MRC's Bozell Demands Congress Investigate Smithsonian for Abhorrent Christmas Season Exhibit
By Brent Bozell | November 30, 2010 | 15:44
Managing Editor's Note: The following is adapted from a news release issued earlier today:
Alexandria, VA – As CNSNews.com reported yesterday, the taxpayer funded Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery is hosting an exhibit during this Christmas season featuring images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."
[Link to CNSNews.com story here. WARNING: Story contains graphic photographs of items on display in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery.]
NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) president Brent Bozell reacted:
“This exhibition is a direct assault on Christianity and the timing – the Christmas season! – shows how offensive it is intended to be. This federally funded vulgarity by the Smithsonian Institution must come to an end immediately. How dare anyone use a federal facility – The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery no less – to exhibit such obscene materials.
This is an insult to every Christian. This disgrace of an exhibition must stop immediately, but that is not all. We are also calling on Congress to launch a full investigation into the approval process of the Hide/Seek exhibit.
We are sending the following letter to Speaker Pelosi and Speaker-Elect Boehner on the House side, and to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell in the Senate to demand an investigation. Americans should not rest until we receive answers to why this exhibit was approved, and how the Smithsonian justifies using tax-payer dollars for such a display of anti-Christian bigotry.”
Links to PDF versions of the letters are found here:
The text of the letter sent by Brent Bozell to Congress is included below:
On behalf of all tax-paying Americans who respect and support freedom of religion, particularly the overwhelming majority of Americans who call themselves Christian, I call upon you today to take immediate action to halt the obscene and bigoted anti-Christian “Hide/Seek” exhibition currently on display at the venerable Smithsonian Institution National Portrait Gallery. Moreover, we call on you to hold Congressional hearings to investigate the Smithsonian Institution for its attack on Christian values and common decency.
The federally-funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition featuring obscene and offensive “art” that includes, among other atrocities:
- Images of an ant-covered Jesus Christ,
- Displays of Male genitals,
- Naked brothers kissing,
- A man "chained and shackled to his dominant, horsewhip-wielding partner,"
- Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and
- A painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show’s catalog as “homoerotic.”
The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13.
The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65% of which comes from the federal government. And, a spokesperson for the gallery’s external affairs office has said that the cost to mount the “Hide/Seek” exhibit is $750,000, making it the most expensive exhibition to-date at the National Portrait Gallery. The argument that this exhibition is not tax-payer funded because private funds were allocated toward it is patently false. It is housed in a federal institution funded by the American people.
This is a breach of face with the American public. This type of overt federally-funded assault on Christianity would be intolerable at any time of year – but, its exhibition throughout the Christmas season is especially heinous and proves just how offensive it is intended to be.
We find it particularly troubling that this obscene and blasphemous federally-funded vitriol escaped your oversight. Thus, we are also calling on Congress to launch a full investigation, complete with open hearings, into the approval process of the Hide/Seek exhibit.
Americans will not rest until we receive answers to why this exhibit was approved, how the Smithsonian justifies using tax-payer dollars for such a display of anti-Christian bigotry, and what corrective actions will be taken.
I trust in your prompt and appropriate response to this outrage, and I look forward to reporting it to all the members and supporters of the Media Research Center.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
To what extent did the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:04pm.
To what extent did the Smithsonian fund this exhibit? Were the artists granted funds to create the art, or is the Smithsonian simply providing a location for the exhibit? Not to be one to judge art, but I think congress has more important initiatives on the agenda than to investigate the Smithsonian.
Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:17pm.
I love free speech perhaps more than anyone on this site, but if a facility gets the majority of their finding from the public, a hateful display towards Christianity should not be allowed. Public school teachers don't display the ten commandments in their classroom or force their studentd to say the Lords Prayer. This type of hate should not be displayed in a location funded by taxpayer funds. It is obvious they want to mock Christians like they do every year around Christmas ans Easter.So who gets to decide which
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:18pm.
So who gets to decide which art is offensive and which art is not? Should the Smithsonian Institute create a committee who judges art and its' influence, as well as its' level of offensiveness?
And what if people still object?
Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:24pm.
Sometimes there are "gray areas". This is not one of them. This is a deliberate attempt to mock Christianity. What do you think the Muslim reaction would be if this was their godSo are you suggesting a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:27pm.
So are you suggesting a committee of Christians should be assembled to judge which art they find offensive?
You can't discuss censorship without having a game plan. I'll ask again - who should decide?
Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:34pm.
The decision should be people that work at the Smithonian, however when it is painfully obvious even to a casual observer, then they should not allow this to be at their museum if this was a picture of Barney Frank surounded ny naked college football players this would be considered hate speech.It's a slippery slope once
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:43pm.
It's a slippery slope once you begin censoring art. What you might find offensive, others may not - and vice versa. All things need to be considered before making such demands.
And as I stated earlier, I'm sure congress has a number of other issues much more pressing than censorship of a publicly funded museum.
I strongly disagree Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:50pm.
This is not a slippery slope, it is painfully obvious that this is intended to mock Christians, if you can't admit this or agree this is a total double standard compared to Muslims and gays, there is nothing I can do if congress has time to investigate steroid abuse in sports and taxing soda it has time to look at this issue.I agree with you, Ted.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:55pm.
Let the Smithsonian display every obnoxious religious piece of art they want. In fact, I think they need a piece of art depicting the prophet Mohammed humping a pig while downing a Bar-B-Q sandwich!
Hell, I ithink that they should just hang a picture of Mohammed looking angelic, maybe with his arm around The One.
Let's see how much "free speech" will keep them from getting their asses blown up by a bunch of "peace loving" moderate muslims.
So why don't they do that, Ted, in the interest of free speech?
Fine by me.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:56pm.
Fine by me.
Fine by you is it?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:06pm.
So let us know when you have created such a piece of "art" and we can watch as you get your empty head cut off.
Then we agree
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:08pm.
Besides, I always like a good pyrotechnics show! I haven't been happy since they quit using napalm.
yes tell us deddy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:51pm.
How many complaints have to be made before something is found "offensive" and who decides?
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/11/30/philadelphia-city-has-christmas-village-renamed-holiday-village-after-receiving-complaints/
Explain to us how this works again? What was the plan?
You're comparing apples and
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:57pm.
You're comparing apples and automobiles.
how is that deddy?
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:20pm.
I am using your own argument. This is a Christmas display using taxpayer money. A handful of people complained, one person made the decision to take it down.
How many Christians does it take to complain about taxpayer funded art found to be offensive and who gets to make the decision "stay" or "go"?
Were you going to the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:24pm.
Were you going to the Smithsonian anytime soon?
I have issues with neither, so you'll have to ask someone who approves of one and not the other.
shawn
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:30pm.
This is a deliberate attempt to mock Christianity.And you know that how?
Here's an idea for some
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:12pm.
Here's an idea for some beautiful pieces of expression art:
1) Gays being butchered to death with axes by oh, how about unicorns.
2) Blacks being butchered to death with axes by oh, how about dildos.
3) Muslims being butchered to death with axes by oh, how about firemen.
4) Mohammed being butchered to death with an axe by oh, how about Ted Kennedy?
Liberal response welcome. Remember, who are WE to judge what is really art?
NPR fires Juan Williams.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:16pm.
NPR fires Juan Williams.
We demand congress investigates!
The Smithsonian Institue displays objectionable art.
We demand congress investigates!
I'm recognizing a pattern.
patterns
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:17pm.
I don't like the pattern either but it is not like conservatives can expect the media to investigate like they would for anything the liberals were upset about.
The exhibit will be over and
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:21pm.
The exhibit will be over and forgotten before congress even opens the formal demand letter.
Ted, yes and no
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:03pm.
Certainly Congress shouldn't be bothered; just like sports, comedians and issuing American apologies/recognition should not take up Congressional time.
I agree that Congress has better things to do - unfortunately I disagree that they will actually do them.
Rush Limbaugh pisses off liberals, daily
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:52pm.
