhibition at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery is a serious examination of the role sexual identity has played in the creation of modern American portraiture. The Smithsonian Institution stands behind the exhibition, and the show will remain open through the scheduled date of Feb. 13.

2. Why did the Smithsonian make the decision to remove the “Fire in the Belly” video by David Wojnarowicz from the exhibition?

Many people who contacted the Smithsonian and some members of Congress were upset about segments of the four-minute video (optionally accessed by visitors on a small touch screen in the exhibition) because it depicted a crucifix on the ground with ants walking on it. They interpreted the video imagery as anti-Christian.

This imagery was part of a surrealistic video collage filmed in Mexico expressing the suffering, marginalization and physical decay of those who were afflicted with AIDS. In the video, Wojnarowicz used religious imagery placing his work firmly in the tradition of art that uses such imagery to universalize human suffering.

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.

3. Who made the decision?

The Secretary of the Smithsonian, after hearing the opinions and views of the relevant parties, including the Under Secretary for History, Art and Culture, the National Portrait Gallery Director and the exhibition co-Curator.

4. How do you respond to critics, including the Association of Art Museum Directors, who say that you caved into conservative critics who think it's okay to censor art exhibits in museum?

We respect the AAMD position, and respectfully disagree with their conclusion. As a publicly supported museum, the Smithsonian has an important research and educational mission and needs to be responsive to a large and diverse audience. The change that was made was intended to clear up a misunderstanding, and help focus attention on the central theme of the exhibition, which is portraiture and the representation of gay and lesbian identities in American art.

5. What are you doing to warn visitors who may find the exhibition disturbing?

Acknowledging that some visitors may prefer not to encounter some of the subject matter in the exhibition, signs at both entrances read: “This exhibition contains mature themes.”

6. Why did you remove two protestors who showed the video inside the museum at the entrance to the exhibit? Were these two protestors banned for life by the Smithsonian?

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.

The Smithsonian's statement of support for the "Hide/Seek" exhibition can be found here.

The Smithsonian Institution fact sheet is located here.

December 8, 2010

ArtInfo.co. "Leaked Letter Shows Internal Tensions Over Smithsonian Censorship". December 8, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C.— A leaked Smithsonian letter written by National Portrait Gallery director Martin Sullivan suggests that the Washington, D.C., institution is riven by dissent over the recent decision to remove David Wojnarowicz's video "A Fire in My Belly" from the Gallery's "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" exhibition.

The unpublished document, obtained exclusively by ARTINFO, offers a more conciliatory response to the public outcry over the censorship than does the official Smithsonian statement, which was released on the institution's Web site last night in the form of a Q&A. While Sullivan's memo falls short of an apology, it appears to side with critics of the removal, which was ordered by Smithsonian secretary G. Wayne Clough, as Modern Art Notes blogger Tyler Green first reported.

In the statement, titled "Draft response to critics of the removal of 'Fire in My Belly'" dated 12/4/2010 and signed, the Gallery director acknowledges that the decision, reached while Clough was traveling outside of the capital, was made in haste and based on a misunderstanding. "I regret that the video was removed from the installation without more deliberate consideration of other possible options," Sullivan writes. The work, a four-minute meditation on the AIDS crisis, drew criticism from such right-wing critics as Republican congressmen John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Catholic League president William Donohue because of an 11-second clip of ants crawling on a crucifix. "'A Fire in My Belly' was misinterpreted as having a meaning that the artist did not intend," Sullivan writes.

Referring to the fact that the National Portrait Gallery receives a majority of its funding from Congress, Sullivan continues: "The coming months are likely to bring closer scrutiny of federal funding programs in general as well as specifically for cultural agencies, institutions and activities. We all recognize that tough choices will be considered. As that discussion moves ahead, please continue to voice your beliefs about the central role of artistic expression in a free society." Sullivan's conclusion echoes the language of the American Association of Museum Directors' rebuke of the censorship that was released on its Web site: "The AAMD believes that freedom of expression is essential to the health and welfare of our communities and our nation."

