UPDATE: SAM decided to show the video! Here are the details on when it’s screening.
“There’s nothing to be afraid of in this video,” Seattle Art Museum director Derrick Cartwright said after watching David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly, the video that the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery removed from view on December 1, after threats by two Republican congressmen who hadn’t seen the art they called anti-Catholic. “We’ve shown things far more difficult than this.” The follow-up question asked itself: Will SAM join the museums and galleries across the country that have risen up to show A Fire in My Belly, then? SAM still hasn’t decided.
Copies of the video, which includes images of ants crawling over a crucifix, are being offered for free by the gallery that represents the artist’s estate, and Seattle institutions to take them up on it include the Henry Art Gallery, where the video is set to go on display within the next few weeks (with a discussion to follow), and Greg Kucera Gallery, where two versions of the video are playing aside prints by Wojnarowicz (two made with AIDS activist group ACT UP, whose motto is “Silence Equals Death”).
SAM director Cartwright was watching the video at a public screening Friday at the Hedreen Gallery of Seattle University, a Jesuit institution where a dozen artists, musicians, and writers gathered for the first local viewing and discussion about what’s going on. While the group was disappointed not to see anyone from the university—any “collared” Catholics—at the gathering, the fact that SAM’s director showed up was deeply inspiring. He wore a suit, as he always does, and symbolized institutional power in support of Wojnarowicz. He was, for those minutes, a proxy vigilante to the rescue in the aftermath of a sanctioned act of bullying.
In comparison to censorship fights past, this one is a clear-cut travesty, nothing but a bare display of power over the powerless. The two Republicans were not responding to the outcry of a constituency, only to one goading e-mail that later surfaced, written by a professional right-wing activist named Penny Starr. Then, after shutting down the video on the objections of people who had never seen it—coincidentally, on World AIDS Day; Wojnarowicz died in 1992 of AIDS-related causes—the Smithsonian added insult to injury by forcibly removing protesters wearing iPads playing the video around their necks (and banning them from the museum for a year) while at the same time denying that any censorship had taken place (merely the removal of a “distracting” artwork).
The double suppression, silencing of the silencing, is especially painful in the context of the exhibition, Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture. “It is the intention of Hide/Seek to follow Walt Whitman in lifting the veil on what has been hidden in the discussion of American art history”—gayness. Hide/Seek is an outing, the announcement of a new safeness. Or it was supposed to be.
“When I think of why I go to museums, it’s because I get to feel safe there,” Seattle artist and Stranger Genius Wynne Greenwood said in the discussion at Seattle U. Greenwood struggles to be openly queer in her life and work. Now she was addressing Cartwright: “I’m thinking it is totally critical for an institution to invite certain communities to feel safe inside them. That [SAM showing A Fire in My Belly] would be an institutional nod to a queer person, to a person of color, to a woman, to anyone who has felt threatened, that this is safe space, emotionally, psychologically, and physically.”
“And what does it mean that someone wants to take that away?” followed Jim Demetre, a longtime local writer and editor of the online magazine Artdish.
“I don’t think it’s a work we could not show—we could show it very easily, and I’d like to see the response,” Cartwright said.
Greenwood’s plea for safety is literal, not just metaphorical, which makes Cartwright’s hedge that the museum wants to be sure to “talk about what the real stakes are” sound hollow and abstract. Cartwright, now thoroughly on the spot, told the group at Seattle U that he was most interested in “including different perspectives” in a public discussion, rather than putting the video in the galleries alongside, say, the Picasso blockbuster that’s currently at the museum. “We”—on the side of supporting this video—”are intolerant in our own way, too,” Cartwright claimed. He then said the museum is trying to take its time, to respond with care rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
Cartwright’s broad promotion of free speech and thoughtfulness sounds fundamentally democratic. And it would be, if equality reigned in the first place. The taking of sides that occurs during fights like this one is understandably distasteful to progressives (since it’s a classic with-us-or-with-them Bush tactic). But not taking a side in a case as clear-cut as this one is akin to a reporter presenting two sides of a story as having equal value while knowing that one is false and ultimately harmful. It generates nothing but (more) phony debate, which already is our national degenerative disease. Often we’re debating about nothing, and this becomes a form of control. That’s what’s going on here.
