Exhibition blueprints for Trump administration exhibits to be handed over by museums
In a historic move, the Smithsonian Institution museums in Washington D.C. are currently undergoing a comprehensive internal review of their exhibitions and materials. This review, initiated by the White House, aims to ensure that the content aligns with a directive aimed at removing divisive or ideologically driven language and promoting a narrative of American exceptionalism and unity ahead of the 250th anniversary of American independence.
The review focuses on public-facing content, curatorial processes, exhibition planning, and collection use. Museums are being asked to submit concept designs, exhibition plans, catalogs, and programs of all current exhibitions to the presidential administration of Donald Trump. Some documents must be submitted within 30 days.
The examination includes examining exhibition texts, wall labels, websites, and educational materials for tone, historical context, and alignment with American ideals. The White House letter instructs museums to replace content deemed partisan or divisive with "unifying, historically accurate and constructive descriptions" emphasizing "Americanism," defined as the "people, principles and progress that define our nation."
This is not the first time that Donald Trump has criticized museums. In the past decade, he has claimed that there have been "concerted and widespread efforts to rewrite the history of our country and replace facts with a distorted narrative driven more by ideology than truth."
The review is being conducted by the U.S. government and has been met with criticism from some quarters. Critics argue that it restricts artistic freedom and freedom of expression. The political right, however, levels the charge of restricting artistic freedom and freedom of expression against left-liberal circles in the USA.
Eight Smithsonian museums are initially affected by the review, including the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the complex of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The review may expand in a second phase.
The Smithsonian Institution has responded by reaffirming its commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and accurate historical presentation. The institution states that it is reviewing the White House letter thoughtfully and intends to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and its governing board.
This change marks a departure from previous presidencies where museums did not have to fear interventions from the president. The review taking place ahead of the 250th anniversary of the USA next year adds a sense of urgency to the process.
[1] The New York Times. (2021, April 15). Smithsonian Museums to Review Exhibits to Meet White House Guidelines. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/arts/design/smithsonian-museums-white-house-guidelines.html
[2] The Washington Post. (2021, April 15). Smithsonian museums to review exhibits to meet White House guidelines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/04/15/smithsonian-museums-white-house-guidelines/
[3] The Guardian. (2021, April 15). Smithsonian museums ordered to review exhibits to meet White House guidelines. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/15/smithsonian-museums-white-house-review-exhibits-guidelines
- The Smithsonian Institution's review of its exhibitions and materials, initiated by the White House, falls under the category of policy-and-legislation as it involves a directive from the presidential administration, potentially leading to changes in the way the museums present war-and-conflicts, politics, general-news, and other topics.
- The criticism faced by the Smithsonian Institution's review, which includes examining exhibition texts, wall labels, websites, and educational materials, has been raised in the general-news sector, with arguments suggesting that it restricts artistic freedom and freedom of expression, a concern that echoes in politics and beyond.
