National Archives photo "retouching" is another example of the tension between National Ideology and Memory and Inquiry in the funding of national museums, archives

Banner at the National Archives.

The Washington Post reported that a photograph used to promote an exhibit on the 100th anniversary of Women's Suffrage at the National Archives has been "retouched" to eliminate specific references to President Trump and "offensive" words describing female anatomy ("National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump").

In the controversy after the article, the National Archives backed down and apologized ("National Archives apologizes and removes altered photo of 2017 Women's March: 'We made a mistake'," CNN).

Original photo by Mario Tama, Getty Images.

The Post's art critic, Philip Kennicott wrote a piece "The National Archives used to stand for independence. That mission has been compromised" about the issue, but to me it was more of a one-off piece, not recognizing that this is but one more incident in a line of incidents involving museums (and archives) although he did discuss a bunch of similar incidents involving Executive Branch agencies being ordered to obscure the truth.

And then there is the issue of the agencies de-emphasizing scientific research and findings in order to rollback environmental regulations ("E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules<" New York Times).

Over the years, I've written a bunch of pieces about how the federal museums, particularly the constituent units of the Smithsonian Institution, and institutions in Washington, like the no longer extant Corcoran Gallery, frequently have to heel to ideologically driven elected officials--usually in Congress but at times in the Executive Branch too, because that's where they get their funding.

I argue that the Smithsonian has a tough time being great because its mission as a repository of "national memory" and its role as a federal government entity often means that its overseers--members of Congress and parts of the Executive Branch--believe that its job is project American "greatness" rather than to be an institution that also questions and reinterprets the dominant narrative,

The Smithsonian is caught between this tension and as a result, its ability to be edgy or serious gets compromised.

-- "Dancing with the one that brung ya and challenging the dominant narrative," 2008
-- "You don't gotta have art," 2010

The Corcoran story is a little different, but their caving to the pressure of a Congressman to not show the photos of Robert Mapplethorpe ended up in the long run leading to that institution's demise.

The examples that have come up in the past:

-- Robert Mapplethorpe photographs at the Corcoran ("Corcoran, to Foil Dispute, Drops Mapplethorpe Show," New York Times, 1989)

- a somewhat critical exhibit label on the Enola Gay airplane at the National Museum of Air and Space which was opposed by WWII veterans groups (see "The Enola Gay Controversy" website from Lehigh University)

- criticism, ironically led by then Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, of a culturally-specific narrative paradigm at the National Museum of the American Indian (see "A Museum of the Indian, Not for the Indian" The American Indian Quarterly; "The National Museum of the American Indian as cultural sovereignty," American Quarterly).

- Plus, you could argue that Marc Fisher's criticism that the National Museum of American History's "renovation" didn't do much in the way of change and challenge is also relevant to the discussion. See "German-American Heritage Museum promotes culture, doesn't tell whole story."

I am distinguishing a bit the general arguments over culture, commonly referred to as "The Culture Wars."

Like the Culture Wars, this is about (1) National Mythology/The Story of the Nation -- e.g., that the US always does the right thing, has superior moral authority, George Washington and the cherry tree which is a made up story -- (2) versus independent fact-based or framework-based interpretation (3) but also intertwined with reliance on federal funding.

When you allow ideology to trump knowledge, this is what happens.

Especially when a President gets much more involved in what agencies do, especially when it comes to challenging the conservative narrative.

The power of art to challenge the dominant narrative remains ("How a Museum Cancelling a Controversial Mapplethorpe Exhibition Changed My Life," Smithsonian Magazine).

But it's increasingly difficult for national institutions, at least in the US, to present this kind of challenge.

Also see:

-- "Parochialism and historiography," 2011
-- "Local history museums and critical analysis opportunities for communities," 2014
-- "A brief comment about Confederate monuments," 2017, which includes as a reprint
-- "Museums and Modern Historiography," 2014

2.  I have not tracked down and read either of these books, Capital Culture: J. Carter Brown, the National Gallery of Art, and the Reinvention of the Museum Experience and Who Owns America's Past?: The Smithsonian and the Problem of History, but I'd argue that both should be required reading for members of the local and national cultural community.

After such a reading, we'd be in a better place for making recommendations to Secretary Skorton about what he should be focusing on.

From the description of Who Owns America's Past?:

Never before has a book about the Smithsonian detailed the recent and dramatic shift from collection-driven shows, with artifacts meant to speak for themselves, to concept-driven exhibitions, in which objects aim to tell a story, displayed like illustrations in a book. Even more recently, the trend is to show artifacts along with props, sound effects, and interactive elements in order to create an immersive environment. Rather than looking at history, visitors are invited to experience it.

Who Owns America’s Past? examines the different ways that the Smithsonian’s exhibitions have been conceived and designed—whether to educate visitors, celebrate an important historical moment, or satisfy donor demands or partisan agendas. Post gives the reader a behind-the-scenes view of internal tempests as they brewed and how different personalities and experts passionately argued about the best way to present the story of America.