SAM is the most powerful art institution in Seattle, and the only one that has not responded publicly or officially to the Wojnarowicz censorship—the exception of course being Cartwright’s moving, if limited, presence at Seattle U. (The Frye posted a link to the video on its website with a note about the Nazi-era censorship of an artist in its collection, and a mention of an upcoming exhibition of Seattle’s Degenerate Art Ensemble, named after the Nazi classification for “degenerate” art by “degenerate” people—Jews, gays, “Negroes,” modernists.)
I e-mailed Cartwright later on Friday night. “In your opinion, is there any reason not to show the video at SAM?” I wrote.
“No reason,” Cartwright responded, “except perhaps that it sounds like several other local institutions are making plans to show it already. If this wasn’t happening, I’d feel a greater urgency to do so here. Sylvia [Wolf, director of the Henry Art Gallery] and I have exchanged e-mails today about convening a panel of local directors to talk about the work and the issues behind this controversy. Will keep you posted. I am also checking to see if SAM owns work by Wojnarowicz.” Just before press time, Cartwright e-mailed to add that the directors of SAM, the Henry, and Tacoma Art Museum are working on a joint statement about the controversy.
Statements and discussions are good acts. But I believe SAM should also feel urgency about showing A Fire in My Belly, and it should put it on display posthaste. It’s not just because, like the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., SAM has symbolic power as the largest museum in the city of Seattle. It’s also that SAM is currently drawing people through its doors by the thousands to see Picasso, whose commitment to politics the museum applauds. What Cartwright did at Seattle U—show up and take a side—SAM needs to do in the public eye. SAM has unmatched power to spread the message that, as Cartwright said, there’s nothing to be afraid of in this video. 
This article has been updated since its original publication.
Well,
There is no question that SAM brings things to us local art freaks that we must be thankful for. But it is such a political arm of the art world its offerings can often only cause agony amongst very important representatives of the local art community. SAM is the epitome of conservative art moves. It’s publicity of its doings reads more like the carefully honed statements of the White House or the Governor’s office than that of fundamental leaders of the art world. The new head of this local art unit would appear to be too sensitive to public political realities but he has some time show he has the right art cajones. (See his early appearances for SAM on local media. He sounds so much like the politically fears carried in the public statements of Gerard Schwarz of the Seattle Symphony. The worlds that these leaders inhabit are anathema of important truths.) I doubt that he does, but we can give him time to prove he can exercise the necessary freedom of expression artists seem to insist on. After all, SAM is run under the shadow of local millionaires that are deeply concerned about how their acts are received and who constitute a powerful pecking order of insiders in control. I presume SAM is still millions of dollars in debt and public venues like this must be absolutely careful. The city library system has more guts than SAM. It must be a gulling and dark road to suffer the upper positions of power and influence at SAM. We can celebrate when SAM’s official curators are trully given freedom. I presume they live in an often difficult role.
I remember seeing a very large show of Cubists (including Picasso) at the Centre Georges Pompidou. It was staggering in putting not just Picasso’s contributions in perspective. SAM’s show can’t hope to accomplish this but I’m sure it is worth seeing for anyone who hasn’t experienced such a thing and getting up close is surely important. I have the funny feeling that the Pompidou Centre wouldn’t have a problem as SAM and their Wojnarowicz problem–don’t you think? In America the political sentiment is so different from that of France, burkas not withstanding. Parisians wouldn’t flinch over Wojnarowicz. SAM lives in an American straight jacket that it can’t escape from. It is their destiny and we all must live with it. That’s the way it goes. SAM can be given credit for so much support of local artists and forward thinking but will probably always be lacking in important ways to the real art world because of its political and public nature. We could only hope and that’s the best we can do. Real reality is full of unfortunate realities. I don’t get how Wojnarowicz’s messages are offensive but understand how awful they must seem to American fundamentalist Christians and their need to make absolute rules as who can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
The difference seems between who we think are saved and what is the work of the devil and offensive to a true devoutness. We must protect, I guess, what we see as the crown jewels of what we believe in. On Picasso, Savage is a hoot and I it’s clear where he stands on Wojnarowicz. SAM often makes one want to cry.
