Artist AA Bronson has perpetuated the National Portrait Gallery censorship debate with his request to have his photo, "Felix, June 5, 1994," removed from the museum because he could not support the Smithsonian's actions in removing David Wojnarowicz's "A Fire in My Belly." That request was denied, and Bronson is still fighting for his work, for which he'll have to overcome a significant legal hurdle.

It's a hurdle that Wojnarowicz knew well. He also once fought to have a work removed from a group show. In 1990, soon after Wojnarowicz took a confrontational stance against politicians in a catalog essay about AIDS and solicited the ire of conservatives, he was selected to participate in an exhibit organized by Bard College's Blum Art Institute called "Art What Thou Eat." Wojnarowicz's work, "Tuna," was displayed along with a piece by artist Mark Kostabi, who had ignited a firestorm in 1989 by telling Vanity Fair, "These museum curators, that are for the most part homosexual, have controlled the art world in the eighties. Now they're all dying of AIDS, and although I think it's sad, I know it's for the better. Because homosexual men are not actively participating in the perpetuation of human life." Kostabi later apologized for the remarks.

Though Kostabi's and Wojnarowicz's work was shown without incident at Bard, once it moved to the New-York Historical Society, Wojnarowicz said, "I'd never be in the same show with that bigot." Historical Society museum director Holly Hotchner and art dealer Gracie Mansion had the work taken down to honor Wojnarowicz's request, and to quell a band of ACT UP protesters outside of the opening. Then, according to news reports, curator Linda Weintraub had the work reinstated. Two months later, the New-York Historical Society had it removed again, and a placard in its place – a concession of Weintraub – explained the work's absence. Weintraub said in an email that she wasn't the one who had the work reinstated, and that she doesn't recall the exact timeline of events.

Of course there is a distinction to be made here: When Wojnarowicz asked to have his work pulled from the show, he was reacting to the inclusion of another artist. When Bronson asked to have his work pulled, he was reacting to the policy of the institution hosting the show. The decision to remove either work could set a precedent, but Bronson's dissent is loftier: Wojnarowicz's objections point a finger at the personal beliefs of other artists, whereas Bronson's objections are to censorship, which has potential to harm the entire artistic community.

But, recognizing the parallels between Wojnarowicz's and Bronson's requests, Weintraub says that if she were in the place of National Portrait Gallery director Martin Sullivan, she, too, would not remove Bronson's work. Via email, she provided five reasons she feels the Portrait Gallery should not honor Bronson's request. Says Weintraub:

• An exhibition is a creative expression that deserves the same respect and protection as an individual work of art.
• Allowing artists and lenders to remove a work from an exhibition grants them the power to commandeer an exhibition at the expense of a curator’s integrity and scholarship.
• Contracts between lenders and borrowers provide detailed information about rights and responsibilities. They do not state that the artist’s or lender’s opinions about another artist in the exhibition constitute the right of severance.
• Wojnarowicz’s objections to the exhibition I curated dealt with sexuality and politics, but the exhibition did not. “Art What Thou Eat” consisted of depictions of food in American art in the 19th and 20th centuries. Wojnarowicz contributed a painting to a section devoted to fish. Kostabi’s work depicted a sweet confection. Because the works of art were sequenced chronologically according to theme, the omission produced a glaring interruption in a carefully orchestrated progression.
• Complying with Wojnarowicz’s demand carries a ludicrous implication. It would mean that curators of group shows could only select artists whose sexuality, lifestyles, or political opinions are companionable. 

 Just as the Portrait Gallery has offered to Bronson, Weintraub offered Wojnarowicz an opportunity for a public forum to explain his views. He declined, she says. Bronson has also declined the Portrait Gallery's offer because of a scheduling conflict.

"While my goal was to mitigate the controversy, his was the opposite," says Weintraub. "Maximizing controversy served his agenda – to generate media attention about the AIDS crisis and discrimination against homosexuals."

Bill Dobbs of ACT UP organized the protest at the Historical Society, and also organized a recent Wojnarowicz censorship protest in New York with the group Art+.

"It's a parallel to what AA Bronson is doing," says Dobbs. "It says something about how the right to speak and express oneself through art includes the right not to speak. The right to not speak is not necessarily recognized in the law, but you can assert it."

Dobbs was quoted in several newspaper articles throughout the protest as saying that the Blum Gallery ignored AIDS issues in shows it sponsored. Weintraub, who currently works as the founder and publisher of Artnow Publications, says that she was unfairly targeted as a villain in the days of the show.

"Evidence was sought to demonstrate that I was homophobic (none was found)," she says. "The protesters came to the Bard campus to rally students on their behalf and to demand that I be fired. The dissent continued until the semester ended and the students left campus."

Though Wojnarowicz's wishes were respected in the end, Bronson will not be as fortunate. The curators of Hide/Seek, Jonathan Katz and David Ward, do not want to lose the piece, and the Portrait Gallery has said that its decision is final. Bronson has taken to Twitter to support Washington Post critic Philip Kennicott's call for Smithsonian Secretary Wayne Clough's resignation.