The National Portrait Gallery has recently rewritten the label describing former President Bush’s presidential portrait and accomplishments in office. The rewrite came at the request of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who objected to the wording, “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq…” Senator Sanders wrote in his letter to the NPG, “When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our nation into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one ‘led to’ to other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked.” See the article in the Washington Post (January 14, 2009) for the full story and the captions.
Labels are important! Should labels on works of art be “neutral” (if that is possible), descriptive, establish context? How much are museum visitors willing to read? How much time do you spend reading a lable compared with looking at the work? How does the label influence your appreciation of the work?
Labels should be informative and neutral, if there can be a balance between the two. It is definitely important to have some description of the art piece (without the context behind the work of art, it can be harder to understand its importance and meaning). However, I personally spend very little time reading the descriptions anyway–mostly just for the artist, date and title.
In the case of the Bush portrait, I do think that it is important for the label to remain neutral. People have strong opinions about politics, the former president and the war.
I agree. This is, after all, the National Portrait Gallery and not some forum for debate (that would be across town in the big rectangular building with the dome). Political bias has no place in an art museum.