by Nancy Nesvet
The Smithsonian Institution museums in Washington, DC and the associated Textile Museum in New York charge no admission fee. When accompanied by visitors from other cities in the US, I am confronted with amazed art and culture lovers that this is the policy. I am fond of telling them that the museums are not free, because they have supported them, paid for with their federal income taxes. Those visitors are of all colors and creeds, and often proud to visit museums representing the sector of society they and their heritage represent, including the Smithsonian Museum of African American Culture and History and the American Indian Museum. Exhibitions at other Smithsonian museums, and the National Gallery in Washington, DC also sponsor shows that highlight the contributions of artists of color and of diverse heritages.
As artist Robert Longo wrote in the Guardian, March 29, 2025, “The large reshaping of the Smithsonian in an attempt to eliminate what Trump’s latest order described as “improper, divisive or Anti-American ideology” continued “the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive race-centered ideology.” The recent attempt to limit exhibitions at the Smithsonian museums to those who represent ideologies, cultures and heritages not supported by the Trump administration eliminates a sizable proportion of the American population that supports the Smithsonian both by their patronage and with their tax support, monetary, artistic and research contributions.
There is no better announcement of the power of art and culture to support history and the accomplishments of all creative people than this effort to limit artwork and culture exhibited in the nation’s museums for all to witness without political or economic barriers. Since it is impossible to limit visitors by ascertaining their political views, therefore barring admission, as some will lie and others object to the questioning, the government has attempted to limit the creative work displayed, whether past or present, to those that express its own viewpoint. To say that this was the way of Social Realism in Soviet Russia, the Cultural Revolution in China, or of other nations who attempted to limit creative work supported or not, by funding from institutions directly or indirectly supported by the federal government is an obvious connection, which again, concedes that artists, creatives are powerful influencers for the public.
The question now is how artists, museum directors, and other creatives supported by public funding will respond. I hope that response is not to go underground, catering only to the few who agree with their viewpoint, essentially preaching only to the converted, because art creates awareness in an international language of confrontation. Perhaps its most important use is to confront those who hold opposing viewpoints and inform them that another exists; not only another viewpoint, but another tradition, heritage, culture and appearance that values their own heritage and culture, deserving its inclusion in any institution that purports to represent the melting pot that is the United States of America.
That said, I am particularly proud of the articles in this issue and indebted to the writers for including artists and art that represents various viewpoints and populations, from varied backgrounds, nationalities, and ethnic and racial groups. From Jorge Benitez who admits that American exceptionalism, including in the arts, may not continue, to Chris Crossman, who in reviewing Katerina Weslien’s installation at the Maine Center for Contemporary Art in Rockland, pays homage to an artist who has traveled over the world and introduces us, to diverse cultures in her empathetic production. From Isabella Chiardini’s interview with Arman Molavi, at the MIA art fair, who beautifully produces photographs of nature, to Elga Wimmer’s review of Jack Whitten’s show at the Met in New York, showcasing his long career experimenting with materials and self-discovered technique, to Lanita Brooks Colbert’s loving review of the Elizabeth Catlett show at the National Gallery in Washington, DC, justifiably proclaiming Catlett an artistic and feminist revolutionary, to Charles Gaulter, who alludes to Adela Janska’s paintings, inspired by porcelain dolls, but producing confrontational portraits of female perfection proclaiming that perfect looks can be confrontational, and challenging. That pride, inspired by the articles by our writers, show how artists have and still do confront and challenge, in the international language that is visual art, those who might challenge their ability to do so, and that is what artists do and what makes the arts so powerful. Art Lantern immensely thanks our writer for disseminating their viewpoints and reviews, making this powerful work known.