Posted on 01/06/2020 4:18:41 AM PST by Kaslin
The Smithsonian Institution, has stood as an emblem of American knowledge and values since its establishment. Its vast spaces have been used to advance technological progress, social change and, in the realm of the arts, what is good and beautiful.
In 2015, my painting 'Unafraid and Unashamed' was submitted to the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery for inclusion in an exhibit on American political art. The scoffing response from the museum’s director, Kim Sajet, was that it was “too big”, “too political”, “too pro-Trump” and finally "no good."
The abrupt, arbitrary dismissal of an artist’s work may cause hurt feelings. However, the denial of one’s right to free speech aroused far greater passion and a demand for a remedy.
What is the entity status of the Smithsonian Institution? This is the unanswered question of federal Law, that my current petition for certiorari, at the Supreme Court, (prepared without the assistance of counsel), is seeking to be answered.
Three federal courts, The US Court of Federal Claims, The US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, through which my case, [Julian Marcus Raven v. The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (USA)] has already navigated, have unsurprisingly been confused about which laws apply to the Smithsonian. They have consequentially denied an ordinary citizen’s free speech rights.
This is nothing new. In 1971, William W. Warner, assistant Smithsonian secretary, wrote a speech for then Smithsonian Chancellor of the Board of Regents, Chief Justice Warren Burger, in which he asked this remarkable question:
"But just what is the Smithsonian Institution? Why does it look and operate the way it does? It most certainly is not a government agency, nor a component of the executive branch of the federal government. It is not a part of the Congress or the Judiciary...Moreover, the Smithsonian Institution, as a trust instrumentality, continues to confuse members of Congress, the courts, and the executive branch..."
If all three branches of the federal government are confused as to the answer to this question, We the People, to whom the Smithsonian Institution belongs, must petition to know the answer.
The mystery of entity confusion caused Amtrak, another federal enigma, to require the Supreme Court to answer the identical question in the case of LeBron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Similarly, a political artist, Michael LeBron, a Democrat, was denied the display of political art on the Spectacular screen at Penn Station in New York City, claiming his 1st Amendment free speech rights were violated.
In LeBron, Amtrak argued that it was absolutely no part of the federal government, in order to skirt its constitutional constraints, denying LeBron his 1st Amendment political free speech rights. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 majority decision, written by Justice Scalia, including Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Thomas, ruled differently. They tied Amtrak to the Constitution because a government-appointed Board of Directors controls Amtrak, thus making Amtrak a federal creature.
The entity or agency question in my case however, is regarding the Smithsonian’s private trust status, which is merely run by the federal government. This status has been mysteriously denied by the District and Appellate Courts, denying me of my 1st and 5th Amendment free speech, due process and equal protection rights. By denying the Smithsonian trust status, the court also exonerated the Smithsonian officials of egregious breaches of fiduciary trust.
Private bequests, like the Will of James Smithson, entrusted to state or federal governments to run as fiduciary trustees, remain private institutions, which are merely run by the government, specifically in the role trustee. The beneficiaries of the Smithson trust, We the People, should be protected against government abuses, by both the Common Law of Trusts, and the U.S. Constitution.
My case is not complex. However, it is facing a complete, institutional distortion, of the entity, or agency status, of the Smithsonian Institution, by the Department of Justice and the Federal Courts. These federal actors have declared that the private institution, established for the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ by the will of a private citizen, actually speaks for and as the federal government, exercising ‘government speech’ powers derived directly from the electorate. Consequentially, a participating, citizen-artist, is owed no fiduciary duties from the trustees, and the artist has no expressive political free speech, or any other constitutional rights!
Judge Trevor McFadden, from the District Court, declared that the actions of Kim Sajet, the Director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, were ‘insulting, partisan and odious’, yet at the same time, (since no laws apply to the Smithsonian), her actions, by default, were declared to be acceptable, fiduciary trustee conduct.
