Bozell Column: Shock and Awful Art
Rocco Landesman is the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, and boy, does he know how to spin the official line on offensive art. In a recent interview in Cincinnati, he was asked vaguely about controversy. “The best art taps into deep feelings, sometimes to comfort and sometimes to confront. Art can be very uncomfortable,” Landesman said. “What can lead to strong reactions -- for some of us, it draws us into the arts over our lifetimes and careers. For others, it creates strong negative feelings.”
Landesman wasn't being asked specifically about negative feelings over the Loveland Gallery in Loveland, Colorado, a taxpayer-funded art space which recently featured a controversial painting with Jesus Christ receiving oral sex from a man. He's certainly not used to critical questions about just how this blasphemy-by-numbers seems like a tiresome rerun: Jesus in urine, Jesus in chocolate, Jesus in (homo)sexual ecstasy.
You know – he wasn’t asked, but you just know – that he would never defend as “the best art” the depiction of the prophet Mohammed or the Dalai Lama receiving oral sex. He’d be offended if it was a secular figure like, oh, President Obama. But this is the Christ that every taxpayer-funded artist always wants to crucify. This is “best art.”
The artist in this case is a Stanford professor named Enrique Chagoya, and he called his art outrage "The Misadventure of the Romantic Cannibals." Typically, Chagoya was raised Catholic and claims the work isn't hostile at all, that it's about “faith and belief,” that Christ was “about love, and about sharing.” Blah, blah. For good measure, gallery officials denied the image was sexual, as if men usually put their face in another man's lap for other reasons.
There's more religious imagery in the multi-panel piece, including what appears to be the head of the Virgin Mary on a scantily clad cocktail waitress, and another picture placing the head of Jesus on an obese female body, in a one-piece bathing suit, riding a bicycle. The piece also contains written vulgarities (in English and Spanish).
Some might yawn. Here we go again. But what makes this story different is that Kathleen Folden, bless her heart, entered the gallery, broke into the artwork with a crowbar and ripped it to pieces. She didn't really destroy the art, since it was one of several prints, but she did express a rebuttal of sorts to the constant artistic besmirching of Jesus. Someone offended back.
Folden will now be prosecuted for “criminal mischief” in the case. Chagoya was now the outraged one: “Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns?” Since he's obviously free of shame, the Jesus-insulting artist added, “Let's exchange ideas, not insults.” This is too rich.
Our media easily blame the offended Christian and not the artist. But make the image a Muhammad cartoon, and our media would blame and shame the artist for being needlessly provocative, and not the offended Muslim who would take action in response. Someone should ask Chagoya if he's heard of Molly Norris, who merely proposed (and quickly retracted) “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” and then had to vanish from public view (along with her art) and change her name on the recommendation of the FBI.
The vast majority of the art community's shocking or “transgressive” work is aimed at celebrating sin and the sexually “liberated.” The NEA recently announced that it would expend $12,500 to translate into English a novel by the Marquis de Sade, the libertine icon whose appetite for sexual violence inspired the word “sadism.” The federally honored translator, John Galbraith Simmons told CNSNews.com that this particular novel (“Aline and Valcour”) is not pornographic, and that “Sade is a figure who belongs with Shakespeare, with the greatest of authors.”
The NEA also seems to find supporting art most exciting in the most “sexually liberated” cities. As part of the Obama “stimulus” package, CNS also found, the NEA distributed $1.4 million in special "stimulus" grants to 37 private arts nonprofits in the city of San Francisco, most of which is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That was more than the total number of NEA stimulus grants handed out to arts organizations in any other state except New York.
The artistic elites like to pretend that they’re the sophisticates, and their opponents are the uneducated brutes. But looking at weird and junky cartooning like Chagoya’s just makes you think the vandalism here wasn’t committed by the lady with the crowbar, but by the guy with the paints.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
There is very little real
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:58am.
There is very little real art being created today. Most of it is pure junk. It's just a scam to make money or gain notoriety.
It's just a scam to make
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:42am.
