MRC's Bozell Debates Offensive Smithsonian Art Exhibit on CNN's 'John King USA'
"Look, if you like depictions of sadomasochism... if you like homoerotic art.... if you're into religious bigotry... if you like that, fine," but don't expect taxpayers to subsidize such an exhibit at a Smithsonian museum, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell argued in a debate segment on last night's edition of "John King USA" on CNN.
The Media Research Center (MRC) founder and president appeared opposite Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik, who defended the controversial art display "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" featured at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery.
You may recall that on Tuesday Bozell called for Congress to investigate the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian for showcasing the abhorrent and sacrilegious display.
[Video follows the page break]
A story uncovering the exhibit's most controversial features -- including a video depicting ants crawling on a crucifix and a photograph of two naked men kissing while one holds a handgun to the other's chest -- was broken on Monday by Penny Starr of CNSNews.com, a division of the MRC.
"I have an idea. Let's put [the controversial art work] on national television right now," Bozell challenged CNN host John King.
"CNN has been there. CNN has taped it. Put it on air right now" without the pixelation that modesty requires.
"We're not going to do that," King flatly insisted.
"Now, wait a minute, why aren't you going to do it," Bozell demanded.
"Because it would be objectionable to some people, and I can't control children, including my own being in a room and they should not see it," King replied.
Bozell then informed King and the CNN audience that the National Portrait Gallery had promoted a children's day exhibit of "Hide/Seek" on November 21.
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
GOTCHA!!!
Submitted by SouthJersey1953 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:54am.
"Bozell then informed King and the CNN audience that the National Portrait Gallery had promoted a children's day exhibit of "Hide/Seek" on November 21."
Excellent way to put them in their place!!!!!!
Bad argument
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:03pm.
Who decides?
Apparently the exhibit director decided to make the decision for us. If we aren't allowed to criticize and oppose his decision, where is the real censorship?
Artists throw out that canard (oh, so who gets to decide?) to deflect criticism from their artistic decisions. It's an illogical argument. What they're saying is that they should have the right to make artistic decisions, but no one else should have the same freedom. Further, they demand the right to exercise their own judgment, but deny that to others.
Being an artist doesn't give you a free pass. You're as liable to public response as anyone else.
Post art critic
Submitted by rpeeler42 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:06pm.
It tells you a lot about the Post when you hear their art critic defending this trash art. I felt like decking that dumb a..s, Thlis nation is going directly into the toilet with this liberal BS
Good
Submitted by cjm999 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:14pm.
Host: "What do you want to see a Republican house do about it?
hahaha
Bozell Broke them down and dissembled them. It embarressed CNN too I'm sure. Very nice. He even made the host say "We are not going to show that".
Well done.
So Bozell is intrduced as a
Submitted by Walker01049 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:24pm.
So Bozell is intrduced as a conservative activist and Gopnik is the "Washington Post art critic". How about Gay Liberal art critic who doesn't give a darn about children viewing this garbage! Bozell as usual gave a sound, valid argument.
Would I be profiling...
Submitted by jdlybrand on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:33pm.
...if I said Blake Gopnik is the epitome of a flaming homo? Rhetorical...I know.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Gopnik's self-styled profile (from yesterday)
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:46pm.
A metrosexual (question that), who is fond of offal (animal guts), spinets (baby harpsichords) and wearing kilts.
Oh yeah, just your regular guy! Pose much?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:48pm.
I think Gopnik's statement was garbled in transmission:
I think he said, " I am a homosexual who is offal fond of the idea of growing a spine and crawling up under a Scotsman's kilt."
Apologies for any attendant disgusting visions.
MD
LOL, MD....at least....
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:57pm.
my description of yesterday's quote is accurate...but of course, what I read very possibly was lost in translation, and what Globby actually said was closer to your version!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You've got to wonder exactly where the libs would draw the
Submitted by virginia republican on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:46pm.
line as to what is definitely not in good taste. Oh wait, I know.......depictions of the
Prophet Muhammad.
Just to add.......
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:07pm.
slathered in pig entrails.
Such a line just clearly illustrates exactly what gutless...
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:14pm.
...and illogical cowards these art liberals really are. So they won't touch symbols of Islam because they don't want to offend Muslims? We know that's not true, since most of the other images presented like those regarding immodesty and homosexuality are highly offensive to Muslims. So that's clearly not the real issue.
Could the real reason perhaps be because we all know that many fundamentalist Muslims have absolutely no problem seeking out and killing those who publicly malign their religious sensibilities?
So until we start seeing some state-funded art specifically hostile to Islam, I'll continue to find it hard to take these art geeks seriously at anything they say about "free expression" and other sensibilities.
