Is the Ford Foundation Behind the Museums' Silence on the Israel Slaughter?

Plus: a note of thanks.

Darren Walker. (source)

A key player in the Guston Cancellation of 2020 was Darren Walker, director of the Ford Foundation and trustee of the National Gallery of Art, which was one of the venues for “Philip Guston Now.” At the time, Walker made the following statement:

An exhibition organized several years ago, no matter how intelligent, must be reconsidered in light of what has changed to contextualize in real time. I agree with the decision to postpone the exhibition so that the museums can ensure that we sensitively and thoughtfully present the works and accompanying public programs. By not taking a step back to address these issues, the four museums would have appeared tone deaf to what is happening in public discourse about art.¹

Rightly accused of cowardice by all who wanted the exhibition to proceed as planned, Walker tried to establish a narrative that the cancellation was an act of courage. Even Tom Eccles, his sympathetic interviewer at ArtReview, had trouble swallowing it:

[Walker:] While some critics would say that what [NGA director Kaywin Feldman] did was cowardly, I would say it was courageous. Because, ultimately, we will be able to map out an exhibition that is seen in the proper context, hopefully, in an environment where racism and the kind of white supremacy that we’re seeing in this moment will have subsided.

TE  It contradicts my thought. Because I was reading about all of this and thinking, “OK, who would actually have the authority to stand up and say no to the show?” Given a consensus around Guston, I thought, “Well, the only person who has the authority to say this is definitely Walker.”

DW I don’t have the authority. I’m one person who brings up an opinion. I’m not naive. I understand that I speak from the platform of the Ford Foundation. Therefore, I want to be thoughtful and reflective as I was when I said what I said publicly – a simple statement: that context matters.

MFA Boston director Matthew Teitelbaum was subsequently heard to speak likewise about his own valor.

We heard “cancellation”, which was never contemplated. We heard “censorship”—I would argue the opposite. And we heard “lack of courage”—I would argue the opposite. The discussion was not around Philip Guston’s acceptability: did he make images that are in their ethical commitments acceptable? They are in my judgment deeply so. The question was whether the way in which museums present images that are aggressive, challenging in their content, that touch on issues of representation that engage with the lived histories of our audiences—have we done enough to create the context for understanding? Our judgment and the reason why we [postponed the show] was that we believe that [we had] not.

The context at which Teitelbaum, Feldman, and Walker arrived was an invalidation of Jewish suffering, with Feldman going as far as saying that Guston had “appropriated images of black trauma.” Jewish pain, they seemed to assert, was not sufficiently substantive or acute to make into art.

That invalidation continues. As reported by Tablet, Darren Walker…

…announced on Thursday that his foundation would be supporting “immediate humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza and the Middle East” and dedicating its resources to “provide life-saving support and other essential needs to the affected Palestinian civilians in Gaza.” Walker made no mention of the more than 200 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, whom Israel has demanded be released before it restores humanitarian aid to the territory.

The following Sunday he issued an additional statement, the reason for which Tablet could not ascertain:

Henry Ford, our founder, was among the twentieth century’s most virulent American antisemites. And yet, to me, our past confers a special obligation to engage, not to retreat—no matter the complications or the consequences.

Just as Walker deemed cowardice courage as he helped censor a Jewish artist, he proclaimed retreat engagement as he avoided condemning Hamas and expressing any solidarity at all with Israel.

Yesterday morning I sent the following press inquiry to the Ford Foundation:

Many have noted recently (most prominently Katya Kazakina at Tablet) that the art institutions have been uncharacteristically silent regarding the October 7 massacre by Hamas of Israeli civilian targets. Museums issued statements of support of racial justice movements at the time of the George Floyd killing, and of Ukraine after the Russian invasion.

Did the Ford Foundation issue any guidance to the arts organizations it supports concerning communication or action regarding the October 7 attack? Does it have a position on whether and how such organizations should respond to it?

I also sent one to the MFA Boston:

I'm writing to inquire about the MFA Boston's decision not to issue a statement of solidarity with Israel in light of Hamas's October 7 murder of 1,400 of her citizens and the taking of 200 civilian hostages. The museum made such statements on behalf of racial justice movements at the time of the George Floyd killing, and mounted a sympathetic exhibition of Ukrainian photography and a related series of panel discussions shortly after the Russian invasion.

What was the rationale for the museum's lack of similar communication or action regarding Israel? And was that rationale influenced in any way by guidance from or the example of the Ford Foundation?

Neither organization has responded, nor do I expect them to. I expect them, on the contrary, as the Jew-hatred long endemic in their organizations and beyond them explodes around the world, to one day characterize their silence as speaking out. Such is their culture, an elitism so unaccountable that each of their failures can be transformed to its opposite success by mere declaration.

They act as if their hubris and the self-serving shallowness of their convictions will never accrue any consequences. I would argue the opposite.

---

Many have reached out to me to express their sympathies, recognizing that my longstanding criticisms of postliberal progressivism in the arts have been validated by current events in a manner that has been personally painful and troubling. This is obviously among the least important aspects of said current events, but I’m grateful all the same. I am blessed with gracious and attentive readers, and it is of utmost importance to me to justify their support. Thank you all.

Content at DMJ is free but paid subscriptions keep it coming. Please consider one for yourself and thank you for reading.

We are in the midst of an Asynchronous Studio Book Club reading of Totality: Abstraction and Meaning in the Art of Barnett Newman by Michael Schreyach. Obtain your copy and jump in.

Preorders are available for Aphorisms for Artists: 100 Ways Toward Better Art by Walter Darby Bannard. More information is available at the site for the book.

1. Walker then went to Twitter to apologize for his use of the term tone deaf as potentially offensive to the disabled.