Play the damned video! The Seattle PUBLIC Library stole tens of millions of dollars to build a gargantuan edifice that has all the charm of a disgusting county jail or a slaughterhouse on the edge of town: UGLY, UGLY building full of “approved” books and whatnot.
Play the goddamn video!
I, too, am hopeful that SAM will show “A Fire in My Belly” in solidarity with other museums here and elsewhere. It seems to me that this is a time for group action with an immediate response level.
I’m sure that if tweets counted as votes, we could get somewhere but right now indignation must come in some publicly voluble form and not in private, personal umbrage.
I have written to Derrick Cartwright and the curators at SAM and I encourage others to do so as well.
Meanwhile, for those who are interested in seeing the video we are showing it in its unedited form and also in the 4 minute edit created especially for the National Portrait Gallery’s “Hide/Seek” exhibition.
well i have never seen , nor plan to see said video but I did not spend half of my adult life in the MARINE CORPS defending AMERICAN LIBERTY AND FREEDOM to come home to things being censored in such a way . If as they say it is art for arts sake , please do show the video no matter how disgusted i , or others may be by it . People are free to choose whether to watch it or not . now if you are making something offensive just to be an asshole , well don’t be offended if i let you know exactly what i think of your free artistic expression. why you ask? well if you are free to do as you please , that also entitles others to respond just as freely
ERIC CARTMAN, i love you even more than i thought i did.
As jaded as I am about the politics of SAM or the Smithsonian I can’t see that SAM has any obligation to get on the reactive bandwagon and show the Wojnarowicz video. They could have been a leader sooner on this but I presume it takes them forever to make decisions. The fact that the video is already being shown at many other Seattle art venues would seem to suggest that it might be overkill for SAM to repeat the act. SAM’s role seems, so far, rather token and not part of its mainstream display. This can be read as political shyness.
The reaction to the pulling of the video from the National Portrait Gallery has been heartwarming but in the name of free speech no other art venue should be seen as being obligated to protest it. The Smithsonian does maybe have public image issues to consider. Maybe the decision is not as easy as it might be thought by us liberals who are bent out of shape by the Smithsonian’s choice. I suppose higher Smithsonian management may have played a role in the works eviction.
Speaking of the liberal position, little of the anti-Wojnarowicz video seems to appear in the liberal media and protest. Maybe support of free speech would expect this. I’m thinking an opportunity is there for SAM or others to make a viewer interactive display of the video that includes both the negative and positive responses to the video, perhaps on accompanying computer screens. Viewers might be asked to enter their responses. It might sooth the anti-Wojnarowicz crowd to be able to vent their feelings where the video appears and interesting even.
thanks jen ! I just say what i feel , but then I don’t have a p.c. bone in my body either. Some feel I am simply a troll , and in a way they are partly right . on the other hand , yin and yang must co exist for balance in the universe . I have read the stranger for about as long as it has been around . it has had it’s ups and downs . Some things about it are great , and frankly other things have fallen flat on the face . your readers can tell when a writer is just phoning it in and they will let you know . you are putting your selves out there for the world to critisize , or laud as the case may be . don’t forget this one thing , press is not only a platform to push the hip agenda of the time , it’s for the representation of fact for the world to see and form it’s own opinion not to force your own view of the world upon others to take as their own . in case i get too busy merry christmas all of you , even the hippies and queers . even they are gods children , and he does forgive you even if you don’t yet wish to be forgiven .
I’m thinking of you, Cartman.
The concept in Christianity of universal salvation is not universally held and is mostly shunned as too generous a portrait of accepted Christian Principles and the intention of God. Seems most Christians fear God is more of a disciplinarian and many Christians believe only a few could possibly qualify for salvation. Wojnarowicz’ salvation may trouble many Christian. I presume universal freedom for everything and everyone is a conundrum of some kind. The secularist claiming such things makes me scratch my head. That any of us could rightfully proclaim we represent no position of political correctness seems absurd. I’m reminded of the generous problems that Stanley Fish engulfs himself in in trying to be objective. It’s so very difficult to form objective concerns well. Fish’s caveat to liberals seems as potent for conservative thought. Secular proclamations of fair and balanced and all caring and non-political correctness while gaining possibly some romantic appearance of being good are probably destined to be greatly troubled ideas that are really not so generous and born in some kind of fog.
