When Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art director Jeffrey Deitch whitewashed over a mural that he had commissioned from the Italian street artist Blu as part of the upcoming "Art in the Streets" exhibition, the media blogosphere lit up with reactions. Since Deitch erased the mural on the museum's exterior wall — depicting coffins draped with dollar bills — out of fear that it would upset people at a neighboring veterans hospital or the Japanese-American community, whose members were once shipped off to internment camps during World War II from a nearby site, was the action tantamount to censorship?

The MOCA director, who did not have a chance to discuss the mural with Blu ahead of time because he was busy officiating at Art Basel Miami Beach parties, had the mural painted over upon his return to L.A. — before any complaints had been made. Some, of course, have likened this course of action to the easily-cowed Smithsonian's censorship of David Wojnarowicz's video, while others have been more sympathetic to the former art dealer and novice museum director. For a roundup of the responses to Deitch's decision — beginning with his own rationale — see ARTINFO's digest of the aftermath below. (Much of the material is culled from the Los Angeles Times' comprehensive coverage over the last two days.)

DEITCH'S DEFENSE

"This is 100% about my effort to be a good, responsible, respectful neighbor in this historic community," Deitch told the Los Angeles Times of his reluctance to offend anyone at the veteran's clinic with the anti-war mural. "Out of respect for someone who is suffering from lung cancer, you don't sit in front of them and start chain smoking." The MOCA director went on to cite his considerable track record of promoting political street art. "Look at my gallery website — I have supported protest art more than just about any other mainstream gallery in the country," he said. "But as a steward of a public institution, I have to balance a different set of priorities." The erasure was worlds away from the Smithsonian censorship issue, said Deitch: "This doesn't compare to David Wojnarowicz. This shouldn't be blown up into something larger than it is." 

BLU BOILS OVER 

While Deitch made it sound as if the celebrated street artist agreed with the museum's decision to take down the work, Blu accused the MOCA director  in an email to the L.A. Times of trying to muffle his true feelings on the subject. "It is censorship that almost turned into self-censorship when they asked me to openly agree with their decision to erase the wall," Blu wrote. "In Soviet Union they were calling it 'self-criticism.'" He added, "Deitch invited me to paint another mural over the one he erased, and I will not do that." Blu then released a short "prose poem" about the incident on his Web site [sic throughout]:

"Moca asks me to paint a mural
I go to L.A. to paint the piece and I almost finish it
the Moca director decides to erase the wall
on the next day the mural is erased by Moca workers
journalists are still not sure if this can be called censorship
so they start asking my opinion about that." 

SHEPARD FAIREY WEIGHS IN   

A fellow street artist of Blu's whom Deitch showed toward the end of his reign as New York's preeminent street-art gallerist, Fairey issued a diplomatic statement about the whitewashing. "This is a complexsituation that could have been avoided [altogether] with better communication," he said, adding, "I'm not a fan of censorship but that is why I, and many of the other artists of the show, chose to engage in street art for its democracy and lack of bureaucracy.... However, a museum is a different context with different concerns. It would be tragic for the break through of a street art /graffiti show at a respected institution like MOCA to be sabotaged by public outcry over perceived antagonism or insensitivity in Blu's mural. Graffiti is enough of a contentious issue already. The situation is unfortunate but I understand MOCA's decision." 

A PUNDIT CALLS DEITCH "BRAVE"

In an opinion piece on the Huffington Post, art writer Mat Gleason applauded MOCA's decision. "The differences between the censorship controversy at the Smithsonian and the attempts to manufacture a censorship controversy at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art could not be more diametrically opposed.... With all the wit of a college newspaper editorial cartoon, the mural was not whitewashed because of its infantile attempt at protest.... Not only is the whitewashing at MOCA not censorship, it is both a brave move to make a show better in the face of controversy as well as to be sensitive on behalf of the local community, something that a shock-and titillation-centric art world is not really known for."

NOT A FIRST AT MOCA

There is a historical precedent to the artwork's erasure at the museum. As the L.A. Times points out in a recent article, MOCA faced a similar dilemma in 1989 when Barbara Kruger's mural for a show titled "A Forest of Signs: Art in the Crisis of Representation," had members of the community up in arms. Depicting an American flag with the Pledge of Allegiance written across it, the work occupied the same wall as Blu's mural — opposite the memorial marking the site where Japanese Americans were sent off to camps during the Second World War. Before the piece went up (which it did only after the exhibition had closed) MOCA was subjected to 18 months of community meetings. Kruger currently sits on MOCA's board of trustees.