Guest post: Trans Liberty
Originally a comment by What a Maroon at Miscellany Room.
Sometimes it’s hard to know whose metaphorical bed to jump into. On the one hand, Amy Sherald, the celebrated painter best known for her official portrait of Michelle Obama, has canceled an upcoming exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, citing concerns that the museum might remove an artwork that could further provoke the Trump administration as it seeks to exert control over the Smithsonian Institution.
Sherald and a Smithsonian spokesperson Thursday confirmed that Sherald had withdrawn her exhibition, “American Sublime,” from the museum.
The artist said she had been told that the museum — whose director, Kim Sajet, resigned after President Donald Trump called for her ouster for being “a highly partisan person” — might remove a painting…
The government really shouldn’t be in the business of censoring art. The Smithsonian is supposed to be an independent institution, without any direct interference from the president, especially this president.
But on the other hand,
…might remove a painting that depicts a transgender woman posing as the Statue of Liberty from the exhibition, which was slated to open in September after touring at museums in San Francisco and New York.
Why? Why does everything have to be transed? What is the underlying metaphor here–that brave men have to take everything from women, including (especially?) liberty?
And, as it turns out, the Smithsonian wasn’t even proposing that the painting be removed, but just that some context be added.
The New York Times first reported news of Sherald’s withdrawal. According to that report, Sherald said Smithsonian head Lonnie G. Bunch III proposed replacing the painting with a video discussing the piece, which she understood “would have opened up for debate the value of trans visibility.”
But the Smithsonian spokesperson told The Washington Post that Bunch wanted the video to accompany the painting — not replace it. The spokesperson added that the museum offered to spend more time contextualizing her work, but Sherald chose to remove herself from the show.
So it’s self-censorship.
Sure, because “trans visibility” is such a problem. So invisible, the trans. Never seem to see them everywhere. It’s not at all the month before Christmas all year round except Santa is a troon and the elves are all on puberty blockers.
Honestly, up to the point where we find out that the museum wasn’t even going to remove the painting, I was on the artist’s side, even if I think the painting itself is a ridiculous and insulting piece. Art is meant to spur conversations, such as the take-down you posted next, Ophelia. That’s the good way to respond to bad art.
But then it comes out that the artist is just throwing a snit about a video (that probably would’ve been taking the trans side of things, for pity’s sake) that was to be shown ~beside~ the painting? Sorry, snowflake, no more sympathy from me.
I first learned about this “controversy” when the ACLU posted: “No artists should face censorship for their creativity, vision, and commitment to transgender people’s freedom. Erasing our art and our stories won’t erase us.” It’s not clear who “us” is. We know the organization no longer cares about defending unpopular speech, and they won’t defend people committed to women’s freedom, but the specificity of this statement is still weird.
Yes that’s a very odd three-part list – creativity, vision, and commitment to transgender people’s freedom. Sort of like dog, cat, and fully furnished brick cottage with all mod cons.
Yeah, because the last thing any artist wants is for their work to be contextualised. Although… a close friend who is an art historian told me years ago that interpreting a painting requires context. An understanding of the society in which the work was created, the importance of various symbols contained in the image sometimes as seemingly inconsequential everyday items. She talked me through one painting explaining the significance of the woman’s red dress, the roses, a pair of scissors, a distant doorway with a shadowed figure. I forget if there was anything else. Suddenly a simple though beautiful painting was telling a stark story filled with what must have been personal importance to the subject. Every artist I have ever met or listened to has talked about the importance of the viewer finding meaning in the image – even when the artist’s intent differed. I suggest that in this case Sherald doesn’t want people to understand context, because they may reach a view different from her own. That means her work belongs in that subset of art known as propaganda.
Ah, hell, stay away for a day and look what happens.
Yeah that’ll teach you!