It's just a scam to make money or gain notoriety.Yup, just like Stewart's and Colbert's marches in Washington.
Bush decapitated and a missile penis
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:09am.
Professor of "Art."
I have an idea!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:53am.
I would like to market urinals with a drawing of Obama centered on the 'sweet spot' as an example of 'everyday art' that people from all walks of life can enjoy. I know that true, open minded, artists would applaud this but I am worried that womens groups would be upset that they can't enjoy 'raining' on Obama's parade and would feel excluded.
Racists bla bla bla
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:02am.
Seems I remember another group doing something like that. But that was different?
Separation of church & state
Submitted by happi on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:14am.
I think a lawsuit is needed here. How is it consitutional to take federal money and produce "religious" art!!!. That should shut them up.
That gives the lie to separation of church and state
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:53pm.
How is this anything but a public endowment to attack a religion? But they're too cowardly to take up the question.
Because, KC...it isn't.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:46pm.
Now if there were governmental strings attached which required public funds to be used for the promotion of religion--or, contrariwise, to disparage, say, Mormonism or the Catholic Church--your point would be well taken.
Think of it this way: If the owner of a business is the beneficiary of targeted tax relief or stimulus funds and thereafter happens to purchase Christian iconography to display in his store window or a fish symbol to stick on the bumper of the company van, has there been a violation of church/state separation? I don't believe any court in the country would answer in the affirmative.
Jer
So let me get this straight
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 10:07am.
They give the money to the artist to do whatever he wants with it. And if he just so happens to produce anti-religious art, well, that's just the way the ball bounces? And the defense is that they gave him the money before he performed the anti-religious statement, so that they can't be guilty of funding an anti-religious attack?
OK, here's how we respond.
Let's tell Catholic schools to drop any reference to religion, and get funding for education. And after they get the money, if they just so happen to stage a religion class, well, that's just the way the ball bounces. The schools were given the money and did with it whatever they wanted.
What? Wait a minute? Everyone knows that the Catholic school will use the money to promote religion? By golly you're right. But after so many instances of anti-religious "artists" being given money, and so many instances where they use the money to produce anti-religious art, everyone knows how the artists will use the money.
How were these "artists" selected to receive funds in the first place? Perhaps the moment they received the money, they "suddenly" became anti-religious?
That's a game. If they want to play games, let's play them.
Sexual deviancy
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:52am.
celibrated by dumb-ass liberals every day. With our money.
Sometimes I get so angry I simply can't express myself. But I'll tell you what -- the Republican takeover had better de-fund the NEA, NPR, ACORN, the Ed Dept, and every other made-for-junk organization currently receiving my money.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Get Some Thick Skin, Ya' Papist Mackerel Snapper...
Submitted by The7Sticks on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:23pm.
So what you are saying is that we should now only mock Muhammad but not Jesus? How about both? I would love to see someone make a painting of Muhammad and Jesus in sexual congress in the 69 position.
And just so you know, when you say "Our media easily blame the offended Christian", was it not a Christian terrorist named Scott Roeder who murdered Dr. George Tiller because he was "offended" by TIller's being an abortionist? Did you know that "offended" Muslims tried to kill every cartoonist who drew a picture of the Prophet Muhammad, and that hundreds of people were killed by that senseless violence? Sorry, but vandalizing distasteful artwork does not fit the description of civil disobedience; it is actually what you call "domestic terrorism." By the way, Brent, I'm Baaccckkk... >:3Sticks---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:31pm.
Baaccckkk.
Not new, not improved.
Just back.
And still a prolific sour ass.
MD
Oh you're such a freakin'
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:34pm.
Oh you're such a freakin' drama queen.
Actually...
Submitted by mrbuddhafreak on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:46am.
I don't really see the point in mocking anybody's religion, myself. Then again, I'm not a liberal. I also suppose that destroying a print of an offensive piece of 'art' is a pointless gesture. But it could be considered performance art. The lady should be made to pay for the case the 'art' was 'protected' by, though. It, at least, had some value.