We demand the FCC take him off the air!!!!
Yep, I certainly recognize the pattern.
Liberals: Free speech for me, but not for thee!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Only those who listen to him.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:34pm.
Only those who listen to him.
BS!
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:04pm.
Nice try at glibness...it comes off as your usual idiocy.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Nice try at idiocy. It
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:05pm.
Nice try at idiocy. It comes off as your usual...idiocy.
Keep it up, Deddy.
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:08pm.
You've got the memory of a flea.
Who is calling for the FCC to ban Rush? Hmm....not even two weeks ago.
Now put up or shut up.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
You sure do hold onto a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:16pm.
You sure do hold onto a grudge like dear life.
And you, as usual, are full of crap
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:29pm.
You continuously derail a good thread by asking a couple of idiot hypothetical questions, get shot down numerous times, and yet continue with your stupid strawman arguments and moral equivalencies.
I know what you're doing here....you're just wasting time to occupy yourself by provoking silly discussions here.
So....I skewer your nonsense....and you turn all nasty.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a grudge, Deddy. It has to do with putting you in your intellectually and perpetually idiotic liberal corner, where you belong.
You may kick and scream and whatnot, but you've been soundly beaten (by me, and others) around the head so many times with facts and sound logic that you truly ought to know better.
Keep it up. You seem to be itching for yet another intellectual beat down (like for the fourth or fifth time on this very thread). You never do know when to quit.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Whatever you say, Blonde.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:36pm.
Whatever you say, Blonde.
It amazes me how some with far superior
Submitted by texasborngranny on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 2:58pm.
It amazes me how some, with far superior intellect to "Ted", allow themselves to be drawn in by this perpetual perpetrator of perturbing polite palaver.
From extended observation, I must agree with "Blonde" that "[Ted is] just wasting time to occupy yourself by provoking silly discussions here." Whatever "Ted" is provoking, they certainly are not discussions.
Responding to any post from "Ted" is what is a waste of time.
But That's Just Me
no deddy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:40pm.
Not everyone holds a grudge. some have even tried to have logical discourse with you and you refer to irrelevancy to avoid further discussion. Same ole deddy regardless of what you call yourself this week. One last courteous offer of caution. Do Not Get Personal! Adhere to the discussions. Au revoir deddy.
"Don't get personal" in the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:46pm.
"Don't get personal" in the same breath as more name calling.
And your'e whining about what name-calling?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:40pm.
"Deddy"?
Because that's the only one I see.
Please enlighten us.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Blondie?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:40pm.
Blondie?
Obtuse isn't working for you, Deddy
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:50pm.
Cajun (and I) have been calling you "Deddy" for quite some time.
So...what are you whining about again?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
I'm going to show as much
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:53pm.
I'm going to show as much respect for those who show respect for me. You can call me anything you want, but don't demand respect from me when you're going to start out with something like "Deady." Dead is no longer part of my name, and as much as you like being called Blondie, I could go without Deady.
It's your call.
Deddy, not "Deady"
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:56pm.
...as you've so hilariously called yourself.
You were the one with the multiple "Dead" screen names, not me.
This is the first time you've ever objected to "Deddy".
You have seen me object to "Blondie" numerous times....but the reverse cannot be said.
Care to try that "respect" nonsense of yours again, Ted?
Truly, aren't you tired of getting your ears boxed?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
There are many things that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:06pm.
There are many things that annoy me that I don't point out on a daily basis. What is Deddy supposed to be? A term of love? A friendly little nickname? Those who are calling me Deddy are hardly at the top of my buddy list - well, except you, Blonde.
And don't forget, the first 2 times I changed my name were due to other member's complaints.
And your point would be?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:17pm.
If you didn't like "Deddy"....you had every opportunity in the last umpteen weeks to say something, haven't you? But you didn't, did you. Until you mistakenly threw the "name-calling" card, and got busted. Just like liberals toss the race card at everything without provocation.
Quick...look over there! Dodge, dodge, "name call", you called me a name (which you even spelled wrong).
Thick as a freakin' brick.
Keep whining, though. You've been reduced to pathetic whining about pathetic "slights"....again with the Buddy List?
Pathetic.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
You just keep thinking,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:20pm.
You just keep thinking, Blonde. That's what you're good at.
OK TedN*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:21pm.
If you have been paying attention, I am cajun. We have a habit of shortening names. You kept changing yours so I shortened it to "Deddy" from Another Dead Kennedy, Ted, The Vets Best buddy or whatever you keep changing. It is my way of keeping track of your name changes. At least with the last few post names you kept the same "persona" as ADK. Hence, Deddy. That was not meant as an insult but my "cajun" way of trying to keep track of who you are. If you can "track" cajuns posts, you will notice that I have rarely been insulting to you but rather have tried to caution you on a number of occasions.
This will be my last reply to you ever at NB regardless of how many times you change your name. You are unable to engage in any discussion without becoming personal or change the subject when called out on your poor argument defenses. bon soire!
Can you talk to a few NBers
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:26pm.
Can you talk to a few NBers for me? There are a few more I'd like to add to your "Won't Reply to Ted Ever Again" list.
You jumped on the JWF bandwagon, and that alone proves you lack any respect for me. Then you got snarky. Let's call the deal mutual.
Wazzamattter DiaperBoy?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:16am.
Just could not leave me out of the conversation. You get caught harassing Christians again. You get caught walking around wearing your butt for a hat again. And oops. nwahs pops out the JWF reference again.
What a friggin' crybaby. Now it is crying because people are not responding to the baby's sixth name change in as many weeks.
Did you tell them how you changed it to The Vet's Best Buddy for 2 days? We could call you buddy, right buddy? Oh wait, you didn't like that either, YOU CHANGED THAT SO FAST YOU SPRAINED A FINGER. Why deddy DiaperBoy? Why did you change it so fast?
Tell everyone here what you were going in town to get for us buddy. Tell us now.
Friggin' crybabies bring me into the conversation when I am not even around. AGAIN.
Blonde~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:33pm.
Oh...my...gosh. I call you "Blondie" all the time. I'm so sorry! I had no idea you didn't like it. :(
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
GG....
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:41pm.
Only my friends may call me Blondie, and of course I welcome that term of affection from you.
As for the trolls, fakirs, and annoyances....not so much!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Oh, good~
Submitted by Georgia Girl on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:54pm.
I felt so badly!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU
She has a point Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:59pm.
Why not address her point instead of saying she holds a grudge. Kick off Rush on a privately owned station, but allowing mocking of a religion on the taxpayers dime?I addressed the post, she
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:04pm.
I addressed the post, she came back with insults.
Kicking Rush off the air is not the topic of this thread, nor did I promote or support Rush being taken off the air. There are hundreds of photos in this exhibit, and only one video is being called into question. Did you read through the links? Look through the photos? This isn't an assault on Christianity or a mockery of religion - it's one piece among many.
Throwing the BS card again, Deddy
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:26pm.
You were the one who brought up "Fire Juan Williams".."Demand Congressional Investigation". "I see a pattern".
So I merely discredited your non-point. Easy.
Try again with "changing the subject"....because all of your usual deflections have no weight.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Whatever you say, Blonde.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:37pm.
Whatever you say, Blonde.
DiaperBoy gets in the last word. sorta.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:31am.
Even if it is a meek "whatever you say" six times on the same page.
Izza mean Blonde picking on teh brave brave brave little trollie again. Dang word bullies. Can't even respond to 'em after a while.
Call mumzietroll again DiaperBoy, your diaper is overflowing again. Bonde is right. This is pathetic. You are so desperate to stay here you will put up with any amount of trashing. Pathetic.
Whatever you say, word bully. Braaaacckkkk. Whatever you say, word bully. Squaawwwwwwwkkk. Whatever you say, word bully. Brraaaaaaaccckkkkk.
Someone feed that spineless parrot or it is going back in the closet again.
Spineless Ted.
Meek Kennedy.
Gutless DiaperBoy.
