Under the Thumb: Why Amy Sherald Defends Artistic Freedom Against Censorship Threats

A Stand for Artistic Freedom

In a bold move, acclaimed artist Amy Sherald—renowned for painting Michelle Obama’s official portrait—has taken a firm stand against what she sees as a growing threat to artistic freedom: censorship at the Smithsonian. Sherald’s decision to withhold her exhibition “American Sublime” is not just a personal protest, but a poignant critique of what happens when political forces attempt to manipulate the stories that museums tell.

The Grave Consequence of Censorship

Imagine living in a country where the government dictates which stories museums can showcase. It may seem a trivial concern at first glance, but history paints a different picture. According to MSNBC News, when museums become tools of political agendas, they no longer serve as the memory banks of humanity but as instruments of control, rewriting our shared history.

Museums: More Than Just Exhibitions

Philippe de Montebello, the esteemed art curator, once declared that museums are “the memory of mankind.” This memory must be kept sacred and free; otherwise, it risks becoming a narrative crafted through the lens of those in power. Museological independence grants society a chance to confront its complex and contradictory narratives, such as the coexistence of slavery and freedom, and the evolution of culture, which are essential to understanding our collective human experience.

A Historic Battle for Freedom

Sherald’s fight is not unprecedented. The Smithsonian’s history reveals battles between autonomous art and politically motivated censorship. During Herbert Hoover’s administration, a semblance of autonomy allowed the Smithsonian to resist the segregationist policies of the era, permitting exhibitions like “American Negro Artists” that centered Black artistry and subtly challenged racial hierarchies.

The High Stakes of Artistic Expression

Sherald’s refusal to comply with a culture of censorship reflects her commitment to protecting public imagination and safeguarding artistic expression—crucial elements in a healthy democracy. Her stance reminds us that museums are not stages for loyalty to power, but instead should function as civic laboratories where diverse narratives can flourish and challenge the status quo.

What’s at Risk?

While some may dismiss Sherald’s concerns as alarmist, recent events prove otherwise. Political pressures have led to the removal of significant historical references, such as mentions of Trump’s impeachments, highlighting how quickly curatorial independence can be compromised. In Sherald’s eyes, any form of censorship equates to a betrayal of the core values that underpin democracy.

Conclusion: A Call to Preserve Imagination

Amy Sherald’s stand is more than an artist’s struggle against censorship; it is a call to preserve our collective ability to dream, imagine, and understand. If we relinquish our cultural spaces to political agendas, we do not simply lose exhibitions, but the very narratives that define humanity. This fight is crucial—because when we control imagination, we control possibility.