BORING
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:18pm.
Perhaps the brave and cutting edge artists that Gopnik defends could possibly, just for once, try offending some other religious group. After all, how cutting edge is it to offend Christians these days??? It's cliched and boring! But I do have a suggestion for any "brave' young cutting edge artist out there, whom I'm sure Gopnik would defend----A depiction of a Koran in a toilet. Now, THAT would be different.
Agreed, totally. Cutting-edge art has become boring.
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:59pm.
Just goes to show how staid and conformist contemporary art has become, enshrined in its safe and comfortable cocoon of state-supported political correctness.
One of my most enduring memories of my school years is that of my interactions with the art department; the most conforming clique of non-individualists you were every likely to meet.
Really now, is offending Christians really all that thrilling? Come on people, try really living on the edge for a change. Try something different. Prove to us that you aren't all gutless unimaginative conformists. Do something that actually might offend the state, or a religious group that might actually swing back. That would be interesting for a change.
Im sure glad Brent is doing
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:46pm.
Im sure glad Brent is doing that instead of me. I would be in jail now for slaping King across the room, simply for sticking up for that un-Godly bunch.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I'ts good vs. evil.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:07pm.
Bottom line. Nothing more.
Bravo, Bozell! Deja vu all over again!
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:25pm.
(with apologees to Yogi Berra)
This dialogue resembles that of an old episode of Phil Donahue when the NEA-subsidized and controversial Robert Mapplethorpe photo exhibit was making the rounds. I believe that in Cincinnati, an alarm was raised because it was argued the exhibit did not meet the "Community standards" (SCOTUS term) for decency, and shouldn't be on public display.
Donahue had a conservative guest on the show who objected to using tax-payer $$$ for pornography, including sado-masochistic and coprophagic images.
Uber-lib Donahue was dismissing the pornography charges as the director put sampless of the exhibit on the screen --- two men stripped to the waste, backs to the camera, arms around each others torsos; a naked white guy and naked black guy in full embrace, photo'ed from the waste up; etc.
Donahue didn't find anything pornographic in the photos.
The guest then began describing the exhibit photos that hadn't been aired by Donahue and the MSM: a side perspective of a naked man on all fours with a bullwhip inserted in his anus; a closeup of a finger inserted into a penis --- "WAIT, WAIT!" interrupted Donahue. "We can't say those things on TV."
GUEST (I'm paraphrasing): "That's my point. Even a verbal description of the Mapplethorpe photos can't be broadcast because it's pornographic, yet taxpayer $$$ paid for its public exhibition. THAT'S the issue!"
Time for a cigarette after......
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:27pm.
Brent had the "Childrens day/family day" card in his back pocket just baiting the two saps and BAM, used it at the best time....
I actually had this on and watch from time to time, must be on at the same time as Shep.
Brent is an excellent voice for the cause, fact based and very well versed and isn't afraid of shoving a gotcha moment up some nitwits arse.
Case in point this "artHOLE", who laughingly called the museum "courageous" for showing this garbage, and AGAIN Brent simply stated "then have them show the Danish cartoons, but you know they won't"....
Nuff said.
sigh, i know i shouldn't, BUT
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 12:50pm.
I feel obligated to point out that Brent doesn't seem to understand what a "friends and family" preview is. It's not a "children's day" as he seems to think. There weren't balloons and cotton candy next to the paintings. Friends and family previews are common with every exhibit, film premiere, album release, etc. So let's stop acting like they were pulling 6 year olds off the street. You're using a weighted definition of the word "family" which needs to imply "family friendly".
All of you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of this whole affair.
What B as in B, S as in S!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:35pm.
This guy expects us to believe that no one, except Brent Bozell, is objecting to this?
And I love how he asks "Who's going to judge?"
Well, then, I guess they just promote and exhibit everything, without standards; after all, who is qualified to judge anything???
Does anyone seriously think this guy would be standing there defending a video of an ant-covered Mohammed?
Prophet Mohammed at the Smithsonian with Ants - urine - dung
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:36pm.
Once again... replace the photo exhibit of Jesus Christ with one of the Prophet Mohammed with ants crawling on him, or one with a pig standing over him urinating (any of the usual anti - Christian antics) and then lets see how Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik feels about it.
Or perhaps, place a depiction of the Ten Commandments at the Smithsonian.. stand back and watch the outrage from the left.
(;~/ gary
Or mention Christmas
Submitted by exLib on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:19pm.
Just mentioning Christmas in the public square has the liberal screaming bloody murder, "IT MUST BE REMOVED" and usually it is...
exLib
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:07pm.
