Shall we talk about the elephant in the room?
I’ve been writing daily posts about “Amy Sherald: American Sublime,” an exhibit I visited recently at the Baltimore Museum of Art, from the perspective of a Dickinson enthusiast. My intro post is HERE; post 2, my interpretation of Sherald’s “Ecclesia (Inheritance meets Horizons), is HERE; and yesterday' s installment, reaction of “Kingdom,” is HERE.
Today – it’s time to talk about the elephant in the room – in the lumbering form of Trump/GOP/Maggots who corrupt society with narrow, bigoted viewpoints they crave to impose on all others. Am I coming across too even-tempered by suppressing how I really feel?
I find it beyond hypocritical that the “don’t tread on me” fanatics who profess to put “America First” (and doesn’t that slogan have an interesting background?) seem hell-bent – and virulently gleeful – on treading on others they view as “vermin” (and where have we heard that term before?).
I mention this due to the fact that the National Portrait Gallery – one of the Smithsonian’s art museums – had planned to censor this exhibit during its scheduled run there. I covered this in my initial discussion about this show, and as I make connections to Dickinson's poetry in my daily posts about the exhibit, let me begin this write-up with a short poem I’ve shared more than a few times in the past. It’s not a work by Emily Dickinson, but one penned from the hand of Emmett Lee Dickinson, her third cousin, twice removed (at her request):
That Hate is all they have,
And all they have is Hate;
It's not okay, that hate should be
Just how you make us great.
[Just FYI: Emmett Lee’s poem inspired third-cousin Emily to write “That Love is all there is / Is all we know of Love / It is enough, the freight should be / Proportioned to the groove.”]
From what I have heard, the painting called into question by the Smithsonian is “Trans Forming Liberty” (Info HERE). However, since “For Love, and for Country” is also in the show (info HERE), I wonder if the Smithsonian – under the direction of the so-called Trump “administration” – would have allowed this painting? I assume that it, too, would have caused concern for insular, intolerant miniature-minded bigots.
Below left: Trans Forming Liberty Below right: For Love, and for Country
I’ve been writing daily posts about “Amy Sherald: American Sublime,” an exhibit I visited recently at the Baltimore Museum of Art, from the perspective of a Dickinson enthusiast. My intro post is HERE; post 2, my interpretation of Sherald’s “Ecclesia (Inheritance meets Horizons), is HERE; and yesterday' s installment, reaction of “Kingdom,” is HERE.
Today – it’s time to talk about the elephant in the room – in the lumbering form of Trump/GOP/Maggots who corrupt society with narrow, bigoted viewpoints they crave to impose on all others. Am I coming across too even-tempered by suppressing how I really feel?
I find it beyond hypocritical that the “don’t tread on me” fanatics who profess to put “America First” (and doesn’t that slogan have an interesting background?) seem hell-bent – and virulently gleeful – on treading on others they view as “vermin” (and where have we heard that term before?).
I mention this due to the fact that the National Portrait Gallery – one of the Smithsonian’s art museums – had planned to censor this exhibit during its scheduled run there. I covered this in my initial discussion about this show, and as I make connections to Dickinson's poetry in my daily posts about the exhibit, let me begin this write-up with a short poem I’ve shared more than a few times in the past. It’s not a work by Emily Dickinson, but one penned from the hand of Emmett Lee Dickinson, her third cousin, twice removed (at her request):
That Hate is all they have,
And all they have is Hate;
It's not okay, that hate should be
Just how you make us great.
[Just FYI: Emmett Lee’s poem inspired third-cousin Emily to write “That Love is all there is / Is all we know of Love / It is enough, the freight should be / Proportioned to the groove.”]
From what I have heard, the painting called into question by the Smithsonian is “Trans Forming Liberty” (Info HERE). However, since “For Love, and for Country” is also in the show (info HERE), I wonder if the Smithsonian – under the direction of the so-called Trump “administration” – would have allowed this painting? I assume that it, too, would have caused concern for insular, intolerant miniature-minded bigots.
Below left: Trans Forming Liberty Below right: For Love, and for Country
 |  |
I explored news of this tempest-in-a-paint-can and found this:
In a letter to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, which runs the Portrait Gallery. Sherald wrote, “I entered into this collaboration in good faith believing that the institution shared a commitment to presenting work that reflects the full, complex truth of American life. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the conditions no longer support the integrity of the work as conceived.’’
Sherald later reported that Bunch had proposed replacing the painting with a video of people reacting to the painting and discussing transgender issues, an idea she rejected because it would have included anti-trans views (and doesn’t the proposal just smack of Trump’s “good people on both sides” nonsense about neo-Nazis?).
“When I understood a video would replace the painting, I decided to cancel,” she said. “The video would have opened up for debate the value of trans visibility and I was opposed to that being a part of the ‘American Sublime’ narrative.”