As much as I respect this article, the title, suggesting there is some “right” thing for SAM to do seems awkward if not errant. While its sentiment is greatly appreciated its not clear that SAM must do some particular thing. Ethics has been in shambles for so long and morality does not render clear agreement on anything. Western thought embracing the Enlightenment often overwhelms a clear view of how its ideals mislead and cover up a sadder tale of human perfection.
As much as many of us would like SAM to do what we think they should here, SAM has no ethical obligation to do so. In this case it seems SAM has no “right” thing to do here.
Has any curator put together an art exhibit of banned art? Such an exhibit would seem to invite problems but then again maybe not. So much contemporary art probably offensive to the masses has gone unnoticed by the media and those in power. Still there has been so many interesting works banned. I remember something about a Piss Christ, a Madonna made of elephant dung and, of course, Robert Mapplethorpe. Paul McCarthy’s stuff seems to have not raised many an eyebrow. But then the Russian communists banned abstract and modern art didn’t they? What if we concentrated all these works in one place? Who would be free to exhibit it? Very interesting.
I’m also wondering if an exhibit of banned work with explanations would belong in a typical art museum or be more appropriate in some kind of cultural or history museum. Something like MOHAI maybe. It seems a standard of art museums to keep explanations of works of art discreet or not prominent in an exhibit. As interesting as what is banned is what kind of circumstances and institutions do the banning. The publication of banned art might make an interesting coffee table book. Banned art seems to be a remarkably disparate story. Who’s really going to tell the story?
interesting
Christ, will you people find something important to get upset about. This is less shocking than 80% of what’s on YouTube.
Also, you people have completely misunderstood the meaning of “censorship.” Censorship is not the removal of your shitty video from the Smithsonian. You still have millions of ways to reach people who want to see ants crawling on stuff. Post it on YouTube, or spend a tiny amount of money and post it on your own domain, etc. Censorship is the inability to communicate, AT ALL. Censorship is the powerful preventing you from communicating, entirely.
Not getting your way 100% of the time is not the same thing as censorship, you big cry-babies.
Just for you!
http://wizbangblog.com/2010/12/21/images…
Thats a funny pic nuh_uh
But we need to realize that the moment you allow some censorship in the arts you are opening up a pandora box.
I feel that the article by Jen Graves is well written and unbiased in nature.
At artworldseattle.com we feel that at censorship, especially in a museum is uncalled for. If you do not like or agree to the exhibition then you have the right to not buy a ticket.
A single gallery refusing to show a particular piece simply is not censorship. Again, the author of that “work” has many, many options available for distributing it. None of them are hindered, in the slightest, by the police or by laws.
Your cry of “censorship” is just baloney — you have no idea what the term means. Censorship requires suppression and coercion, usually by government, military, etc. Not simply an entity (the Smithsonian, in this case) making a voluntary decision to stop displaying the work.
Perhaps you’ll whine and moan about funding for the arts. Well, if you can remember as far back as the 1980s, you might remember how this played out the last time. The Smithsonian relies on public money, and so, rightly, it relies on the public’s support. The backlash from “Piss Christ” demonstrated that, oddly enough, the public does not enjoy paying artists to sneer at them and their beliefs. The Smithsonian is not obligated, and tax-payers are not obligated, to support every niche of transgressive, puerile activity labeled “art”. Refusing to fund or display such works is simply not an act of censorship — it is democracy in action. You’re simply unhappy that not everyone enjoys having a stick jabbed in their eye.
While I really love the SAM, I wish they would be less “safe” and be more edgy. I’ve seen a few other museums – not a ton – but enough to notice that the SAM is very sterile and OCD. I’ve never winced at anything I saw there. It’s also sad as an artist that my sketchpad and pencil are not welcome in the galleries there. Overall, I feel like the SAM does not want community response to the artwork shown there. You are to go, neatly fold your hands behind your back, quietly listen to the audio thing and single file work your way through and out like a zombie.
By comparison, last time I was in the Frye, I saw a video that make me almost lose my lunch, then we saw a guy comfortably camped out drawing in front of a painting. This is what art should be. Raw and challenging, and educational – evolutionary.
Show some guts SAM. Show the video and try to be a little more ballsy. Are your curators all shy little old ladies or what?