Impotent little sissyboy Dead Zippers.
Weak-kneed nwahs.
Yellow deddy.
Lily-Livered Luckless Hollywood Snail.
Vet,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:34am.
I could add to that, but I'd get the hook fer sure.
-Dave
Lily-Livered Luckless Hollywood Snail.
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:42pm.
OMO. Vet, stop, yuz killin' me... and yes, I'm a few days late to this one. My bad.
- Shy'ed, Not Stirred
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Says the guy with the Justin
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:53pm.
Says the guy with the Justin Bieber haircut.
Ted 7.0
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:59pm.
I see a lot of Sins #1, 2, 5 and 7 in your posts. In this one, a whopping amount of #2.
- Shy Looks
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
An Agnatheist like yourself
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:01pm.
An Agnatheist like yourself should know there are no sins.
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:03pm.
You've gone extremely lame on us. Someone from on high certainly gave you a final warning, as you absolutely need this place to get through your pointless days.
- Shy Snow
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I liked you so much better
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:04pm.
I liked you so much better when you were...
No, wait - I never liked you.
Last word. Last word. Last word.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:16pm.
Whatever nwahs. No you are not nwahs getting in the last word no matter what even if it does nothing but drive what is left of your pathetic reputation straight into hell's gaping maw.
Just one more word...
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:17pm.
Word.
We celebrated when your namesake was banned.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:26pm.
We will celebrate just as much when the powers that be tire of your antics as well nwahs.
Pathetic scum sucking worthless pisant. Keep it up. Yes, desperate pleas for attention by getting in the last word at all costs really show off your intelligence, huh?
I do worry I may be overdoing it sometimes.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:53pm.
But as long as I get to leave these little funny bombs for MrShy to come and trip off, well I guess it is all worth it.
Up yours Dead Zippers you Fainthearted Foundering Feckless WonderDud.
Blonde
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:57pm.
It's the pattern we know and love so well, leftie HYPOCRISY! It just never quits. We saw another glaring example this week when the New York Times published the Wikileaks classified documents. But several months ago, when the email surfaced between the "global warming" scientists which debunked it, the NYT refused to print the contents of the email, stating (paraphrased): "It was not written for public view."
Exactly, missninja
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:10pm.
And if they can't win on the facts (as if!)...they try the old strawman.
See Deddy's posts, above.
Sheesh!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
I Did!
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:29pm.
"Sheesh" is enough said!
I hear you ninja
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:36pm.
LOL, I'm going to talk to some friends....I hear "contact was made".
Join us, please.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Congress, in America
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:21pm.
"So who gets to decide which art is offensive and which art is not?"
These types of determinations are made by Congress and/or State Legislatures, here in America, and those determinations are codified in "public decency" regulations (a.k.a. "laws".) That's why we HAVE a Congress, that's why we HAVE State Legislatures. They are the people we have place in the position to make these determinations for us.
The Smithsonian is a public museum, funded in part with public funds, and, here's the important part, liable to public considerations and limitations that PRIVATE art collections are not, and should not, be liable to simply because it IS accessible to the general public.
Congress should investigate the "art" that is being displayed to the public in this situation. It's their job to define and enact public decency laws, to regulate our public behavior, is it not?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obscenity laws and decency
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:26pm.
Obscenity laws and decency laws are not in question here. Whether a publicly funded institution should pull the objectionable art is in question.
That's a question of decency laws.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:49pm.
Ahh, this may be a bit confusing to you but decency laws ARE the question here. Is the Smithsonian violating public decency laws? That's something Congress should investigate. If the displays are violating public decency laws, than, by law, they have to be pulled from public display.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So your issue is over the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:52pm.
So your issue is over the decency aspect. Well I hate to break it to you, but in comparison to other works of art that may be deemed obscene (your child can walk into Barnes & Noble and pick up a book of HR Giger's work, which will make you think you're at Disneyland looking at the Smithsonian photo gallery), these hardly meet the criteria.
Cloaked in art, obscenity and decency are extremely difficult to prosecute.
I'ts objectionable because it's a violation.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:06pm.
Here's what you fail to understand. So many people, myself included, OBJECT to these type of public displays because they are an apparent violation of public decency laws. I couldn't get away with showing this type of "art" in the "street," in general view of the public, so why should the Smithsonian get away with showing them in their publicly accessible "museum?" There no fundamental difference between the two settings. The laws that regulate my behavior, MY public displays, are the same laws that regulate these type of public displays in museums.
You can try to hide this basic application of law by injecting a strawman argument over who decides what is or is not "objectionable" art, but that definition is clearly stated in our obscenity and decency laws so there's no argument available.
So, what should be done? Should we continue to selectively apply the laws or should we not? Should we allow the Smithsonian to publicly display "art" that is not legal for me, as a private citizen, to display in public simply because it is the Smithsonian who is putting on that display? THAT is a question that only Congress should decide, for THEY are the ones who created the laws to begin with.
Personally, I think the Smithsonian is blatantly flaunting the laws, and that needs to stop. They are not exempt for the laws that the rest of us must abide by.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
This exhibition is supported
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:25pm.
This exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.
Well, that answers that.
BS logic as usual
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:34pm.
FYI, I'm hosting a skinhead concert in your backyard next week.
Now of course we will not ask you to contribute towards it, you'll just be providing the space for it.
SHARPs or Nazi-skins? There's
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:04pm.
SHARPs or Nazi-skins? There's a difference you know. Not all skinheads are bad people.
Skin Heads ARE bad people
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:07pm.
Paki Bashing doesn't sound very nice.
Did you even bother to read
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:32pm.
Did you even bother to read your own wikipedia link? "Paki-bashing" was noted as an occurrence by some skinheads in the 60s, but the SHARP group didn't originate until 1987.
But I'll allow for your elaboration on the SHARPs, and hopefully you can explain their more sinister ways.
I always pictured you as
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:34pm.
Sharp as a skin head?
It shouldn;t exclude them for the laws.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:34pm.
It shouldn't exclude them from decency laws. The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities doesn't have the AUTHORITY to do so. Only Congress has that authority. This convinces more more and more that Congress NEEDS to investigate this matter as soon as possible.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Flawed logic.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:23pm.
"our child can walk into Barnes & Noble and pick up a book of HR Giger's work"
That's flawed logic, a false argument. Children are not allowed to simply walk into a book store and start reading. You have to PURCHASE a book, remember? Its not a public library. It is a privately owned and operated commercial enterprise, one which is also subject to decency laws. You child can't simply "pick up and start reading" the kinds of books you describe because the commercial enterprise itself prevents that from occurring. They have rues that prevent children from access and purchasing "adult" rated material, remember? Why do they do this? They have to. IT'S THE LAW!
Also, you seem to forget that obscene material, for example a photo of nude breasts, like the ones being displayed at the Smithsonian, is BANNED from public displays. You don't walk into Barns and Noble and see cover art depiction naked people, do you? No, of course not. You don't walk down the street and see a Playboy cover showing naked women on display at the local magazine stand, do you? No, of course not. That's because the decency laws PREVENT you from doing this.
So, why should a museum be exempt from the laws that regulate every other public display? It's just another public viewing venue, no different than any other. If I must abide by public decency laws, than so should the Smithsonian. No exceptions, no excuses.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ever been to a book store?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:32pm.
Ever been to a book store? You might notice that the larger stores have sofas, chairs, and desks. If you look closer, you might even notice people reading books at such locations. So yes, plenty of people read material not yet purchased while still in said bookstores. So while the covers may not be displayed, the binding sure is. In other words, beware of your local bookstore!
Ever see a child in a book store?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:39pm.
"Ever been to a book store?"
Yes, I have, and I've seen the clerks taking inappropriate materials away from children who are there with their parents. I've seen clerks escorting unaccompanied children out of the store itself. It's part of their polices! Care to make any other nonsensical arguments?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ah yes, the "I've seen it
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:44pm.
Ah yes, the "I've seen it happen once, so it ALWAYS happens EVERYWHERE" argument.
