"The White House published a list of Smithsonian exhibits, programming and artwork it considered objectionable..."

"... on Thursday, one week after announcing that eight of the institution’s museums must submit their current wall text and future exhibition plans for a comprehensive review. The list borrows heavily from a recent article in The Federalist that objected to portrayals at several museums. It argued that the National Museum of American History promoted homosexuality by hanging a pride flag; overemphasized Benjamin Franklin’s relationship to slavery in its programming; and supported open borders by depicting migrants watching fireworks 'through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall.'...:

I'm reading "White House Lists Smithsonian Exhibits It Finds Objectionable/The Trump administration highlighted material dealing with topics like sexuality, slavery and immigration" (NYT).

Here's that official list put out by The White House.

Most striking item on the list: "The National Museum of African Art displayed an exhibit on 'works of speculative fiction that bring to life an immersive, feminist and sacred aquatopia inspired by the legend of Drexciya,' an 'underwater kingdom populated by the children of pregnant women who had been thrown overboard or jumped into the ocean during the Middle Passage.'"

Notably out of context item on the list: "An American History Museum exhibit features a depiction of the Statue of Liberty 'holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet.'" There's an image of it, and it looks like really bad art — amateurish junk. But here's the Smithsonian's description of the object and why it is in the collection:

"Amy Sherald — the artist who rocketed to fame with her 2018 portrait of Michelle Obama — has withdrawn her upcoming solo show from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery..."

"... because she said she had been told the museum was considering removing her painting depicting a transgender Statue of Liberty to avoid provoking President Trump. 'American Sublime,' set to arrive at the museum in September, is a much heralded exhibition of works by Ms. Sherald and would have been the first by a Black contemporary artist at the Portrait Gallery... Ms. Sherald said that [Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, which runs the Portrait Gallery]... had proposed replacing the painting with a video of people reacting to the painting and discussing transgender issues, an idea she rejected because she said it would have included anti-trans views. '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.’"

From "Amy Sherald Cancels Her Smithsonian Show, Citing Censorship/The artist said that she made the decision after she said she learned that her painting of a transgender Statue of Liberty might be removed to avoid provoking President Trump" (NYT)(free-access link, so you can see photos of the paintings).

Whatever you think of the painting — "Tranforming Liberty" — it really is an awful idea to replace it with a video that included people critiquing the artist's point of view. Show the artist. She has a point of view. If you don't admire her, don't give her a show. But don't weave in the critics! They're not even art critics as far as I can tell. They just seem to be discordant voices about the visibility of trans people. Ridiculous! Embarrassing! Let the people see the paintings as painted and talk about them amongst themselves or write about them in social media or, as critics, in traditional media. Don't muck up the show!

As for the share of blame that belongs to Trump...

About that free jet, let me tell you about Sam Snead.... He was a great golfer....

REPORTER: What do you say to people who view that luxury jet as a personal gift to you?

TRUMP: You're ABC fake news, right? Let me tell you -- you should be embarrassed asking that question. They're giving us a free jet ... when they give you a putt, you pick it up and you walk… pic.twitter.com/dP2EJHYkcy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2025

For the Annals of Bad Analogies.

AND: Speaking of bad analogies, remember when France gave us the Statue of Liberty?

"By merging the traditional Buddhist reclining pose and the quintessential American figurative symbol, Reclining Liberty asks the viewer to contemplate the status of the ideals the Statue of Liberty represents."

Says the press release from MoCA Arlington and Arlington Arts, quoted in "'Reclining Liberty' takes a rest — and raises questions — in Arlington/Zaq Landsberg’s provocative sculpture, unveiled Saturday at the Museum of Contemporary Art Arlington, settles in for her year-long stretch" (WaPo).

The piece depicts the statue laying on her side with her head cupped in one hand, one foot flexed, the pose alluding to depictions of the Buddha during his final days before reaching parinirvana. A formal opening celebration was held over the weekend, and she will relax on the museum’s lawn until July 2024.

I guess the copy editor is reclining too, what with "laying on her side."  

"Parinirvana" is the nirvana after death reached by someone who has achieved nirvana during life. That is, the reclining Buddha isn't taking a restorative rest. The reclining Buddha is dying. Since the Buddhist reference was explicitly intended, Liberty must be dying... if we go by the intent of the creator. 

Have you noticed all the anti-4th-of-July articles?

Here's one I'm just catching up on: "Maybe it’s time to admit that the Statue of Liberty has never quite measured up" (WaPo).

It's time! Why is it time? Is there a "Time's Up" movement that's sweeping up all the manifestations of love for America? No more enjoyment of the comfortable attributes of everyday patriotism!

Here's an excerpt from the column, which is by WaPo's art and architecture critic Philip Kennicott. 

The ironies and blind spots pile up. Liberty was depicted as a woman, at a time when women didn’t have the right to vote. In 1882, the United States passed the nakedly racist Chinese Exclusion Act; a year later, construction of the base of the statue began with Chinese laborers among the workforce. The idea of the statue was associated with the 100th anniversary of the revolution that brought American independence. But Bartholdi created a sedate, classicizing and mostly sexless figure, not the radical revolutionary icon of liberty known in France as Marianne (the bare-chested woman seen in Delacroix’s 1830 painting, “Liberty Leading the People).”

