Reaction from Smithsonian Affiliates to Criticism from the White House

A painting by Rigoberto Gonzalez was specifically mentioned by the White House among a collection of art and exhibits deemed unacceptable by them.

An official communication from the White House, titled "President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian," highlights artworks, exhibitions, and educational materials from institutions like the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Portrait Gallery, and the National Museum of the American Latino. It critiques content related to themes of race, immigration, slavery, and sexuality.

This comes on the heels of governmental demands prompting the Smithsonian to disclose present and future plans regarding exhibitions, social media activities, and other public materials. Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunche has been given a timeline of 120 days to align with the government's cultural policies before America's 250th milestone.

The administration has tasked Smithsonian museums with the duty of replacing what is termed as divisive language with narratives that are historically precise and aim for national cohesion.

When asked for clarification about these critiques aimed at Smithsonian-affiliated artists, the White House did not offer an official comment.

The artworks under scrutiny seem to be chosen from a controversial conservative publication. This includes accusations against the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, accused of promoting "anti-American counter-narratives."

The Smithsonian's communications team did not respond to NPR's invitation to discuss the White House's commentary. Previously, a declaration was issued asserting their commitment to remaining uninfluenced by political or partisan pressures.

Certain artists and academics who conversed with NPR expressed concern over potential targeting, whereas others regarded the White House's focus on their work as a "mark of distinction." They reflected on previous instances where art stimulated significant political reactions and voiced worries that appeals for "anti-progressive" art might stifle artistic expression.

Rigoberto A. Gonzalez's Painting

Highlighted by the White House, a 2020 piece by Rigoberto Gonzalez captured attention. It portrays an immigrant family setting foot on American soil after descending from a ladder placed against the U.S.-Mexico border fence. The scene features a family encountering symbolic challenges: fast food wrappers indicating an excessive American diet, advertisements illustrating over-sexualization, and discarded tech accessories depicting social media dependency.

Despite the White House's implication that Gonzalez's work endorses illicit border crossings, the artist insists his piece simply reflects reality. Its current home is the Varmar Private Collection.

Tijuana-born and now a U.S. citizen, Gonzalez resides in southern Texas, with art frequently exploring themes from border life.

Initially, seeing his name on the White House list surprised Gonzalez, yet he soon considered it a testament to his politically charged work, which scrutinizes anti-immigrant rhetoric prevalent during the mentioned era.

The mention of his art reminds Gonzalez of historical parallels like art critiques in Nazi Germany, suggesting a similar agenda within the current administration that dismisses his work.

Though the prospect of an encounter with immigration officials concerns many, Gonzalez remains unintimidated, contemplating future projects addressing present-day practices of immigrant detainment and deportation.

Ibram X. Kendi's Advocacy

Renowned author and critic of systemic racism, Ibram X. Kendi has been labeled a "hardcore activist" by the White House communications. Kendi dismisses these labels, reiterating his identity as a scholar relying on research and intellectual inquiry rather than activism.

Kendi asserts that the White House seeks to undermine his credibility to prevent audiences from engaging with his work, which advocates for deconstructing racist ideologies and promoting racial equity.

His influential 2019 book "How to Be an Antiracist" and related Smithsonian educational series have faced White House critique. Kendi views his teachings as antithetical to narratives presented by the Trump administration.

Kendi’s work uncovers historical patterns of racism, drawing criticism from authorities like the White House, much akin to the Jim Crow era's opposition to accurate historic presentations in public spaces.

Controversies Surrounding Amy Sherald and Other Artists

Painter Amy Sherald, famous for her portrait of Michelle Obama, was also mentioned unfavorably in the White House's newsletter prior to an exhibition of hers being canceled. Her body of work includes pieces portraying underrepresented communities and themes of transformation, strikingly illustrated in "Trans Forming Liberty," a painting featuring a trans woman.

Sherald has previously expressed concern about the impact of current political rhetoric on her work. She describes her portraits as countering efforts to omit significant narratives within American history.

Hugo Crosthwaite and Patricia Cronin have faced similar criticisms. Crosthwaite's animated portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci's career spans crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, attracting attention from the White House likely due to Fauci's vaccine advocacy.

Patricia Cronin's "Memorial to a Marriage," although not directly criticized by the White House, embodies themes of LGBTQ representation. Cronin asserts that current political climates may discourage public display and discussion of such works, spotlighting the broader implications of censorship.

These artists indicate that governmental pressures may lead cultural institutions to self-censor, threatening the visibility and appreciation of diverse narratives within the arts.

Art Censorship and the Looming Threat of Self-Censorship

Art historian Richard Meyers compares current White House's handling of the Smithsonian to tactics seen during the McCarthy era, expressing confusion over the exact implications of the administration's requests for a review.

He questions the intent behind the so-called objections list—is it meant to be an "enemies list," or as a precedent to remove certain works from public purview?

The comparison extends to past cultural skirmishes, recalling controversies like those over Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photographs, which drew ire during the earlier culture wars against the National Endowment for the Arts.

Meyers fears this vague targeting may lead to a chilling effect, where new artists feel compelled to censor their own work, depriving the public of potential masterpieces that would never come to fruition.