|
Speak Out
Free Speech Versus Hate Speech: What should the Smithsonian do about controversial art?
An exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., continues to be the center of debate over artistic expression versus hate speech.
On view since Oct. 30, Hide / Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture is a national exhibit focusing on depictions of gay and lesbian subjects. One of the works featured is a four-minute video installation by New York artist David Wojnarowicz, who died of AIDS in 1992; the work, “A Fire in My Belly,” is a reaction to the AIDS epidemic of the late ’80s, and uses an image of ants crawling over Christ on the crucifix as a metaphor.
The 11-second clip caused an uproar among members of the House of Representatives, including Rep. John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. Bill Donohue, president of the religious advocacy group The Catholic League, called the work “hate speech.” Fearing that the negative reaction would distract from the other works in the exhibition, the Smithsonian decided to remove Wojnarowicz’s video
This is not the first time in recent years that art, specifically religious-themed art, has caused controversy. In 1987, an image by photographer Andres Serrano showing a crucifix submerged in urine caused some at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) – the government agency that funds public art programs and issues grants to American artists – to receive death threats. In 1989, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., canceled an exhibit by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, whose work is criticized as disturbing and offensive, because it was afraid of losing funding. Ten years later, when a work by painter Chris Ofili – a portrait of the Virgin Mary painted in elephant dung – was featured in the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s Sensation exhibit, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani exclaimed, “There’s nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects
Many of those controversies involved public funding. In the case of the Wojnarowicz video, Hide / Seek was supported by nonprofit arts charities. And when the Smithsonian pulled the video, they were upset. The Warhol Foundation – which donated $100,000 to stage Hide / Seek, part of $375,000 in overall funding this year, according to the Washington Post – threatened to pull future funding of the Smithsonian if the video was not put back on display.
In an open letter to the Smithsonian, Warhol Foundation president Joel Wachs called the video’s removal “blatant censorship” and “unconscionable.” “We cannot stand by and watch the Smithsonian bow to the demands of bigots who have attacked the exhibition out of ignorance, hate and fear,” Wachs wrote
In addition, the Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, which put $10,000 toward Hide / Seek, said it would discuss pulling its funding as well.
However, the Smithsonian has no plans to put “A Fire in My Belly” back on display. A spokeswoman for the institution told the U.K. newspaper The Guardian that the decision was “difficult,” but the Smithsonian stands by it, adding that the Warhol Foundation’s $300,000 is only a fraction of $65 million from private arts funders that the institution received in 2010
What do you think?
What should the Smithsonian do about controversial art? Should it censor exhibits that are potentially offensive? What if the exhibit isn’t funded by taxpayer money, but by private donations? Since it made a decision to remove “Fire in My Belly,” should it put it back now that the Warhol Foundation threatened to cut future funding? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
|
Join the Discussion
|