Talk about nonsense.
The other side of that argument
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:53pm.
The objection to the exhibit isn't about the creation of art and free expression. The objection is that the exhibit was assembled into a coherent message to deliberately offend Christians.
It isn't that some people are offended. It's that the exhibitors deliberately intended to offend. We're not asking for a committee to judge whether there is something offensive. We're saying that the committee perpetrated the offense in the first place.
Where did you get the idea that we owe it to artists to fund their crap in the first place? And that if they produce something we don't like, oh well, we just have to put up with it?
Without the entire exhibit at
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:22pm.
Without the entire exhibit at my disposal, I can hardly argue the overall intention of the exhibit's organizers. We've been provided roughly a dozen photos, but there is obviously more to the story. From the exhibit page:
This is the first major museum exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture. “Hide/Seek” considers such themes as the role of sexual difference in depicting modern America; how artists explored the fluidity of sexuality and gender; how major themes in modern art—especially abstraction—were influenced by social marginalization; and how art reflected society’s evolving and changing attitudes toward sexuality, desire, and romantic attachment.
The exhibition begins with late nineteenth-century works by Thomas Eakins and John Singer Sargent and charts the twentieth century with major works by such American masters such as Romaine Brooks, Marsden Hartley, and Georgia O’Keeffe. The exhibition arcs through the postwar period with major paintings by Agnes Martin, David Hockney, Jasper Johns, and Andy Warhol. It continues through the end of the twentieth century with works by Keith Haring, AA Bronson, and Felix Gonzalez-Torres about life, love and death during the AIDS crisis, and charts the vigorous reassertion of lesbian and gay civil rights in the twenty-first.
A 304-page catalog titled Hide/Seek Difference and Desire in American Portraiture has been authored by the exhibition co-curators, David C. Ward, National Portrait Gallery historian, and Jonathan Katz, director of the doctoral program in visual studies, State University of New York at Buffalo. The catalog will be published by Smithsonian Books and distributed by Random House; it will be on sale for $45.
The exhibition has been made possible by The Calamus Foundation with the leadership contributions of Donald A. Capoccia and Tommie L. Pegues, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Major support is provided by the John Burton Harter Charitable Trust, E*TRADE, Ella Foshay, Vornado/Charles E. Smith, the Wyeth Foundation for American Art, Catherine V. Dawson, Robby Browne and Madison Cumnock, The Durst Organization, Ashton Hawkins and Johnnie Moore, The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, Occasions Caterers, the David Schwartz Foundation, Frank J. Sciame, Jonathan Sheffer and Christopher Barley, and Jon Stryker. Additional significant support is provided by many generous friends of the National Portrait Gallery, including Tonio Burgos and Associates, Cambria Estate Winery, Lisa and Porter Dawson, Craig Kruger and Eric Michael, the Toby D. Lewis Philanthropic Fund, The Morrison & Foerster Foundation, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, David von Storch, Alexander and Bonin, H. van Ameringen Foundation, Lisa Bodager and Rebecca Linder, the David Bohnett Foundation, Dan Critchett and Greg Slimko, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Doty, Charles C. Francis, Sidney Lawrence and Thomas Birch, Weston F. Milliken, Leo Mullen and Helene Patterson, the Jerome Robbins Foundation, James Sharp Brodsky and Philip E. McCarthy II, William Sofield, Peter and Barbara Thompson, Paul Travis & Mark Fichandler, Paul Washington and Stan Sagner, and Diane Wondisford.
This exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.
With this additional information, it clearly shows that the exhibit is not an attack against Christians, but a much larger exhibit with a small portion of objectionable material.
It's sensationalism
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:26pm.
This exhibit is just another form of sensationalism, designed to generate controversy as a means of publicity.
The Smithsonian is a very old and respected institution. This type of blatant sensationalism is not something I expected of such a respected institution. The promoters should be ashamed of themselves.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Linda Lovelace quoting Shakespeare
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:53pm.
After the Supreme Court tried to define obscenity as lurid material that had no redeeming social value, pornographers had their "actors" spout pseudo-literary text, simply to get around the restrictions. It was a farce then, and it's a farce now.
No one claimed that the whole exhibit had to be offensive. Including offensive pieces in the collection does the trick just as well.
Consider the slimy argument here. Examine the text you provided about the purpose of the exhibit: "and how art reflected society’s evolving and changing attitudes toward sexuality, desire, and romantic attachment." But then the exhibit includes offensive depictions of Jesus, as well as "lesbian and gay civil rights."
Bull***t.
The government is telling me that when funds run short, we have to lay off firemen, but we have to fund art exhibits where oh-so-precious artists claim that homosexuality is the evolution of desire? I say again: bull***t.
This exhibition is a direct
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:03pm.
This exhibition is a direct assault on Christianity and the timing – the Christmas season!
I didn't write this line, but don't you think it oversimplifies the objective of the month old exhibit? I've read through the links, and from what I can tell there is exactly ONE piece you may find objectionable - the video "A Fire in My Belly."
So of the hundreds of photos and videos exhibited in this particular show, where is the assault on Christianity? You may be offended by "Fire" but it doesn't set the tempo for the entire collection.
And again with the tax dollars - It's the same old thing. We all pay taxes, and we all disagree with how the money is spent. It's an argument not worth having until we no longer have a government.
Yes and no
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:45pm.
How the government spends our taxes is always an argument worth having -- that's most of the point of politics. On the other hand, is the exhibit an assault on Christmas? I don't know about that, either, and didn't use that as part of my argument.
But I am always offended when artists use the crucifix to make a personal point. The crucifix is a sacred object to Christians.
When you use the crucifix to express your own opinions instead of its own meaning, you're basically stealing the sanctity and power of it. For me, that's the most offensive thing you can do. You're deliberately disrespecting the sanctity so you can advance a political agenda.
All good points, and you
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:53pm.
All good points, and you certainly are not wrong to feel the way you do. It's unfortunate at this time we can't hear from the artist/filmmaker who is responsible for the video in question. But it's a stretch to say (as others have, but not you) that the exhibit as a whole is an assault on Christianity, because there really is only one piece in debate out of hundreds.
On another note, did you happen to read Stevie Johnson's tweet to God after dropping the game winning TD in overtime Sunday?
I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO...
The c'mon man of all time
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:03am.
Disclaimer: I live in Baltimore. Although the Eagles are still my team, I root for the Ravens nearly as much. (The rest of my family, of course, roots first for Baltimore.) That Buffalo game was against the Steelers, so any Pittsburgh loss would have helped the Ravens. But I can easily imagine Pittsburgh's reaction - - thanking God for making him drop the ball was God coming to the rescue of Pittsburgh fans. It works both ways.
What a silly commentary on our times! A guy who's paid millions of dollars to catch the ball drops five passes during the game. Then he tweets about it!
C'mon, man!
I'm not much for "thanking God" during sports. We were always taught to pray for no serious injuries, and that we offered our best effort to God in gratitude - it was never to persuade the "Sky God" to intervene on our behalf. Think of the bad theology behind that.
Piety is one thing. Exaggerated self-importance is another.
I figured you might get a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:04pm.
I figured you might get a laugh out of that one.
Though I do believe Stevie has since made amends with God. ; )
The feckless feckosity of a true feck
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:01pm.
"There's only one offensive piece."
Now putting aside the crucifix video, let us hear your ruling on why homoeroticism (as in the many other pieces of "art" in this exhibition you are apparently unaware of...or outright endorse) should be celebrated in the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian.
But congratulations are in order - yet another thread turned into a "me! me!" Zippers sh*tstorm.
edgy art
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:55pm.
What offends me about the “art” is not the art itself (though I do see why Christians take offense) nor the “artists” in question but the cowardly actions of the artist that used the Christian symbol in his/her exhibit. There is a religion out there that is far harsher to homosexuals and to women not to mention they condone slavery and yet this religion gets a free pass. While it could be said the artist was playing to the audience – that is BS. The audience is predominately Christian or at least has beliefs and morals based in Christianity. The artist was not playing to the audience but attacking the audience while allowing true offenders to go unnoticed. That is cowardly – not edgy, not brave, not cutting edge – just cowardly.