Never has a case been made against the Smithsonian Institution, that has reached all the way up to the Supreme Court! It is time for the US Supreme Court to answer this question;
Just what is the Smithsonian Institution?
Julian Raven is a commercial artist. His petition for Certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court.
I was talking, strictly about the Smithsonian and what they put on display not the government in general. That would be an entirely different conversation.
Given that space is finite art displayers will always, regardless of their relationship to the government, have to be allowed to say no.
Indeed, ironic!
However, I agree with most the criticisms of the work in question, regardless of politics — (“too big”, “too political”, “too pro-Trump” and finally "no good.")
1. “too big” — If you've been to the NPG, few of its paintings are that large, except possibly those of some of the former presidents, and I would include the Obama portrait as being that large -- however, he actually is a former president, for better or worse.Had the Gallery director's comments been more tactful, they might have avoided this lawsuit. The artist may have accurately sensed that the comments were cutting precisely because of a political disagreement; but that doesn't make them wrong about the art — just rudely expressed.2. “too political” — this is very badly worded, if the rejection was indeed in "good faith" on artistic rather than political grounds, since the painting was submitted for consideration for "an exhibit on American political art." The NPG may have lost their case based on this wording. Best case, the Portrait Gallery was trying to say it looked like rapidly-painted illustration for throw-away campaign brochures and not a fine art portrait.
3. “too pro-Trump” — This statement must be taken in context, since it was said in 2015, when many Americans were unconvinced that Donald Trump would be able to go the distance as a candidate or a president. Hanging a painting that large would indeed have looked like a campaign endorsement that would have dwarfed most of the other works in the exhibit, when in fact Trump wasn't elected yet, or possibly not even nominated yet.
4. "no good" — this is a harshly-worded assessment of the quality of the artistry. I must agree that the draftsmanship is inconsistent within the painting, with fine detail on the eagle, flag and world eclipse, but Trump's face flat and out of focus, contrasted with overly rigid edges on the hair, cheek and nose, and the lack of subtlety in the facial modeling. It looks more like "velvet Elvis" or airbrush auto detailing than fine art, or even great graphic art.
As much as I support President Trump (very, very much), I hate to see this lawsuit succeed. You can't sue your way to undeniable excellence. Rejection is part of the art world, and often there are completely subjective tastes or preferences involved — that's just the way it is. When I was entering work in competitions, more than once I had a piece rejected from one competition, yet win an award in a different competition. Tastes vary widely.
Well said, and I agree on all points. My first reaction on seeing the painting in question is that it would have fit right in with the oversize Elvis on black velvet paintings one sees from time to time.
Yeesh. Keep that crap out of the Smithsonian, please.
That said, I’d wear it on a t-shirt in a heartbeat!
Unless that’s part of the message that dude is trying to convey. “This is our culture, and multiculturalism dictates that it is equal to all others. So take your “good taste” and shove it up your institution.” ???? You know, good ol’ hipster irony?
That’s one thing I got out of art school...all you need for success is the ability to convince the taste makers that “I meant to do that.”
“too big”
In a previous life, I had occasion to walk through the Smithsonian Museum of art or whatever it is called. They were having an exhibition of paintings by Frederic Edwin Church. All of the ones I saw were “too big”.
The size of pieces in a given exhibition is decided by the exhibit’s curator in relation to the other pieces to be exhibited and the space available. If you were looking at an exhibit by one artist, there were probably fewer pieces included than in the exhibit cited in the above lawsuit. Fewer pieces = more room to display larger works.
I see what you are saying & have to agree, but the reason I brought up the Church exhibition was that his paintings were the Jumbotrons of the 1800s and somehow they found room for a dozen to 20 of them. I thought they did a good job.
And because they were all large, none seemed disproportionately large against the others, or so I take it.
Whereas the dominance of a yuge Trump painting among the many smaller works in the other exhibit cited was one of the reasons for the rejection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.