Smithsonian chief Clough says his decision to remove AIDS video was hasty but not censorship

G. Wayne Clough, head of the Smithsonian Institution, acknowledged Thursday that he acted too quickly before deciding Nov. 30 to remove a controversial video from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery.

In an interview after a long-planned speaking engagement in downtown L.A., Clough said the decision to remove  David Wojnarowicz's 1987 AIDS-protest video, "A Fire in My Belly," on the same day that two top Republican congressmen had complained that the exhibition offended Christian sensibilities, was "the most painful thing I've ever done," but denied it could properly be called censorship.

Clough said threats of budgetary consequences by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) played into his decision, but a primary concern was preventing a media pile-on that would "hijack" the exhibition by turning the discussion away from the art on display and make it an excuse for a heated and polarizing debate of tangential issues.

Clough spoke proudly of "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" being the first major museum exhibition devoted primarily to gay and lesbian artists' sensibilities. The full story from the interview is here.

In his 20-minute talk at the downtown Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Clough noted the protesters who had marched outside over his removal of the video.

"To those folks who were demonstrating outside this venue, I offer my support for their expression of free speech," Clough said. "I attended Berkeley during the 1960s, so I know something about protests [He earned a Ph.D. in civil engineering there in 1969.] They are valuable in gathering attention to issues."

RELATED:

Group protests art censorship at Smithsonian chief's speech in L.A.

Critic's notebook: Smithsonian chief digging a deeper hole

Smithsonian chief, embroiled in video censorship controversy, to speak in L.A. Jan. 20

-- Mike Boehm

Photo: Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough at Millennium Biltmore Hotel. Credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Nathaniel Siegel]

I attended Boston University in 1991 and can recognize censorship when I see or read about it.

Here’s two definitions of censorship I found online for political censorship and religious censorship:

Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion.

Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith.

The Smithsonian does have objects in it’s collections that are controversial. Here’s one simple way the Museum handles describing a sensitive object:

Hector Bazy Papers 1910
Accession No. : 2007.7055 [2007.7055.14.jpg]
Repository: Smithsonian Institution, Anacostia Museum Archives
Disclaimer: Some language in this manuscript may be offensive to some viewers. It is presented as it exists in the original document for the benefit of research. This material in no way reflects the views of the Anacostia Community Museum Archives or the Smithsonian Institution. For rights and reproduction information, call 202-633-4820 or emailACMarchives@si.edu

David Wojnarowicz’ film piece “A Fire in My Belly” was removed 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 ?

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

[Donald Frazell]

While it is worrisome to bend to political pressure, it most certainly is NOT censorship under the law, doesnt matter what you want to blieve, no matter how hard you stomp your feet in self righteous rage.

Why? Have you seen the ACLU involved? No, because it isnt censorship. Period. end of irrelevant story.

art collegia delend est,
Because they dont give a well rounded education, and therefor cant be creative art .

[Dancing Scorpion]

CLOUGH IS THE EPITOME OF HYPOCRISY. SO TYPICAL OF THOSE WHO CLIMB TO THE HIGHEST RUNGS OF THE LADDER THESE DAYS. IN THE WORDS OF MY SON, MR.CLOUGH, YOU STINK!

[Siduri]

I believe someone left the house without his backbone! The Republicans hold money over his head and he dances! This is political censorship and nothing more! He has no business being in charge of anything that has to with art.

[Jonathan]

To Donald Frazell:

Irrelevant story? Christians and Politcos succeed in forcing the removal of a controversial piece of art and you call it irrelevant?

Not censorship? Politicians are threatening to remove funding if the content of an exhibit is not changed and you say that's not censorship? I don't what constitutes "censorship under the law" but certainly this is censorship in spirit.

As we celebrate the 1 year anniversary of corporations being given the right of free speech in political campaigns we read about John Boehner and Eric Cantor stifling what the Smithsonian is exhibiting.

[mattH]

"Why? Have you seen the ACLU involved? No, because it isnt censorship. Period. end of irrelevant story."

