The Huff about Clough

I am still following the controversy about the Smithsonian/National Portrait Gallery censorship of A Fire in My Belly. It has been interesting to see how people are drawing parallels between this incident and the culture wars of 15 years ago. I have to admit that at first I wasn't very happy about the way the whole thing went down, but after reading a profile about G. Wayne Clough and his managerial style, I feel like I understand where he was coming from. A lot has been made of the fact that he pulled a piece that was essentially hidden--visitors had to choose to show the piece on a computer amongst a menu of other videos--and how that makes it worse. But I have thought about it, and feel like without knowing that he was scaring off major funders, this was probably his justification for it in the first place. If you go to the movies to see a PG-13 film, and there's a nickelodeon with possibly dubious content to the side, who is going to really miss it when you decide its not appropriate? Making a minor edit shouldn't mean much, right? Apparently the Andy Warhol Foundation, and several others, those with institutional memory reaching back to the 1990's, disagree.

Instead, I have come to focus my upset on the Smithsonian establishment, who recruited not from the arts (which would be fine, especially with so many science initiatives within the organisation), or from museums, or elsewhere in the government. Instead, Clough came to SI from Georgia Tech, a fairly well-known and well-regarded American university. It isn't that being the head of a university, with its myriad departments and priorities, is so different from being the head of the Smithsonian's 19 museums and various research arms. It's that recruiting someone with experience in museums/public policy/the arts would be familiar with the institutional personality and memory of the Smithsonian. It's the same reason I wouldn't expect the head of a school district to go run a retail company, or the head of a hospital to go run a bank. Many of the skills are transferable, but there are certain skills and mindsets, even acknowledging that these came sometimes become toxic, that make experience in one kind of organisation ineffective in another. Clough's predecessor was from banking. When Clough goes, whether it is next month or next year, I wouldn't bet on a public servant/museums/arts person replacing him. And I certainly don't think the Directors will heed the findings of the People for the American Way report that found five bullet points for museums seeking to respond to future flare-ups:

'"Don't Panic: Have a Plan and Follow It" (a piece of common sense that Clough has a history of ignoring); "Defend Core Principles" (of which freedom of expression should be key); "Understand and Expose Your Opponents" ("Exposing the extremist records, anti-freedom agendas, and general disregard for the truth demonstrated by right-wing culture warriors can undermine the impact of their attacks"); "Embrace Debate" ("The best response to irresponsible speech is more speech.... Short-circuiting debate by trying to avoid controversy prevents art and arts institutions from having this potentially transformative impact on public debate"); and, finally, "Demonstrate Accountability".'*

In the end, I'm not sure who's not getting it--Clough, or the SI board.

*The 5 points as quoted (including link to another time when Clough was soft on LGBT rights in the face of right wing bullying) and a review of some of the protests directed at Clough can be found here.