Warhol Foundation Withdraws Support Amid Smithsonian Controversy

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Dec 14th 2010 at 11:01AM

The often staid Smithsonian has been the site of controversy recently. A video by the late artist David Wojnarowicz was recently removed from the museum's exhibits. The film, "A Fire in My Belly" (1986-87) which depicts an 11-second scene of ants crawling on a crucifix, an image that Wojnarowicz said reflected his experience of being diagnosed with AIDS, came under fire the Catholic League and members of Congress said it was sacrilegious. After the exhibit was taken out earlier this month protesters took to the steps of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery holding up masks of David Wojnarowicz including images of him with his mouth sewn shut.

On Monday, the Andy Warhol Foundation said that it will withhold future funding to the Smithsonian Institution unless the video is restored. The board of the foundation sent a letter to the Smithsonian calling the censorship "unconscionable." Joel Wachs, president of the foundation, wrote that while the Warhol Foundation has been a proud supporter of the current Portrait Gallery exhibit "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," (the exhibit the video was a part of) but that it can't watch the Smithsonian "bow to the demands of bigots who have attacked the exhibition out of ignorance, hatred and fear." The foundation has given $375,000 over the past three years to various Smithsonian museums, including $100,000 to help fund "Hide/Seek."

Museums, galleries and universities around the country are showing the video and the Association of Art Museum Directors has condemned the Smithsonian's removal of the piece. You can find it online as well.

Tags: A Fire Inside, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, David Wojnarowicz, Smithsonian

Filed under: Art

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

kbond25 Dec 14th 2010 11:45AM

deep

Evan Labbe Dec 14th 2010 1:49PM

Who give a rats $%^ what Congress says about an Art exhibit? First is the seperation of church and state. I know that this is not a legal matter, but they are not speaking on a personal level, they are acting as members of Congress. As such, they do not (at least, should not) have a formal opinion on items that should be seperated from the Federal government. I will acknowledge that this is a fantasy thought, and one from an America that follows it's own laws; One that does not appear to exist.

Second, those men are hired to Congress due to their ability to talk people to death, not for their excellence in Art studies or Religion. Would anyone listen if a professional soccer player started bad-mouthing the pitching of a Yankees player? hardly.

rwayne52 Dec 14th 2010 4:02PM

What is the difference of Congress trying to bully the Smithsonian or the Warhol Foundation doing the same?

The work is not being censored, it is merely not being exhibited by the Smithsonian. It will be exhibited elsewhere and will revive more attention then it deserves. The artist is probably privately happy to be excluded and then receiving the publicity. After all, he even made the Luxist!

Brad Dec 14th 2010 4:17PM

There are a lot of things wrong with what you just said:

1) The artist died in 1992. Therefore, I'm not sure how happy or upset he is about making it on Luxist.

2) Would you say that libraries removing books from their shelves like "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" does not count as censorship either? Because, you know, anyone can totally just go buy those books at a book store.

3) The Warhol Foundation is NOT "bullying" the Smithsonian by questioning the motives behind such a bigoted action.

rwayne52 Dec 14th 2010 9:31PM

Point 1) Well taken

Point 2) 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Catcher In The Rye, etc were not on the shelves of many libraries but were available to anyone including me. Ayn Rand is not available in any self respecting Left Wing bookstore, is she censored? I think not.

Point 3) The Warhol Foundation did not question the Smithsonian decision but withheld funds, their right. They are no more "bigoted" then the Smithsonian.