KC
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:01pm.
The objection is that the exhibit was assembled into a coherent message to deliberately offend Christians.If that was their intent it should somehow be reflected in their online representation. So could you elaborate on your objections in connection to the material presented here?
False premise
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:18am.
"If that was their intent it should somehow be reflected in their online representation." No. False premise. Each piece in the exhibit doesn't have to be objectionable for the whole exhibit to be objectionable.
The online presentations only contain a fraction of the whole exhibits. They don't give you a reason to not come to the museum.
Notice, also, that they don't include the crucifix image in the online presentation ... which indicates that they know the crucifix image is objectionable.
Still KC
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:53am.
where was and/or is there a "coherent message to deliberately offend christians"? If you look at the video in question I don't even see why that is antichristian.
The video
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:12pm.
I suppose that gets into the question of what that particular piece was trying to express. What, in your opinion, was that video of ants crawling on the crucifix trying to express? Remember, that video was included in an exhibit that claimed to show the changing attitudes of sexuality and desire. So, how did that video fit in? What message was it trying to communicate?
(Note: I'm not trying to lure you into a gotcha answer. My argument is precisely that it has no business being there. It's being "provocative" for the sake of being provocative, deliberately blaspheming something that Christians consider sacred, simply to provoke us. )
You can answer your own
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:23pm.
You can answer your own question just by reading a little abou the exhibit. There's an article that explains the piece and the exhibit linked right here on the blog.
The ants on the crucifix are one image, on screen for 11 seconds of a 30 minute video. The video is about suffering, dying, the AIDS epidemic, and the fact that the artist felt abandoned by society and religion. Surely you can see how the crucifix, probably the most iconic image of suffering in the western world, might fit into his expression of rage at what happened to him and people he cared about.
You don't have to like the piece, but if you are going to attack its merits you could learn a little about it first!
Quite the contrary
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:12pm.
I specifically asked how that piece fit into the stated purpose of the exhibit. I had already learned what the exhibit was trying to do. I was asking a question about whether the exhibit was doing what it claimed to do.
Your answer is that the video makes a point about suffering and that the artist felt abandoned by society and religion. Tell me your theory as to how we get from "perceived failures of religion" to "changing attitudes of sexuality and desire." I'm sure you can concoct some Kevin Bacon-style set of connections of ideas, but that's where I argue you're really straining to make those connections. Then again, I could be wrong. Let's see.
I mean, if you want to talk about art, let's talk about it.
“Hide/Seek”
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 9:47pm.
“Hide/Seek” considers such themes as the role of sexual difference in depicting modern America; how artists explored the fluidity of sexuality and gender; how major themes in modern art—especially abstraction—were influenced by social marginalization; and how art reflected society’s evolving and changing attitudes toward sexuality, desire, and romantic attachment.Um, so here's the full quote that you are using part of. While this piece may not be about "changing attitudes of sexuality and desire," it most certainly seems to be about "the role of sexual difference in depicting modern America," and how "major themes in modern art... were influenced by social marginalization." Do I need to go through a detailed explanation of how a piece about how gay people felt abandoned by society relates to sexual difference and social marginalization?
No - but you do have a task
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:07pm.
Explain to us how ants crawling on a crucifix expresses social marginalization.
So, I'm not the artist, nor
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:50am.
So, I'm not the artist, nor am I exactly an expert on art. Here would be my best shot:
The crucifix is a Christian symbol of suffering, and in particular, suffering to help others. Christianity is supposed to stand up for the meek and the downtrodden. During the AIDS crisis, this artist felt like Christianity turned its back, along with the rest of society, on people who were suffering and needed help, because those people were gay and lead a lifestyle that the church didn't approve of. Therefore, the artist thinks that the religion is, perhaps, rotten, and the ants represent the decay of values that the church is supposed to hold, symbolized by the crucifix. On a larger scale, rejection of homosexuality in society in general is largely driven by our Christian religious heritage-- all you have to do is read comments here at NB to see how strongly religion influences most conservatives' view of homosexuality.
And that's just off the top of my head. Honestly, the connection is so easy to make, it is starting to make the piece feel facile. I'm still surprised you need the guidance.
Edit: Okay, I was being snarky there-- it just occured to me that maybe you are trying to passive-aggressively get me to admit that religion is not the same as society. I think the two are inextricably linked. It is the argument conservatives are always making for why it is okay for the state of Kentucky to fund a Noah's Ark theme park, but not okay for the national gallery to show gay art-- because this country was founded on Christian principles and we live in a Christian society. I agree with the premise, I just disagree with the conclusions drawn as to how we should treat religion in public. Even as an atheist, if you asked me to list societal influences that have affected my life, religion would be on that list. There is no way to live in the US and not be affected by Christian values and norms-- not that I would want to, don't get me wrong. Religion, and in particular the Christian religion, is a foundational part of our society.
BS manabear, Kentucky to fund a Noah's Ark theme park
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:15am.
Flat out lie... Fund a theme park..
How on earth do you twist a request for tax reduction, into FUNDING... an entire project ..oh well lib logic...
Do you drive a Government Motors car? Now that's some gov.funding.
O'bama 0% capital gains @4:58 and so much more.
Here's what amazes me ...
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:24pm.
So you're ... perplexed ... at how anyone could consider the desecration of a crucifix to be anti-Christian, especially when the artist was trying to express how Christians "betrayed" the meek, and that you, an atheist, know that the purpose of the church is to stand up for all underdogs?
Yeah ... how could I possibly not understand how that could be construed as anti-Christian?
I was not trying to lure you into some point about religion and society. I was waiting for you to interpret that piece, and you interpreted it accurately (in my view) ... but now, stand back and look at what it says! Yes, that artistic message is anti-Christian!
The difference between us is that you take its assumption for granted (that the church "betrayed" and harassed AIDS victims) that it never even dawned on you that Christians deny that accusation. You might take it for granted, but I certainly don't.
At the very least, then, you must admit that this "piece of art" includes an uncontested accusation (within the exhibit) against Christians ...
Yeah ... how could I possibly not understand how that could be construed as anti-Christian?
omg. The image is 11
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:35pm.
omg.
The image is 11 seconds of a full 30 minute video. You asked me to explain it's significance, and so I did my best. IT IS NOT THE WHOLE PIECE. It is not even a significant percentage of the piece. Most people commenting on this, including myself, have no idea what most of the piece is about, because we haven't wantched it!
I am happy to concede that that particular brief image portrays Christianity in a negative light. How on earth do you get from there to not only the whole piece but the whole exhibit being designed to offend Christians and attack Christmas, as Bozell wildly claimed?
Finally, this is about the artist's personal experience. Whatever I think the church did or did not do during the AIDS crisis, it is not my place, or yours, to tell the artist that he didn't feel abandoned because you don't feel like the church did anything wrong. If he felt abandoned, then he felt abandoned!
No no no mamabear, if
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:19pm.
No no no mamabear, if someone's feelings are hurt it cannot be. Remember how you tried to tell me that I couldn't classify homosexual behavior as immoral because it would hurt gay people? And their feelings are of the utmost importance. Well, if this type of art, even if it's only 11 seconds long, hurts the feelings of Christians, then it should be allowed should it?
Remember how you tried to
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:01pm.
Remember how you tried to tell me that I couldn't classify homosexual behavior as immoral because it would hurt gay people?There's a big difference between telling someone that being gay, or Christian, is wrong, and telling someone that you were hurt by homosexual culture or Christian culture. If you don't get the difference, I really don't know how to explain it to you.
And yet ...
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:27pm.
"Most people commenting on this, including myself, have no idea what most of the piece is about, because we haven't wantched it!"
And yet ... omg ... you felt compelled to defend it.