But, I don't see where the 'artist' should be worried. HE was never threatened. With the publicity, he should be able to sell even more prints, if anybody actually would like any of them hanging in their homes. It might actually be quite popular among liberals eager to show their tolerance and distain for hateful Christians. They probably shouldn't put it too near a mirror, though. Seeing real hate might disturb them.
I don't remember the media going out of their way to play up the religious beliefs of Timothy McVeigh except to mistakenly (and in some cases repeatedly) characterize him as a Christian. Vandalizing a piece of so called art is not domestic terrorism. The murder of an abortionist who killed viable fetuses isn't domestic terrorism on it's own. But the headline 'Professed Agnostic Kills Hundreds In Worst Case of Domestic Terrorism' must have eluded me.
Art or Politics?
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:35am.
I could not agree with Mr. Bozell more and to add my meager input:
The real problem with the current art scene is one of barbarianism versus enlightenment. The current view of many in the art-world has its origins in the anarchistic and progressive movements of the early 20th Century. Before that, throughout most of history, the purpose of art was to enlighten (teach or record historical events) – to inspire the viewer – to praise noble human works and specifically in traditional Western cultures praise God. Art was seen as a way to lift the viewer’s spirit on both a mental and spiritual level.
All that changed when the adherents of the progressive movement decided to reject classical Aristotelian philosophy and the principled offshoots thereof (Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, and *Æsthetics) and embraced philosophies more in line with their own Political viewpoints (Nihilism, Phenomenalism, Representationalism, and Relativism to name a few). The Politicizing of the Arts damaged the concept of Art as means to express truth, beauty and yes, even romanticism and inspiration.
However, one of the greatest tragedies from the politicizing of the Arts was the effect on many of the artisans themselves – No longer able to express or create honest beauty or inspiration and gain fame or even work in a politically liberal oriented Art-business, they fell in line with the new morality of their leftist political masters and became creators of depravity, filth, disorder, and eventually came to believe their purpose was to express the rawest and most primitive emotions, desires, and hateful nature of mankind.
Is it any wonder that with the rise of the political left came the opposing lowering of many artists ability to celebrate the best mankind has to offer?
Note: *Æsthetics may also be spelled as Esthetics if you don’t want to take the time to insert the “Æ” character to give your writing a more scholarly feel… Luckily I have no use for such cheap tricks (Æsthetically speaking).
This art is protected by the constitution...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:50am.
The crime is that liberals spend our tax dollars encouraging such work.
Art, of course, is one of those areas of federal spending that is not mentioned in the constitution, therefore should be left to the states and society.
This is basically "political" art and should be ineligible for any public or social monetary support.
Because of the intentional and intense insult directed at Jesus and Christians, the lady who destroyed the print was reacting to what is in essense "fighting words". However, I think her actions were wrong, and if I served on the jury, I would find her guilty and award the artist and display venue $1 each in damages. Each, I tell you. We have to discourage such behaviour.
Agree with you Beauxdog
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:35am.
Good point on the lady who destroyed the “art.”
Please note: “Rocco Landesman is the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts,... “The best art taps into deep feelings, sometimes to comfort and sometimes to confront. Art can be very uncomfortable,”” - Seems to me the NEA is working overtime on the confront aspect and he describes the comfort aspect as uncomfortable... to quote Harry Truman “He’s a two ulcer man on one ulcer pay.”
And speaking of another government employee: “The artist in this case is a Stanford professor named Enrique Chagoya, ….” Enough said.
As for the Constitutional protections - It is my understanding the Constitution not only protects lawful actions, it also protects lawful reactions. I agree the lady’s reaction was unlawful but de-funding the NEA would be a lawful action.
"The crime is that liberals
Submitted by JoeBob on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:31pm.
"The crime is that liberals spend our tax dollars encouraging such work."
"Support for the arts---merde! A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore!" - Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land
Once again, we come face to
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:45am.
Once again, we come face to face with the fact that just because one has the "right" to do something, that doesn't mean is IS "right" to do it.
Jurassic Park
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:43pm.
Like Jeff Goldblum's line from the first "Jurassic Park" movie:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."