You are 100% correct
"Lib free or die" Denny Crane
We Are The 53%
Courageous?
Submitted by sere on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:51pm.
Could someone please explain to me where courage is involved with the Smithsonian mounting of this so called art work? As far as I'm concerned, it's garbage, and I resent even one tax payer dime being used to promote it.
Sere, yep, he said courageous
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:58pm.
Case in point this "artHOLE", who laughingly called the museum "courageous" for showing this garbage, and AGAIN Brent simply stated "then have them show the Danish cartoons, but you know they won't".... Remember the Danish cartoons with Mohamhanded that were shown everywhere, ya, me neither. Nuff said.Courage to a liberal Tomorama
Submitted by exLib on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:18pm.
Is standing up against "the man" = Conservative America.
Then getting cover stories in Time, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and interviews on all the major networks.
Such "courage"......
As I always say, grab a Bible, stand on a street corner in Iran and start preaching, see how far you get...
I know of people who do and THAT is real courage.
The "defender" came up with
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:19pm.
The "defender" came up with the same line over and over.
Bozell did NOT say that the art should be banned. He said taxpayers....in a broke nation...should not pay forthis garbage.
If the piece of art with Jesus was not meant to offend I suggest Gopnick host an exhibition of Mohammed "art" with ants crawling all over him. I'm sure he would defend it just as strongly...
In the spirit of "hate crimes," this should be called..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:20pm.
.. hate art.
(;~/ gary
Brent good job!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:33pm.
That was great & great coverage! I hope people e-mail & complain. First off, we need to REPLACE all those who RUN the Smithsonian! Get their names now & mark them down. Then throw them out ASAP! They are a disgrace to our Countries heritage! M-B
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Everyone is an Economist,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:35pm.
Everyone is an Economist, everyone is a Constitutionalist, and now we're all Art Critics. Right now Wojnarowicz is rolling around in his grave wishing he could do it all over again.
You imply we're full of self
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:53pm.
You imply we're full of self importance, yet proceed to speak for the dead. Interesting how that works.
Touche
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:57pm.
Well played.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Is it really that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:59pm.
Is it really that interesting?
I was being kind.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:11pm.
I was being kind. Hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, something on that order is what that really is.
Ted, nice to hear from you
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:15pm.
Just curious Ted, when the ARThole said the mueum was courageous for showing certain pieces of art, why would he not answer when asked "If they were so courageous, then show the danish cartoons showing Mohamhanded"........
Consistently mocking my christian faith and my God is somehow funny and how dare we get offended and worse Allah FN forbid they REALLY show courage and put Mohamhanded on display in any WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
Moral cowards is what progressives really are.
Brent schooled him on the children thing also.
Schooling progressives is easy and fun, ORDER NOW.............
Think Ted, Think
Submitted by jdlybrand on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:40pm.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
That an artist who died
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:48pm.
That an artist who died almost 20 years ago, created a video piece in the 80s, is a coward for not using a 3rd world religious icon in his art?
Yeah you're not going to get me to agree with that.
Have I mentioned I come from a family of art professors, art teachers, and artists?
Ted Naturalist---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 6:03pm.
I think I see your problem.
You are too ingrained with artsy-fartsy liberalism.
Carry on.
You be fun to watch.
MD
Thanks MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:11pm.
I have been wondering what AFL meant in the AFL-CIO
:-)
We Are The 53%
M I S S I N G T H E P O I N T
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:10pm.
Ted, read slowly, that is not what I asked....
I stated if this museum is so courageous for showing this "expression of art", then why not show the Danish cartoons and such that portray Mohamhanded in "an expression of art".
You like the ARThole here have NO answer for that question.
The point you're trying to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:14pm.
The point you're trying to make, like most others, is a failure. You seem infatuated with the image of Mohammed, so why don't you reach down into your creative little self and start a collection of your own work?
Mohammed is not the issue. If Mohammed was rendered a million times over, hung in every living room and prayer room in the middle east, you would still be pissed off at this "blatant attack on Christianity." Care to argue that?
The only thing I'd like to see happen at this time is for the organizers to nut up and admit that they purposely added this specific piece knowing it would cause an uproar.
So to be clear, libs hate Christians more then Muslims?
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:22pm.
Or do they just hate equaly?
This is an all-time high for
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:35pm.
This is an all-time high for you on the stupid scale.
Dont worry
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:41pm.
Your record is safe
Ba Dum Bum Chhhhh.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:51pm.
nwahs is now so desperate to stay he is almost deliberately setting himself up for humiliation. Whatever you say, Boudin. Hee Hee Hee.
