Detroit News – December 1999

As the organizer of the art exhibit that was closed by the DIA, I would like to point out that museums everywhere are essential to a more complete understanding of contemporary art. To have one act so irresponsibly at this critical juncture deliberately narrows the enormous variety possible to art as we move into the next century. Such a forced closing not only narrows the gate but, more direly, sets a dangerous precedent: where museum directors not only decide art but censor it to suit the presumed tastes of "important parts" of the community.

If contemporary art is openly censored and refused a voice in the larger art forum, it has no voice at all. Dialogue in the contemporary arena is and must be fresh and immediate, or it is lost in time. To deny any cross-communication of art to the public, no matter how new or challenging, diminishes all of art. Such acts stifle new voices that attempt to continue art’s ongoing discourse, making them indistinct and left finally without impact.

Under Graham Beal’s leadership, and in his first official act, the Detroit Institute of Arts is obviously subverting its mission by alienating those it should be joining in partnership, and in so doing creating an even more insular posture for itself in the art world.

I would also like to clarify that there were never any efforts by the DIA to negotiate any changes with the artist of "Van Gogh’s Ear." To the contrary, Beal appeared Thursday, exclaiming that to change anything would be considered censorship, and that he didn’t believe in censorship. He did suggest a disclaimer as a solution, which was put in place outside the gallery the next day, Friday. It was not long after that, while I was lured outside the gallery by staff to another floor, that the exhibit was padlocked permanently.

I would like to clarify the events leading up to my decision to close the installation of work by Jef Bourgeau at the Detroit Institute of Arts.

Immediately upon seeing the installation on Nov. 18, I was concerned about several of the pieces. Having thought about the situation overnight, on Nov. 19 I asked that the installation be postponed until my curatorial colleagues could discuss modifications with the artist. Unfortunately, Bourgeau absolutely refused to discuss the situation, stating that any change would invalidate his installation. It was at this point that, with mixed feelings, I decided to close the installation.

Bourgeau’s subsequent statements that he was willing to make modifications but never given the chance are simply untrue. In fact, such statements indicate that the artist recognizes the validity of some of my concerns.

When the DIA chooses to exhibit controversial art, it is incumbent upon us to be willing to support that work under any circumstances. That was not the case in this instance. I regret that our efforts to solve this matter without the complications of public debate were rejected, but I continue to stand by my decision.

As a former Michigan resident, I have visited the Detroit Institute of Arts at least 70 times over the past 30 years. New Director Graham Beal deserves the Rudy Giuliani Award for calculation disguised as correctness.

If one of art’s purposes is to hold a mirror up to society, then Jef Bourgeau’s work has already achieved that goal – in the feedback generated by this flap, despite the public’s being denied the chance to judge that work firsthand.

Which is worse for an institution dedicated to artistic expression, becoming a locus for controversy or a laughingstock?

We applaud the actions of the director of the Detroit Institute of Arts in closing the so-called art show. He acted in the interests of the public.

The art institute is a public facility, paid for by tax dollars. We, as taxpayers, do not owe anyone a free ride to exhibit his or her ideas.

We are not against anyone showing his or her artwork, but don’t ask me to underwrite it. If artists wish to make names for themselves, let them pay for it. We don’t see public tax money financing the careers of aspiring writers, for example; neither should artists be given grants to make any kind of things they want and call them art.

If their work has merit, it will be recognized and appreciated. If it is junk, or just plain exhibitionism, the artist will have to try a different line of work – something that is, obviously, foreign to them.

The censorship being practiced by the DIA under the umbrella of racial and religious political correctness is not only obscene but, as a person of color, I think it is also insulting. I alone reserve the right to define what is offensive and appropriate. I never have nor will I provide that prerogative to a public official as insignificant as a museum curator.

An apology is owed to all who value freedom and art where ever it dwells.