"it is not my place, or yours, to tell the artist that he didn't feel abandoned "
True. But why should I be forced to pay for his expression of his anti-Christian feelings?
Like, omg!
And yet ... omg ... you felt
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:03pm.
And yet ... omg ... you felt compelled to defend it.I do, in fact, feel compelled to protect art regardless of whether I or anyone else finds it offensive. And you didn't pay for that artist's work. Neither did the Smithsonian. The entire exhibit was funded by private donations.
My uncle has had a piece of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:11pm.
My uncle has had a piece of work on display at the Smithsonian for almost 2 decades. Granted, it's ceramic art, but you never know which clay-worshiping group will one day take offense and demand it be taken down.
~Hey you
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:44pm.
Speak more respectfully of the Phyllosilicate Acolytes, there's lots of them in south Cali.
Ooh Ooh!!!
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:50pm.
I think I saw a nipple in that photo!
Of course, as usual you throw in a word that I must use my dictionary to understand.
(no, not "respectfully" - phyllosilicate!)
~...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:23pm.
You mean that extra one on her forehead? ;)
Oh, what a surprise.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:24pm.
It's almost time again to begin whining about what an outrage it is to display a creche on public property.
SOL
Submitted by shawn. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:29pm.
If people actually want to see this garbage, they can go to a privately funded gallery.I agree, Shawn - that would be more preferable than
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:54pm.
"the Smithsonian simply supplying a location"... that some imply would be no problem at all even if the Smith did not commission/endow the art in the first place.
Doesn't Matter Ted
Submitted by kch50428 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:17pm.
The government has no place supporting the exhibition of such "art", let alone funding its creation.
Simple test
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:35pm.
Just remove the cricifix and insert the Mohamend image with the Koran. See what happens. Watch art become blasphemy in a flash.
Sorry, snooker
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:57pm.
I posted my screed above before I got this far to see yours. I guess great minds think alike!
I see Liberals on other sites
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:08pm.
I see Liberals on other sites using the tired
The Crusades were bad, or something.
People just don't understand the beauty of art.
Complaining about this means it's a slow news day.
The Right Wing and Sarah Palin are responsible for (insert Lefty outrage here)
Censorship is bad, or something.
Something's missing here
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:57pm.
No mention of Bush. No mention of Cheney.
Obviously, you weren't reading enough. LOL!
Jesus Christ: "'I object to the way I have been maligned.''
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:59pm.
No, sorry, that was Sen. Ted Stevens objecting to an artist's ANWR exhibition at the Smithsonian...
...which the Smithsonian DID censor.
Mona Lisa wore clothes
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:01pm.
Why do fags insist on forcing pictures of genitals, usually grossly deformed or exaggerated, on us and calling them 'art'? If they could maybe have something artistic there wouldn't be a problem. Please send the artist and it's display to Iran for a tolerance lesson.
Never mind the investigation.
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:05pm.
Never mind the investigation. Come January,
DEFUND DEFUND DEFUND!
VanHalen...Never mind the investigation....
Submitted by ww thumper on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:55pm.
I agree!!! It is FAR PAST TIME ! to stop using our Tax $$$$ to Support this kind of CRAPPP!!
YES DO DEFUND!! WW
MY PASTOR SAYS "GOD BLESS AMERICA"!!!I ASK " GOD SAVE AMERICA, AND RESTORE OUR AMERICAN HONOR!"
So displaying a manger in a
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:14pm.
So displaying a manger in a public square is offensive. But displaying blasphemous images of Christ at taxpayer expense during the celebration of the birthday of Christ is something we should get used to, because who are WE to criticize art?
The solution is easy
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:19pm.
There should be ZERO government funding for any "arts" performing or otherwise just as there should be ZERO government funding for any "news or journalism" outlets. This would ensure that any offensive or controversial content is purely private and therefore protected by the 1st amendment.
I don't know how much would be saved but the CPB and NPR as well as the NEA should be defunded entirely and set free from any governmental control (as well as the Smithsonian).
Part time Congress with term limits! - No more professional politicians. Let's start rebuilding the Republic!
I'm not so sure the Smithsonial falls under this definition
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:02pm.
The Smithsonian is our national museum....and there are many different branches that comprise it overall....Air & Space, Natural History, Art, Sculpture, etc.
Washington DC, as the nation's capital has many, many historic and informational sites, including the museum(s). It's within our national interest, in my purview, to fund both the arts and historic aspects of these national treasures. (As an advocate of Milton Friedman, a national collection of historic artifacts and culture is outside the purview of individuals, therefore has a core reason for being).
Having said that, it is inappropriate, in my view, to sponsor controversial art/performances on the taxpayer dime. That can be accomplished via individuals, and therefore is not within the government purview. Viewing Betsy Ross' flag is something entirely different than Urine Jesus or whatever controversial "art" some noveau idiot is doing this week.
And if the Smithsonian Institution doesn't have the good sense to know the difference, Congress needs to exercise it's oversight function, and remind the management what is and what is not acceptable.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
c5then....The Solution....
Submitted by ww thumper on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:02pm.
I AGREE! The Govt. should not be using our TAX $$$$$ to fund Any ART'S , or National Propaganda Radio , or TV programs...they are Always slanted to LIBERAL, and STOOPID !!
I have said this several times on NB. :-| WW
MY PASTOR SAYS "GOD BLESS AMERICA"!!!I ASK " GOD SAVE AMERICA, AND RESTORE OUR AMERICAN HONOR!"
Smithsonian - where's the picture of nude Muslim women..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:19pm.
So.. where's the picture of nude Muslim women wearing only a Burqa face shield?
Or, how about a scene with Mohammad stoning a young girl to death?
Or, where's the one of a group of Muslim men hanging gay men?
Oh.. they only want to insult some religions - some cultures - some groups of people - some races. Blatant biggotry being exposed here - once again.
Stop Sharia Law Now
(;~/ gary
Silly Gary!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:45pm.
Who are YOU to say what's offensive or not? (*channeling my inner liberal*)...if it feels good, do it, Baby!
It's only rednecks and flyover bitter clingers would possibly be offended at religious outrages.
Okay, that's it. There's not a pesky fact in sight, and all of these gooberish "feelings" make me want to puke.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Remember Media...
Submitted by solo4357 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:53pm.
This is fine to show in you story. Muslim cartoons are a no-no. Carry on.
Ellen Degenerate???
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:02pm.
WTF?!?!?
Don't waste anytime being "outraged" at what liberals do, simply point & laugh at them!
They're utterly ridiculous.
A good idea...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:57pm.
... to laugh at them, take some of their power. But do NOT drop your guard.
Ernst: "They were a brown scum. A temporary insanity, part of the passing scene, too monstrous to be real or taken seriously.
So we ignored them, or laughed at them, because we couldn't believe there were enough insane people to walk alongside of them.
Then one morning the country woke up from an uneasy sleep and there was no more laughter. The wild animals had changed places with us in the cage. But not again, it musn't happen again, we can't let it. We simply can't let it happen again!"
Mr. Ernst, TWILIGHT ZONE episode "HE's ALIVE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TgLDiSn9s&playnext=1&list=PL82C5E1BDCDBB1E35&index=64
from 0;45 to 2:00... but instructive to watch the whole part and the whole episode.
And with apologies to UPS... Purple is the new brown.
NVCon... too old and broke to run away, too old to be a Horatius... but maybe just sly enough to toss sand in the gearboxes and sugar in the gastanks
Whoever makes the decision to promote
Submitted by Jack Herman on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 6:49pm.
this type of display needs to ask themselves on simple question, would I do this if the depiction was of Mohamed? Christians are an easy target for the cowards of the artistic left. A stand has to be taken against this. Either it's open season on all religion (and the National Portrait Gallery supports and displays a paint Mohamed Day) or you use a little common sense and don't display something which could be found distasteful by members of the affected religion.
Thanks...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:28pm.
I didn't know about the exhibit until now...I appreciate the head's up. I plan to go and see it when I'm in DC. I love Art. I don't see this as an insult to anyone.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Hmmm---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:47pm.