Like breasts slipping out of a bodice, that quotation mark has slipped outside of the parenthesis. Here's the Delacroix:

Lots of guns in that picture. Kennicott implies that this woman (Marianne) is not "mostly sexless," but it's a call to arms, not a call to sex. Does Kennicott think the pantsless man in the foreground is sexy? 

Speaking of sex:

Lady Liberty, Hong Kong.

On Sunday morning, Lady Liberty Hong Kong stood on top of Lion Rock. Despite the heavy rain and thunder storm, 26 Hongkongers moved the 4-meter tall, 80kg Lady Liberty up to Lion Rock overnight. #HongKongProtests #LadyLibertyHK pic.twitter.com/1IIfS9zrLJ

— RTHK's The Pulse (@thepulse_rthk) October 13, 2019

"I’ve wanted a higher power to provide that same narcotic delight one feels in the early stages of a relationship."

"In those rare white-light moments when I have felt a holy bliss, I’ve quickly purchased a candle or crystal, hoping to pocket the feeling. Unfortunately, that feeling cannot be contained in an object any more than it can be pinned down to one human being. It is so easy to confuse spiritual longing with a craving for romantic love. Beautiful people are everywhere, whereas the desire for some kind of eternal beauty or ineffable truth is more nebulous, always just out of reach. Recently, on a solo holiday trip to Paris... I saw a group of university students: three men and one woman. One of the men, the handsomest among them, kept reaching out to touch the woman’s earring. The woman would smile at him and then look down. I was reminded of the lovers frozen in time in John Keats’s poem 'Ode on a Grecian Urn.' They are eternally about to touch, forever on the precipice of kissing."

From "Life Without Longing/Who would I be if I wasn’t hustling to make some other person, real or imagined, fall in love with me?" by Melissa Broder (NYT). More text and lots of photographs at the link, including one of a Statue of Liberty street performer checking his iPhone.

What men or gods are these? What maidens loth? What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?...

At the Las Vegas Escalator Café...

... you can walk right by or come on up...



(And consider using The Althouse Amazon Portal.)

"White nationalists and counterprotesters are expected to flood downtown Charlottesville Saturday as the Virginia city braces for the 'Unite the Right' rally."

"By noon, thousands are expected to gather in Emancipation Park, where barricades have been placed in proximity to the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The rally comes hours after a large group of torch-bearing white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia campus Friday night."

CNN reports.

The city council has voted to take down the statue of General Lee (and to rename 2 parks named after Confederate generals). What, exactly, is the big deal about a march espousing a political point of view? Isn't this the sort of thing Americans should take in stride? Why not say some kind words about free speech, register your disagreement with the opinion the crowd is expressing, and move on?

I think the best answer to that last question is that people who disagree with the opinion see an opportunity to express their own opinion, to use the assembled crowd as a platform to express disagreement with the opinion expressed by that crowd. There's nothing really wrong with that, but why should onlookers like me get riled up about anything? It's just another normal day in America.

But that's not what CNN wants me to think. It's telling me that Charlottesville is a "quiet and progressive town." Nestled there are "residents on edge" (because noisy out-of-towners have arrived to speak on behalf of the monumentally silent statue). A "business owner" is quoted saying that townsfolk "have a lot of fears," and "are just anxious." He mentions "a blood bath... looting... mass arrests... police having to turn on citizens." I don't understand what that refers to. Counterprotests? Which "citizens" are the police going to have to turn on? Citizens of the quiet and progressive town of Charlottesville who are beset by outsiders exercising their free speech rights?

CNN quotes Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics: "In my 47 years of association with @UVA, this was the most nauseating thing I've ever seen. We need an exorcism on the Lawn." Could somebody explain what he's so upset about? Why can't you look at a protest march you disagree with?

Is there something about torches? If so, after they tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee, they'd better tear down the Statue of Liberty.



"A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles...."

"Why do I find Stephen Miller completely compelling and want to write a novel about him? Why do I not want to write a novel about Jim Acosta?"

Tweets "American Psycho" author Bret Easton Ellis.

Should you want to be the guy Bret Easton Ellis wants to write a novel about?

If you don't know what he's talking about, here's the hilarious/painful interchange between Miller (the Trump adviser) and Acosta (of CNN):



Selected quotes:

Acosta: “What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration. The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’”

Miller: “I don’t want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty and lighting the world. It’s a symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that you’re referring to, that was added later, is not actually a part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Aside from his suitability as a character in a novel, Miller is certainly right that Acosta is conflating the Emma Lazarus poem with the Statue and that the original historical meaning of the statue precedes and is not the same as those famous lines in the poem. WaPo points that out:

“New Colossus” was not part of the original statue built by the French and given to the American people as a gift to celebrate the country’s centennial. Poet Emma Lazarus was asked to compose the poem in 1883 as part of a fundraising effort to build the statue’s base.... In 1903, 16 years after Lazarus’ death, the poem was inscribed on the statue’s base, just as millions of immigrants were streaming into New York harbor....

