Warhol Foundation's threat to cut Smithsonian Funding over David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly

Frame fromDavid Wojnarowicz's "Fire in My Belly"

Tyler Green's blog, Modern Art Notes, had a lot to say about the Warhol Foundation's recent threat to cut funding to the Smithsonian if it didn't put David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly back in the National Portrait Gallery exhibition. He interviewed Warhol Foundation president Joel Wachs:

I asked Wachs if Warhol’s intent was to loudly, publicly object to the Smithsonian’s censorship of an artist and the Smithsonian’s failure to support its own historians? Or was Warhol taking a more nuanced position, refusing to fund exhibition proposals at Smithsonian museums given that the Smithsonian had effectively made it clear that it might substantially alter exhibitions after they opened?

Wachs was unequivocal: “Our position is that we’re not going to fund someone who’s going to censor artwork, period,” he told me via phone, his voice rich with defiance. “If they’re… going to be bullied by bigots, we’re not going to fund them.”

I asked Wachs if that meant Warhol’s move was all about principle and not at all about process. “Absolutely,” he said. “Speaking out is important, but we’re going beyond speaking out. We’re not going to fund them anymore [if they don't restore the video].”

Wachs also told me that Warhol would talk with other foundations in an effort to build a coalition of foundations that will refuse to fund Smithsonian art exhibitions until the Smithsonian re-installs the Wojnarowicz. Or not. “If they’re going to give into crap from the other side they’re going to hear from our side,” Wachs said.

But: Is Warhol’s hard-line stance constructive? Or likely effective?

Consider Warhol’s move in context: Warhol has given $375,000 to Smithsonian exhibitions in recent years. (In addition to funding “Hide/Seek,” Warhol has supported Yves Klein and Anne Truitt exhibitions at the Hirshhorn.) The Smithsonian’s federal appropriation for fiscal year 2010 is $761.4 million, two thousand times Warhol’s four-year total. The Washington CityPaper reported that foundations as a whole kicked another $65 million into Smithsonian coffers last year — and that a Castle spokesperson’s response to Warhol was a shrug.

Smithsonian sources I spoke with this morning pretty much rolled their eyes at the Warhol letter, pointing at the discrepancy between the federal appropriation and Warhol’s funding. “They obviously don’t understand Washington,” one source said. Warhol has brought silly string to what will likely be a missile fight.

...But I still think the Warhol threat is a missed opportunity. Here’s how Warhol could be more constructive: The foundation should stand by its intention to stop funding Smithsonian exhibitions because of Clough’s rash actions. Then it should announce that it will use money it might have spent on Smithsonian exhibitions to instead fund acquisitions at Smithsonian art museums. This fund would be used to acquire art that addresses AIDS or that is by gay artists who are missing from Smithsonian museum collections. (David Wojnarowicz comes immediately to mind…) Instead of organizing a foundation boycott of the Smithsonian, Warhol should announce its intention to raise money from other foundations for this dedicated acquisitions fund. Furthermore, missing from much of the art world response to all this is support for the exhibition’s pioneering curators, Jonathan Katz and David Ward. The Warhol-and-friends fund could be named in their honor.

Warhol’s move was unnecessarily us-against-them, red state-vs.-blue state. It’ll play great in the art world, which values purity. In the broader fight against right-wing bigots and the Smithsonian’s inept administrators, it’s a blunder. Wachs and his board turned up the temperature too much. Here’s hoping they find a way to moderate their position.

Here is the Warhol Foundation's letter:

December 13, 2010

Mr. Wayne Clough
Smithsonian Institution
SIB Office of the Secretary
MRC 016
PO Box 37012
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

Dear Mr. Clough,

The Warhol Foundation is proud to have been a lead supporter of Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture, but we strongly condemn the decision to remove David Wojnarowicz’s video A Fire in My Belly from the exhibition. Such blatant censorship is unconscionable. It is inimical to everything the Smithsonian Institution should stand for, and everything the Andy Warhol Foundation does stand for.

Although we have enjoyed our growing relationship during the past three years, and have given more than $375,000 to fund several exhibitions at various Smithsonian institutions, we cannot stand by and watch the Smithsonian bow to the demands of bigots who have attacked the exhibition out of ignorance, hatred and fear.

Last week the Foundation published a statement on its website www.warholfoundation.org, condemning the National Portrait Gallery’s removal of the work and on Friday our Board of Directors met to discuss the long-term implications of the Museum’s behavior on the Foundation’s relationship with the Smithsonian Institution. After careful consideration, the Board voted unanimously to demand that you restore the censored work immediately, or the Warhol Foundation will cease funding future exhibitions at all Smithsonian institutions.

I regret that you have put us in this position, but there is no other course we can take. For the arts to flourish the arts must be free, and the decision to censor this important work is in stark opposition to our mission to defend freedom of expression wherever and whenever it is under attack.

Sincerely yours,

Joel Wachs
President

cc: Ms. Patricia Stonesifer, Smithsonian Chairwoman of the Board
Directors of Smithsonian Institution museums
Board Chairs of Smithsonian Institution museums

Towleroad has posted several items about this contratemps, including items about Frank Rich's excellent New York Times piece and about the Smithsonian banning a protester for standing outside the Smithsonian with an ipad playing the video that the Smithsonian removed.