Poster Henry Clay's alter ego, eh?
If you cannot recognize the inherent religious insult(s) presented in the piece(s) being discussed, better you remain a dilettante as opposed to becoming a critic.
MD
Calling this exhibit
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:59pm.
Calling this exhibit "anti-Christian" seems to make the odd claim that homosexuality is inherently anti-Christian. Is that really what people think? Because the exhbit is about the influence and contributions of homosexual artists in portraiture, and the only mention I can find of any actual attack on Christianity is one image of many images in one four minute video which is one of many pieces in the exhibit. Also, unless this is specifically billed as a "Christmas" exhibit, which I see no evidence of, it seems strange to claim that its winter run, going through February, must be all about attacking Christmas.
It scares me to think that this culture war has degraded beyond the point where we are simply disagreeing about societal contracts like marriage, and gotten so bad that simply expressing or acknowledging a homosexual point of view makes someone or their work anathema to Christians. I really hope that Bozell is not representative of everyone's feelings here
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:02pm.
How is ant's climbing over the body of Christ a homosexual statement of any kind?
They were gay ants, Ag.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:18pm.
They were gay ants, Ag.
Oh, you're such a wit, Zippers. Gay ants molesting Jesus.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:08pm.
Add some accelerant next time... you'll get a better explosion.
Don't anybody get me anything for Christmas - I already put in my request to Santa.
Ted that is stereotyping
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:12pm.
just because they were all male and climbing all over each other doesn't make them gay, does it?
You make a valid argument
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:31pm.
You make a valid argument that I will not elaborate on in order to keep it PG.
OR, they were ACTING!!!
ACTING OR ACTING? Nice to
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:37pm.
ACTING OR ACTING?
Nice to keep a sense of humor and not to take everything so seriously. Though many will be offended the artist would be hurt by being laughed at but the publicity that anger will get the artist will be very valuable.
ACTING, of course. ; ) I
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:48pm.
ACTING, of course. ; )
I honestly don't know that he'll get much out of this. The show is a month in and this is the first mention. The museum has several different photo exhibits right now, among the rest of the many other departments of art and history collections. It's someone's weird art, and he did it to get a reaction. But in 6 months most of us won't remember it even happened.
6 months?
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:53pm.
I'll remember to be on the watch for gay ants longer than most will remember this exhibit.
Hahahaha... You know, next
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:54pm.
Hahahaha...
You know, next time I see an ant I might just start wondering...
If I am not mistaken...
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:27pm.
All ants are female (except the single drone) so they would be lesbiants wouldn't they? (I couldn't see what kind of shoes they had on.)
Edit: I should have kept reading below before commenting, sigh.
Actually the argument is in
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:42pm.
Actually the argument is in part invalid, as probably most of these ants are female and thereby, following your argument, though gay more specifically lesbian.
male vs female ants
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:49pm.
I lay no claim to ant biology other than if you kill the Queen you kill the mound. Heard in a commercial so it must be true.
Well now that's just
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:53pm.
Well now that's just confusing.
Are most ants female? I was unaware. To stick with the theme, I would bet the filmmaker cast all male, and preferably gay ants (though straight ants comfortable with homosexual and highly offensive roles considered). I'll ask the casting director on my show tomorrow for her expert opinion.
Well
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:09pm.
I have to have a closer look at the work in question:
The winged male ants, called drones, emerge from pupae along with the breeding females (although some species, like army ants, have wingless queens), and do nothing in life except eat and mate. (Wikipedia)
Sounds much like a putto and with the apparent religious implications would fit into a work I haven't even seen yet.
Now that's an interesting
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:12pm.
Now that's an interesting twist - putto.
Hmm...
"... except eat and mate."
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:30pm.
Um, is there like a waiting list or anything like that? Just out of curiosity.
~It's the sudden stop..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:34pm.
The end of the (brief) "eat and mate" cycle is "and then they die".
Did you know that every mosquito that bites you is female? The adult males have no mouth parts, thus starving to death in just a few days. They don't even get the "eat" part, poor devils.
(love the sig, by the way)
How is ant's climbing over
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:09am.
How is ant's climbing over the body of Christ a homosexual statement of any kind?Well, that particular piece was about the trauma of the AIDS epidemic, by an artist who died of AIDS and felt like religion turned its back on people who were suffering. It is a collection of many images, one of which is the crucifixion, which I think is about as iconic an image of suffering as our culture has to offer. I can't claim to know what was in the artist's mind when he created the image, but it seems to fit pretty well with the stated point of the piece. AIDS is no longer just something that affects gay people, but when the epidemic started it was a destruction of their world. The last image of the video is apparently the world on fire.
Excuse me...
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:34pm.
but this.
Let's take this real slow-like, Professor Bear:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:57pm.
How the hell is ants crawling on a crucifix (the seminal {ha ha} centerpiece of the exhibit) "acknowledging a homosexual point of view?"
Are you really that insensitive not to agree that many people find this abhorrently offensive?
I'm not surprised that,
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:19am.
I'm not surprised that, reading Bozell's column, you got the mistaken impression that this image was somehow the "centerpiece" of the exhibit. That seems to have no basis in fact. As I mentioned above, it is one image in one video which is one of many pieces.
I haven't seen the video, but I'm willing to bet there's probably an image in there that I would find offensive. After all, the piece is an expresion of the artist's rage at suffering and feeling like society turned its back on AIDS victims. The whole point is to shock.
However, I think I would have to be wildly self-involved and narcissistic to presume that because there is one image in one piece that offends me, then the whole point of the exhibit is about making ME unhappy. Seriously, get over yourselves!
Christianity is the dominant cultural paradigm in this country. There are many benefits to being part of the dominant cultural paradigm. There are also some drawbacks-- namely that the paradigm gets satirizied by insiders and attacked by outsiders. This piece didn't attack Islam, because the artist didn't live in, suffer in, and feel abandoned by a Muslim society. He lived suffered and died in a Christian society, and he was mad about that.
So what? Christianity will survive just fine without him or his approval!
~So what you're saying is..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:38pm.
The artist was angry that the culture which disapproved of his preferred type of sexual behavior didn't elevate him to victim status for contracting a fatal disease due to the aforementioned frowned upon sexual behavior.
What a pathetic little weasel he must have been. Thank you for enlightening us.
mamabear lies again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:46pm.
...the artist's rage at suffering and feeling like society turned its back on AIDS victims...
Bull. Hollywood and the leftist MSM turned AIDS into a cause celebre.
•HIV/AIDS gets about $200,000 per patient death in the NIH research budget, according to calculations from the FAIR Foundation (Fair Allocations in Research). We spend 21 times more per AIDS death than cancer death. Pancreatic cancer will strike about 43,000 Americans this year and is essentially a quick death sentence. It gets 1% of the funding per death as AIDS.
•Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are the nation’s sixth and 14th-leading causes of death of death respectively, yet HIV/AIDS gets 34 times and 25 times more per fatality respectively.
•The disparity is all the worse when trends are considered. While AIDS cases and deaths remain level, those of Parkinson’s inexorably climb while Alzheimer’s fly off the chart
The rage should be coming from the millions of people that suffer from diabetes or cancer that have been practically ignored while hundreds of billions are thrown at people suffering from a disease that is entirely preventable.
agnostic
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:14pm.
How is an exhibit featuring a 4 minute video, which itself features a single shot of Christ, an entirely anti-Christian exhibit of any kind?
Also
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:25pm.
I understand being offended by the "anti-Christian" sentiment expressed by some artists-however, can we halt the childish calling for Islamic equivalence? Every time there's an instance of any sort of vaguely (or not so vaguely) anti-Christian art; there follows a serious of immature calls for the same depictions of mohammed and the like.
The work in question here is by an artist who is dealing with his own personal experience with AIDS-unless he was raised in Iran and suffered at the hands of Sharia law, I don't see any reason why he should be forced to include it in his work about his own experiences.
