The Smithsonian insults our intelligence

This Art Is Your Art, This Art Is My Art

The New York Times finally says what I've been saying for years now: the Smithsonian kind of sucks. It took a scandal for anyone influential to realize this, but I'm glad it's finally being acknowledged. At best, its museums and exhibits are uncontroversial diversions. At worst, they are propaganda. They tend to glaze over the most interesting (read: unflattering) parts of American history and instead reduce it to theatrical performance and unnecessary patriotic cheerleading. Don't get me wrong, I think patriotism is good, just not when it's based on half-truths. Exhibits like the West As America in 1991 at the National Museum of American Art and the Enola Gay in 1994 at the Air & Space Museum were not well received, but at least visitors were passionate about what they saw, one way or another. One of the most cliched, yet true aspects of history is that it helps us to identify mistakes we've made so that we don't repeat them in the present. This is especially important in the current political climate. I don't really expect the Smithsonian to emerge as a leading social critic, but they need to do something soon to avoid becoming irrelevant. Our nation's history means more than a pair of ruby slippers or a First Lady ball gown behind a glass case. The American History museum is especially guilty of this.

I must except one museum from this diatribe: the National Portrait Gallery. I think the Times is right that it sort of gets lost in the American art collection (and vise versa), but I'm glad the portrait gallery is moving away from the stuffy oil paintings of yore and branching out into cool things like installation art (yes, it's true, you can do an installation portrait!). If you haven't seen the portrait gallery yet, you should go there immediately. It will rock your socks off.