Oh right, the attention of the ACLU is the sine qua non of censorship issues. If an artwork is censored in the forest and the ACLU doesn't hear about it, was it censored?

[jad]

Oh for God's sake. I'm sick of people doing bad or stupid things, then expecting to be forgiven because their decisions were "painful."

[AnEnemyOfTheState]

They act in YOUR name.

[Bruce S]

When these hypocrites display "artwork" defaming islam then they will have some credibility. Clough should be replaced.

[Michael Sloan]

Was it censorship? Sure. The issue, however, is the type of censorship. If the art related to any religion(s)/faith other than christianity, it never would have been considered for display at the Smithsonian. I don't recall a picture of Mohammed -- or a Muslim crescent -- dipped in urine. Ask yourself when is the last time art was displayed that offended Muslims, or any other religious minority in the United States at the Smithsonian? Christianity is the only religion for which those who display art do not self-censor and try to "sneak it by" since Christians (as well as white males) are the last group in America who can as a general rule be mocked publically without fear of consequence.

[Donald Frazell]

Within the rights of of the public institution.
Again, where is the ACLU? Not there, because there is no case.

I have no issue with the video, at that time the Reagan administration was in denial, it didnt want to face AIDS as an issue. My sons godfather died of AIDS in York PA about the same time as this guy.

However, when they did, they immediately started to spend much during that time. And,that has nothing to do with censorship. This is not a case of it. Period.

[woof-woof]

I watched part of the video. It really isn't worth defending. This is a public museum and the public has a right to determine what is shown there. If we banned the display of this work of "art" by the artist in a private space, that would be censorship. Removing this particular piece from display at the National Portrait Gallery is just an exercise in curatorial discretion.

Say an "artist" submitted to the Smithsonian a blurry, low-quality video entitled "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" showing a man dressed as an Arab with a maggot-infested copy of the Koran exploding in a hospital nursery, all accompanied by an audio track containing the call to prayer and a CAIR representative talking about how Islam is a religion of peace. Would you display it? No, freaking way. First of all, it's not art, its a stunt, a gimmick, a crude visual aid for someone's hateful ideology. Second, it's offensive; the people of the United States, all the people, own the museum, and their opinion has to count. There would be a huge call by Congress to remove that piece, and rightly so. If you don't like it, fund your own museum.

Even 2 Live Crew wouldn't demand performance time at the Smithsonian.

[wog]

It may not be censorship but it is definately BS. Conservatives wackos threatening to cut funding over a videotape. typical.

[cqbud]

Within the rights of of the public institution.
Again, where is the ACLU? Not there, because there is no case.

I have no issue with the video, at that time the Reagan administration was in denial, it didnt want to face AIDS as an issue. My sons godfather died of AIDS in York PA about the same time as this guy.

However, when they did, they immediately started to spend much during that time. And,that has nothing to do with censorship. This is not a case of it. Period

WHAT?

[Donald Frazell]

Any display of Muhammed is sacraligious beause he was an iconoclast, and cleansing the Kaabba of graven idols his greatest priority. And frobidden to show him as he didnt want to be worhsipped, he was but a prophet, as Jesus was to Islam, Isa in the quran. The greattest nd purest of men. What people have done in his name is not his fault.

[woof-woof]

To Donald Frazell, art collegia delenda est, indeed.

One of the best commentaries on this sort of art that I've ever read is the "Twelve Moments in the Life of the Artist" chapter of David Sedaris' "Me Talk Pretty One Day."

[dumbo]

Painfully inept and cowardly behavior. This weak-willed blow-in-the-breeze cross-licker should be replaced by a staunch and determined human being.

[Donald Frazell]

My wife loves Sedaris books, I will have to ask her about it.
Though my favorite art academy movie by far is
Art School Confidential, with John Malkovich and Anjelica Huston.
When Hollywood makes fun of you, you got some issues.

Fine art colleges must be destroyed