Subtle Censorship?

Censorship is not always blatent.

Today for another class assignment I decided to visit the Smithsonian American Art Museum. I was happy to see that they were showing an exhibit about William Christenberry. I was even more pleased to note that he was the one who curated the show.

William Christenberry is probably most famous for his Klu Klux Klan images, which are oddly desettleing but nonetheless create an accurate description of one of the most unique cultures within the continential United States. The American South is an interesting place with an even more provactive and interesting history. It should come as no surprise that a man whose body of work seems to be concentrated solely on the South would use images of the KKK. To deny that part of our history would be telling of course an incomplete picture.

Christenberry has been suposedly threatened and intimidated by members of the Klan and the subject has been prevelant in a lot of his interviews.

Which brings us to the point of this post >>>

Why then were any of the images of the klu klux klan, seemingly hidden in an ill-lit corner of the exhibit? Why were there are two photographs, 1 glass doll and 3 paper transfers of Klan imagery?

The Smithsonian has a bad habit of catering to the lowest common denomenator, was this selection and placement because the imagery might be too disturbing or offensive to some?

-or-

was the artist editing himself, was he tired of the focus being on the klan imagery, was he afraid of depicting the whole south in the hallowed halls of the Smithsonian?

Is this an act of censorship? I don't know but to me it smells faintly of it. Please see the exhibit and judge for yourself.