BlogBacks on "Hide/Seek" (and new exposure for Wojnarowicz) UPDATED

"Hide/Seek," the catalogue

I've received some thoughtful comments, pro and con, about my take on the National Portrait Gallery's video controversy, and I'll publish a few, below. But first, a news update (in addition to AAMD's just released statement and another from the Association of Art Museum Curators) and a few additional comments from me:

David Wojnarowicz's controversial video, "A Fire in My Belly," expelled from the National Portrait Gallery, has found a new home at a small eight-year-old nonprofit gallery for emerging artists, Transformer. It's too bad (but not at all surprising) that a larger Washington institution (i.e., the Corcoran) has not, so far, volunteered to stick its neck out. But I'm not sure this video belongs in a storefront window (as it is at Transformer), where passersby of all ages can see it. [UPDATE: And e-mail from Transformer's manager, Barbara Petro Escobar, just hit my inbox, telling me that the gallery "is now showing the full 13-minute version of "A Fire in My Belly," inside our gallery space, and no longer in our storefront."]

This afternoon, P·P·O·W, the New York gallery that represents the estate of David Wojnarowicz, issued this statement taking issue with the NPG's removal of the video and announcing its plan to post three different-length versions of "A Fire in My Belly" on its  YouTube channel (at this writing, video-less).

UPDATE: This just in from P·P·O·W's channel: "YouTube has flagged Wojnarowicz video due to 'inapproprate content.' P.P.O.W Gallery will be posting to website soon." No matter. Someone else posted it to YouTube three years ago, and it's still here...for now.

Those seeking exhibition copies of the video are invited to e-mail the gallery. This fracas is going to greatly expand Wojnarowicz's audience, but (unlike "Piss Christ" artist Andres Serrano) he's not around to enjoy it.

Here's today's Washington Post editorial (posted online last night), which concludes:

"Hide/Seek" should be a platform for cultural debate, not the target of a misguided political vendetta.

I still think that federal institutions in Washington, such as the National Portrait Gallery, may not be the best venues for highly provocative shows on emotionally charged subjects. Even the Washington Post notes that "public sensibilities must be taken into account when taxpayer funds are in play."

In a sense, "Hide/Seek" was asking for trouble, and this is not the first time that a flare-up like this (over other hot-button topics) has occurred at the Smithsonian. I find it hard to believe that the curators at the National Portrait Gallery were completely innocent about what they might be getting themselves into.

My ambivalence about this controversy has caused two CultureGrrl letter writers to accuse me of supporting censorship, which couldn't be further from the truth. I want shows like "Hide/Seek" to be done, and I want the "vile video" (as opponents have called it) to be shown (as I stated here).

What I fear is that this episode will result in more widespread political interference as well as preemptive self-censorship by museums. By predictably provoking the backlash it has now received, one federal institution---overseen by a board that includes six Congressmen---may ultimately bring an avalanche of criticism down upon art museums nationally. With this one skirmish, the decency police may have been called back to active duty.

But enough of me. Here are some of the comments CultureGrrl has received. The first one, from Todd, who works for an art museum that he didn't want to identify, is closest to my own views:

Do you really think that fighting about this video piece is worth it in the long run? While I respect the opinion of journalists like yourself and others who have weighed in on this topic, it is frustrating that we are now headed back into Culture Wars 2.0, in a recession.

It is not what arts organizations---especially ones in red states---need at this time. I now have to comment on this to every funder I speak with in my community. Many of them watch Fox News regularly. The Smithsonian has handed them a piece of red meat and they are now tearing into it. Had this piece of art been in a non-Smithsonian venue it never would have made the news.

I wish someone would comment on the shortsightedness of this move by NPG. They might win this battle but they'll lose the war for EVERYONE for the next decade.

I feel that it is extremely shortsighted to turn this event into a rallying cry for government funding supporting edgy and controversial art. Let the privately funded institutions show it.

And this from Katherine Solender, an independent museum professional from Cleveland:

I listened to the NPR report Wednesday evening. There's an obvious response to Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who said that if it's wrong for government to be pro-religion, it should also be wrong to be anti-religion: Very few museums (including Smithsonian museums and the National Gallery) in this country DON'T display Christian art that, by it's very nature, is extremely pro-religion!

I understand your conflicted feelings, but I think it's a shame the Portrait Gallery removed the video. If Christians are offended, perhaps rather than getting angry and feeling persecuted, they could reflect on the actions people take in the name of religion. Like condemning people with AIDS. Or people who are gay. Or people who aren't Christians. I find THAT offensive.

Finally, this from Sherman Greene, a retired civil servant:

The Smithsonian's "Hide/Seek" exhibition should be protested by everyone who cares about art, not for offending the religious, but for turning art into a propagandistic tool of identity politics. The show and the phony "controversy" it has predictably engendered have nothing to do with art.