In the Smithsonian's very different online statement, the institution says that Clough opted to take down the video after "hearing the opinions and views of the relevant parties," including Sullivan and one of the show's two curators, David Ward. "Smithsonian officials and museum leaders are sensitive to public perceptions of the Institution’s exhibitions," the official statement continues. "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."

As withering criticism of the censorship continues to mount from museums, artists, and art advocates across the country, the Smithsonian has struggled to maintain a united front. Today the Buffalo News quoted the show's other co-curator, art historian Jonathan David Katz, decrying the fact that he was not consulted before the work was taken down. "How incredibly stupid of the museum to rise to the bait," Katz told the paper. The leaked memo further confirms internal differences of opinion over the removal of the work.

Contacted about the draft response, a National Portrait Gallery spokesperson said she had no knowledge of Sullivan's letter.

The Courtauld Institute of Art, Research Forum. Mezzanine Floor, East Wing, Somerset House, WC2R 0RN. London, United Kingdom. Wednesday, December 8 · 12:00pm - 1:00pm.

Following pressure from the Catholic League president William Donahue, the Smithsonian Museum last week removed a 1987 film piece "A Fire in My Belly" by David Wojnarowicz from the National Portrait Gallery's exhibition entitled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." The controversial material in focus is 11 seconds of footage from a 4 minute film featuring ants crawling over an effigy of Christ. With the threat of the withdrawal of 'public' funding from the museum, the Smithsonian's directors felt they had no option but to buckle to the hysteria of a minority of objectors. The works removal, on the eve of World AIDS day, is worryingly reminiscent of the 1989 moment when Senator Jesse Helms demonized Robert Mapplethorpe’s sexuality, and by extension, his art, pulling a cowering art world to its knees.

One of the great powers of art is its ability to foster both nuanced and heartfelt discussions about serious cultural issues. It is inherent to the nature of such discussions that they elicit strong, and often conflicting, feelings. It is crucial that museums and curators feel free to address such issues and to take intellectual, political, and aesthetic risks without fear of retribution (political, financial, or other). This event will attempt to explore these issues.

Two versions of "A Fire in My Belly" will be screened: the original 13-minute version edited by Wojnarowicz, and the 4-minute version shown at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, with an audio re-mix featuring Diamanda Galas and edited by curator Jonathan Katz. The screenings will be followed with conversation between a number of Courtauld staff.

Jonathan Katz will also make a statement via skype!

The event will be open to all with free admission

Taylor, Kate. "After Dispute Over Video, Curators to Discuss Smithsonian Show". New York Times, December 8, 2010, 1:49 PM

December 9, 2010

College Art Association Board-sponsored Centennial Panel, chaired by Dr. Jonathan David Katz, will address the Portrait Gallery censorship matter on Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in the Rendezvous Trianon Room, Hilton New York Hotel. All conference participants are welcome to attend.

New York City Meeting to Take Action Against Censorship

Thursday, December 9, PPOW, 511 West 25th Street #301, New York, NY 10001, (212) 647-1044; 6:30 to 8:30pm

December 10, 2010

San Francisco Camerawork and the Queer Cultural Center: Emergency Screening of David Wojnarowicz's A Fire in My Belly. Friday, December 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

The unedited video by artist David Wojnarowicz recently censored from the National Portrait Gallery's Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture exhibition after objections raised by members of Congress and the Catholic League without input or discussion with the curator or public. This Emergency Screening is part of a nationwide movement to screen the film and discuss it publicly.

The 13-minute video will be followed by a presentation by art historian, writer, and activist Robert Atkins who will provide historical context for such acts of government censorship and help lead a panel discussion that will include queer activists, scholars, and artists. Robert Atkins, Ian Carter, Kim Anno, and other distinguished panelists will elicit audience responses and potential plans for making sure such censoring of exhibitions and ideas do not go unchallenged. The evening will culminate with comments from Jonathan D. Katz, curator of Hide/Seek, who will join us from New York via Skype.

December 15, 2010

Jonathan David Katz, David C. Ward on "Hide/Seek: Seeking and Speaking Sexuality in the Museum." The curators of Hide/Seek speak about the exhibition and the response to it. Wednesday, December 15, New York Public Library, 7 pm, Schwarzman Building, Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street, South Court Auditorium. Information: http://lgbt.nypl.org/