Earlier this year Rush Limbaugh blamed Lazarus for the false connection. “The Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration,” Limbaugh said on a January 31 broadcast. “So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet.”...

From the Rush Limbaugh link:

It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution.... The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled.

Rush proceeds to mock Madeleine Albright for saying that Trump's immigration policy is making the Statue of Liberty cry:

The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom!

Yeah, well, maybe, but it's not made out of bronze. It's pure copper. We're just all misreading everything. But there's a continuum from misreading to interpretation. I can say for a fact that the statue is made out of copper, but the meaning of the statue is cultural, and it means what it has come to mean in the hearts of Americans. What the French had specifically in mind when they sent it to us is relevant if that's what's in our hearts.

You know, it wasn't even green when it arrived. Being copper, it was copper-colored. Do original meaning fans deny that it's green?

IN THE COMMENTS: Fernandinande wrote:

"American Psycho"/I tried reading that a few months ago, and speaking of run-on sentences and that silly "grade" metric, I stopped reading after a two-page sentence which painfully detailed all the products and actions the guy used in his morning routine.

And yet, it you gave me 2 pages right now of Bret Easton Ellis's description of what he imagines Stephen Miller does and uses in his morning routine, I'd eagerly, happily read every word of it. I assume it would be... completely compelling.

Quite the photo op.

Removing the statue of Joe Paterno.

A good one.

ADDED: "The 14 Most Unintentionally Terrifying Statues in the World." Just something I ran across while trying to satisfy my curiosity about the exact line in the category of sculpture between what is a statue and what is not a statue. Obviously, the Joe Paterno sculpture is a statue, but what's right on the line, where we could have a debate about whether this sculpture is a statue?

The OED defines statue as "A representation in the round of a living being, sculptured, moulded or cast in marble, metal, plaster or the like materials; esp. a figure of a deity, allegorical personage, or eminent person, usually of life-size proportions."

So it can be an animal. It's usually life-size, but I think that when it gets too small, we stop saying statue (and start saying "figure" or "figurine"), but it can get as large as you can make it and we'll still say "statue" — as with the Statue of Liberty — even though there is an alternate word: "colossus." (Note that the poem displayed at the Statue of Liberty is "The New Colossus.")

I note that if there is more than one figure, we don't say "statue." For example, "Burghers of Calais" isn't called a "statue." Also, it needs to be the entire body, so we don't call that Chicago Picasso a "statue."

Sunset with a little cloud over the Statue of Liberty.

Last night, from the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights.

Would we tell France to keep their Statue of Liberty?

So asks a letter writer to a newspaper in Jersey City, where there are second thoughts about a plan to install a 10-story tall sculpture on a pier across the river from the World Trade Center site. The sculpture is pictured, in model form, posing with its artist, the Russian Zurab Tsereteli, on the front page of today's NYT. It is a horrendous bronze twin-tower-shape with a large jagged hole through the center and a maudlin, shiny, metal teardrop hanging inside that hole. Like the Statue of Liberty, it is a gift.

I wrote yesterday about the problem of imposing public art on people, and this teardrop monstrosity is surely an imposition, purporting to represent the grief of the city in the form of one artist's egotistic self-expression/self-promotion. People in Manhattan will have to look at it forever. It's not an artwork that seeks to "challenge" viewers the way "Tilted Arc" and "Tumbling Woman" did. Challenging the viewer is a standard high-art goal, which can be a problem in the case of public art (my point yesterday). The horrid teardrop WTC sculpture has a different problem: it's ugly and idiotic. With NYC and the rest of the world now alerted about the monstrosity thanks to the NYT, I presume Jersey City will come to its senses and reject the gift. It will not garner support for the sort of people who defended "Tilted Arc" and "Tumbling Woman," people who favor the placement of challenging art in public places. High art fans are sure to hate this thing, and high art fans are quite likely to see and respond to the front-page NYT story.

But that letter writer raises an interesting point. If Americans had reacted to art they way they do now back in 1886 when France offered us the Statue of Liberty, would we have accepted it? We're so used to the colossus in the harbor that it takes some effort to imagine seeing it for the first time and thinking about whether it is a good idea to undertake the work of building the pedestal and maintaining the site and to force people to look at the thing forever. I think there would be plenty of ridicule: the arrogant sculptor with his self-aggrandizing, oversized hulk of metal, the sentimental and pedestrian attempt to portray an abstraction in the form of a woman holding up a light, the ridiculous spikes on the head, anything we don't like about France, etc. I think the opponents of the Statue of Liberty could easily win if it were in dispute today.

Nevertheless, I dearly hope Jersey City rejects the Russian artist's gift. It needs to shed the teardrop.

ADDED: This is the oldest post with the tag "garner (the word!)." I created the tag later, however, and then came back to this post and added it. This is one place, maybe the only place, where I myself use the word. Sorry! Elsewhere, I quote other people using it. It became a joke for me because of poor Jeb Bush.