A Smithsonian spokesman suggested Sherald had misunderstood Bunch’s proposal. “The video was to accompany the painting as a way to contextualize the piece,” the statement said. “It was not to replace Amy Sherald’s painting.”
In a second statement, the institution said, “While we understand Amy’s decision to withdraw her show from the National Portrait Gallery, we are disappointed that Smithsonian audiences will not have an opportunity to experience ‘American Sublime.’”
Baltimore is less than an hour from Washington, so no – the Smithsonian audience (including my and I) did not miss an opportunity to experience “American Sublime.” We just had to drive a little bit further – and to an area with the best crab cakes – AND – the world's best cannoli – so win-win!
In a letter to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, which runs the Portrait Gallery. Sherald wrote, “I entered into this collaboration in good faith believing that the institution shared a commitment to presenting work that reflects the full, complex truth of American life. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the conditions no longer support the integrity of the work as conceived.’’
Sherald later reported that Bunch had proposed replacing the painting with a video of people reacting to the painting and discussing transgender issues, an idea she rejected because it would have included anti-trans views (and doesn’t the proposal just smack of Trump’s “good people on both sides” nonsense about neo-Nazis?).
“When I understood a video would replace the painting, I decided to cancel,” she said. “The video would have opened up for debate the value of trans visibility and I was opposed to that being a part of the ‘American Sublime’ narrative.”
A Smithsonian spokesman suggested Sherald had misunderstood Bunch’s proposal. “The video was to accompany the painting as a way to contextualize the piece,” the statement said. “It was not to replace Amy Sherald’s painting.”
In a second statement, the institution said, “While we understand Amy’s decision to withdraw her show from the National Portrait Gallery, we are disappointed that Smithsonian audiences will not have an opportunity to experience ‘American Sublime.’”
Baltimore is less than an hour from Washington, so no – the Smithsonian audience (including my and I) did not miss an opportunity to experience “American Sublime.” We just had to drive a little bit further – and to an area with the best crab cakes – AND – the world's best cannoli – so win-win!
 | At the left: Our favorite crabcakes at Jimmy's Famous Seafood -- AND -- the word's best cannoli from Cafe Gia in Baltimore's Little Italy. In explaining her decision to withdraw from the exhibition, Sherald said, “I cannot in good conscience comply with a culture of censorship, especially when it targets vulnerable communities. At a time when transgender people are being legislated against, silenced, and endangered across our nation,” she added, “silence is not an option.” |
My post on March 22, on “Ecclesia (Inheritance meets Horizons)” also referenced Sherald’s memory of first seeing Black representation in an artwork on a museum wall – at the Columbus Museum in Georgia. In a similar vein, can you imagine the impact on an LGBTQ+ youth seeing “Trans Forming Liberty” or “For Love, and For Country” prominently displayed at an exhibit at a major gallery? If you have read this far into this post but cannot grasp the significance of such an occasion, please click HERE.
Last October I was scrolling through Reels,, and I came across a New Yorker “Mini-Interview” with Ocean Vuong, HERE. He mentions the impact he felt when, as a gay teenager, he came across “a short little, little romantic poem by Robert Browning…and it had no gendered pronouns.” For the first time, he was able to envision his understanding of himself in a work of art deemed important enough to include in a published book.
At the time I encountered Vuong’s interview, I had just published a couple of posts on Emily Dickinson’s “My River runs to thee,” and I realized that her love poem, too, included no gender-specific pronouns – OHHHH…and it just popped into my head that Dickinson’s wildly passionate poem (pun intended), ‘Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” is also free of gender-specific pronouns. However, I won’t, at this time, drift (to further the boating motif) into the current of “Emily Dickinson’s sexuality” - although there is very telling “current” research from recent decades.
Below: Browning's "Meeting at Night," and Dickinson's "My River runs to Thee" and "Wild Nights -- Wild Nights!" (Click the images to enlarge.)
At the time I encountered Vuong’s interview, I had just published a couple of posts on Emily Dickinson’s “My River runs to thee,” and I realized that her love poem, too, included no gender-specific pronouns – OHHHH…and it just popped into my head that Dickinson’s wildly passionate poem (pun intended), ‘Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” is also free of gender-specific pronouns. However, I won’t, at this time, drift (to further the boating motif) into the current of “Emily Dickinson’s sexuality” - although there is very telling “current” research from recent decades.
Below: Browning's "Meeting at Night," and Dickinson's "My River runs to Thee" and "Wild Nights -- Wild Nights!" (Click the images to enlarge.)
 |  |  |
For now, let me navigate back to “Amy Sherald: American Sublime" and drop anchor. I'll set sail again tomorrow and see where the winds take me. Well -- I know where they're going to take me. Up.
RSS Feed
