Detroit Free Press - November 1999

By: David Lyman

It’s not how Graham Beal intended to launch his career as director of the Detroit Institute of Arts. But he makes no apologies for his Friday decision to close a controversial exhibition by Rochester artist Jef Bourgeau.

"This is a museum that will not shy away from controversial art," Beal said. "I had to consider if I felt strongly enough about this work that I could defend it against the charges that were going to be thrown at it. And frankly, I didn’t think it was work that I could defend."

At issue were several elements in the first of 10 installations called "Art Until Now" that Beal regarded as "offensive to large parts of our communities."

Bourgeau said he intended the pieces as commentaries on the "Young British" art that has dominated headlines in recent years. They contain graphic representations of menstruation and masturbation and include a racial epithet.

In the wake of the closing – the second of 10 more parts of the exhibition was to have opened Wednesday – Bourgeau has charged the museum with breaking its two-year agreement with the artist. Beal rejects the claim.

The affair has spilled onto the pages of newspapers all over the country and made its way into network television and radio. Among the most intent observers were members of the search committee who unanimously recommended Beal’s hiring.

Julius Combs, a members of the Detroit arts commission and the search committee, declined to discuss the specifics of the show, saying it would be wrong without first seeing the art itself. But he knows enough to call it a "lose-lose situation. No matter what you do, someone is going to be unhappy. It’s a minefield that has to be traversed without blowing one’s self up." He said he wasn’t happy with the idea of closing a show, but that since Beal is so new – he started Sept. 20 – the conservative approach was probably the best one.

"If this kind of thing were to happen two years from now, then there might be cause for concern," Combs said. "But being the new kid on the block, he has to feel his way around."

Most important, he said, is that Beal showed decisiveness in a complex and loaded situation.

Edward Littlejohn, a professor emeritus of law at Wayne State University and a search committee member, scoffed at the idea of this being an issue of censorship. "There is no constitutional right to have a particular painting hang in a public museum," Littlejohn said. "This is a curatorial judgment. And, in this case, I’m glad to see they’re willing to make a hard call."

Several people have suggested comparisons between this closing and the situation at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, where New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani threatened to cut off funding to the museum because of a show he said was offensive to religion. But Christy Matthews, president of the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, says the parallel is tenuous.

"This is not a censorship issue at all," Matthews said – and despite the exhibition had already opened its doors to the public: "This work was commissioned, and the commissioned have a right to accept the work or not."

Though the DIA has a respected collection of 20^th-Century art, its record with avant-garde work is sketchier. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect large, publicly owned museums such as the DIA to exhibit such radical and often-abrasive art.

The DIA is studying a proposal to open a satellite gallery whose focus would be cutting-edge art. For the moment, Beal says only that the plan is "interesting." His primary job is to convince the DIA’s patrons – and potential patrons – that his decision was in the museum’s best interest.

"We are definitely interested in having art that debates these kinds of issues. But I think the museum needs to pick the way it does that carefully and not be led by the nose by someone else with their own agenda. I’m happy to discuss this with people, with groups of artists."