In fact, I've been to many exhibits of Iranian, Palestinian, and other Middle Eastern artists-many of which included condemnations of their own cultures. Which is fair-it's their culture, they have the right to criticize their own.
Most of the artists (not all of course-there certainly is bad art out there) that you find objectionable come from Christian backgrounds. Even if they don't classify themselves as such today. So it makes sense that their point of reference would be Christian. If this was a series of Islamic artists creating the work, then yeah-its's not particularly fair.
So please, you don't have to enjoy or appreciate the art; but at least respect what the artist is attempting-even if it is a failure. These are people who have been hurt by their own Christian experiences and feel compelled to express that in their art. They aren't simply trying to attack you.
Also, as mamabear said, let's stop calling this whole exhibit anti-Christian
ending Islamic equivalency
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:35pm.
No, we can't though the tone could be lowered a bit. The equivalency is important because in some but not all cases it shows that displays of artistry that are counted as being edgy and brave statements are neither but are in fact cowardly attacking the stuffed teddy bear that won't hit back.
I respect art that challenges but not that which hides behind the accomplishments of others, tilts at windmills or diminishes the efforts of others (including religion). If you are going to stand against the beliefs of a religion then at least stand against all religion that have equivalent social tenets but especially be brave enough to point out when one is atrocious. Don't hide behind social empathy and cast stones at those who will only disagree however vehemently.
One important point...
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:14pm.
that you, and many people discussing this seem to be missing, is that this video is from 1987-and the artist died in 1992. So, first of all, christianity was not the soft target that it is today-at the time it was still considere daring to openly criticize christianity in art... he certainly wasn't the first to do it, but the idea had yet to become the trite, art school affair that it often is today. His efforts in the arts could be the "accomplishments of others" you were speaking of-knocking Christianity today is only a contrivance because artists like him were doing it 25 years ago.
Secondly, again, the artist is addressing his own personal experience with his homosexuality and AIDS. I agree, if the piece was about the relationship between homosexuality and religion, then it would be a grave sin of omission to exclude Islam.
Why again?
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:22pm.
I agree, if the piece was about the relationship between homosexuality and religion, then it would be a grave sin of omission to exclude Islam.Since when has art to be objective?
also a valid point
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:28pm.
There are no rules in art.
If there are no rules in art---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:16am.
it would be presumptuous, of anyone, to make any statement, of any kind, about art, without the prefacing statement, "In my opinion------"; when carrying on a discourse reference art, and especially when offering up a statement that could be conceived as being either belittling or disparaging of another's comment about their perception of a particular medium, method, or style, that has no rules governing its existence.
MD
Welcome to NewsBusters, BosTurban
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:03pm.
The reason most of us object to this display has more to do with the fact that it is being shown in a publicly-funded venue.
As for the "immature" equivalency to the camel-washers that always comes up in these discussions, that has a lot to do with the fact that the "artists" in question don't have to fear Christians strapping a bomb onto a ten year-old and remotely detonating said child in their immediate vicinity like they have to worry about with the illiterate, 7th Century camel-washer barbarians.
In a word, the artists are cowards.
-Dave
BosTarus
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:28pm.
Requesting answers when you don't answer first isn't polite but that is okay since it is a small point.
1) "Featuring"
2) I would be willing to concede that ants crawling over the figure of what one religion considers their saviour and another considers a prophet to be nothing more than the glorification of ants if you really want to go that route but it would be a stretch.
3) My problem with the art in question is more to do with cowardness behind the display and less with the depiction of Christ. (see other post on this thread if curious)
4) "Entirely" never entered my thoughts and I would refute that definition but one does not have to be entirely anti-(fill in the blank) to be anti-(fill in the blank) just enough to make the distinction.
Ha, fair point
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:40pm.
Who likes questions answering questions-no one! I was just trying to be glib.
Anyhow, I can't comment on the ants thing-I haven't seen the piece so I can't comment on the shot in its proper context. Perhaps it makes some form of sense, perhaps not. I will say, however, that since 1912 (or there abouts) art hasn't required direct representation to make a statement. So, even though it might not be obvious to us (especially without seeing it in its proper context), that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't carry a meaning within the piece. Maybe Ted's right, perhaps they're gay ants. I dunno.
Anyhow, I am curious about the "cowardice behind the display" that you mention. I'm not sure I see the cowardice.
cowardice
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:46pm.
In this case it is similar as the cowardice of a bully. The attack is upon the easy and in this case the socially acceptable target. (from the perspective of the art world)
Is there tension between the homosexual community and Christianity? Yes. The brave thing to do would be to span the gap and offer constructive formats displaying common ground. The cowardly thing to do would be to sink to your perception of the opposition. That is not liberal, it is not brave and it isn't even nuanced.
I'll leave out the argument with Islam since it bothers you and is not needed to further this comment.
Agnostic
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:35pm.
That sounds as if artists are supposed to be politicians. Aren't there enough of them?
politically artistic
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:47pm.
Live by your art and die by your art. In this case I believe the artist to have chosen to be political. But yes there are too many politicians. One professional politician is too many. Have to agree with Aristotle (could have been Plato - not sure) in that the best people to lead are those with the gift of leadership that don't want power therefore it is necessary to force leadership upon them.
It isn't that politics should ever enter the mind of the artist but if art is to have meaning the message needs to be real and not a hard sale of trite statements that serve no real end other than to use predictable responses to garner attention. I don't claim to read minds so if the artist wasn't just taking an easy path to making a useless/disparaging statement and garnering attention along the way then I would have to say that I give this artist too much credit and that the art is just droll.
politics and art
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:27pm.
As I said above (its challenging carrying the same conversation over two separate reply threads...) the piece is from 1987. Its not nearly as trite when you subtract 23 years worth of art history. Anyhow, the piece is a "semi-biographical" work about his own experience. I imagine he felt it to be as real and truthful to himself as he could make it.
The other issue with politics in art, as you acknowledge there should be no rule against; you have to be open to political art that doesn't jive with your own ethos. You don't have to like it of course.
Anyhow, this is still all hypothetical... i haven't seen the piece so i can't speak directly to it. I'm only trusting the curator's judgement on this one-but it could be a piece of junk. But i typically don't classify any piece with offensive and challenging imagery as junk automatically. I try not to at least.
Georgia Girl CHECK YOUR
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:56pm.
Georgia Girl
CHECK YOUR PM'S.
Left you a message in your inbox
Shut the doors!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:35pm.
I am sick and tired of the phonies playing with history and artifacts anyway...shut the doors.....they falsify artifacts or actually destroy them.. in order to keep their dumb ass theories going.....would make them look like complete fools if the truth was known.....and this, this spirit of Anti-Christ...all with taxpayers money ......ENOUGH!!!!!! shut them down!!! imho
The film with ants crawling
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:00pm.
The film with ants crawling on Jesus was removed from the exhibit.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/30/smithsonian-remove-ant-covered-jesus-cross-video-exhibit/
Well congratulations, you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:41pm.
Well congratulations, you guys win. I think that's kind of a shame-- I have no idea if the art was any good, but neither do most of the people complaining about it.
Can we now quit the whining about how only things that liberals find offensive get removed from public view?
The video is on youtube for
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:05pm.
The video is on youtube for your enjoyment, critique, or disgust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC3sUDtR7U
mamabear you are welcome to
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:40pm.
mamabear you are welcome to view any art you please. I, however, prefer my government to stay out of the field of the arts for just this reason.
Y'all hear that?
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:51pm.
NB is soooo powerful we got got some disgustingness pulled from the exhibit (that we help pay for) woot!
Are you a supporter of the Smithsonian --
Submitted by Ole_Sarge on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 12:48am.
Tell them to STOP wasting your money, and when it comes time to "renew," DON'T. Oh, DO let them know WHY, but don't give another cent, and don't support them through other means (buying items from their catalogues, or buying book that htey have published.).
We've done this to Public TV, (PBS) and Public radio (NPR).