Boudin---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 2:00am.
That is twice now that I have seen you bounce zingers off Ted's head so hard they would have knocked a bull elephant out cold.
Having a thick skull may be good for survival, but the boy just don't learn. :o)
MD
I have a very simple answer...
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 1:12pm.
to your very stupid question.
Because the Smithsonian is dedicated to AMERICAN HISTORY.
The Danish cartoons, a) don't fit that crtieria in any shape or form. b) have nothing to do with the past century of American portraiture, as this show was about. The offensive image in question is a few seconds from a 30+ minute semi-auto-biographical video piece. And c) even taking all that into consideration, it would still make no sense to include Mohammed-the piece wasn't an attack on organized religion-it was about his own life experiences. I'm doubting the artist had many dealings with Sharia Law in the US during the 80s.
Opps Bos......an answer to .... your very stupid question.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:38pm.
Because the Smithsonian is dedicated to AMERICAN HISTORY. http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object.cfm?key=35&objkey=138Also...
http://www.asia.si.edu/
Hurry up!! try again.
You Didn't Build That.
Regardless of the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:50pm.
Regardless of the Smithsonian's overall content, this specific exhibit is dedicated to Difference and Desire in AMERICAN Portraiture.
American Portraiture
American Portraiture
American Portraiture
Now say it with me
American Portraiture
Still don't get it? You must be a conservative.
Zted"Because the Smithsonian is dedicated to AMERICAN HISTORY. "
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:27pm.
What part of that comment, don't you get?
Zipholeius, than thou.....Runs to the rescue of some 2 thread lib with a shovel-ready... volunteer goal post digging gig..., hoping to buddie-up with another sunset strip liberal, wanna be.
You Didn't Build That.
AND that poster answered a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:46pm.
AND that poster answered a question that was directed only to me. So by him (or her) answering incorrectly in my stead, I dropped back in to make a correction.
Now carry on with the Mohammed mumbo-jumbo.
BZZZZT wrong; you replied to my comment, Squishy Zippius
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:12pm.
AND that poster answered a question that was directed only to me. Ok you are correct, here is how he phrased itI have a very simple answer....to your very stupid question.
However you replied to my comment..Zippius If you want a private message, get off the threads NOW.What part of the pulled ant video fits..."American Portraiture"
Butt wait there's more...try tossing in the entire title there ,little Z..
“Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,”
You Didn't Build That.
Oi, thank you Ted
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:20pm.
But yes, I was implying that the National Portrait Gallery, and specifically this show, are focused on AMERICAN HISTORY... yes, clearly there are museums within the vast Smithsonian Institute that deal with worldly history-but this show, at the National Gallery, is very clearly dedicated to American Art.
But fine, you can nitpick a response and disregard the actual argument behind. Which still holds that the Danish Cartoons have NO PLACE in the National Portrait Gallery in a show detailing a century of American Portraiture.
Which was the original stupid question.
Tag teamin,eh Boz N' zip... maybe not whatever
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:27pm.
Gallery in a show detailing a century of American Portraiture.NO PLACE in the National Portraiture.
This is the first major museum exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
Odor's from on high...Thanks bee to the safe school czar??
Try again... PM each other, whatever Youtube linker.... looks like a video, not a portrait..
Jump of faith there guys, A plasma screen TV, looping a YT clip is now a... portrait? yea just fit's right in there...sheesh..
You Didn't Build That.
Up, it's normally everybody
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:12pm.
Up, it's normally everybody against one liberal. What's the matter? No one here to get your back? Okay, I'll stay out of it.
Here's the deal, boys. The next bright day in the middle of the night, back to back you face each other. Walk ten steps and draw.
First one to wit wins.
it's normally everybody against one liberal.
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:26pm.
And yet the libtards are never able to see the light.
The next bright day in the middle of the night
Ah, I think I see the problem.
Back to back you face each
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:48am.
Back to back you face each other.
You missed that one too. It's from the poem Two Dead Boys, and frankly I'm surprised a literary genius like yourself didn't pick that up.
Just like you miss the subject line every time. Loser
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:33pm.
No one cares about your poem. We are not gay. You are. No. Wait. it is your fake homosexual friends that are at death's door that are gay. Whatever. No one cares about your poem.
Yes Sir,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:34pm.
Yes Sir, JWF!!!
Oooooowwwwwwwwwwwww!!!
I'm surprised
Submitted by BosTarus on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:13pm.
it took this long for someone to make the reasonable "how-is-this-a-portrait" argument? I guess everyone was hung up on the "let's-put-ants-on-mohammed" argument.
Anyhow, perhaps you've noticed that for the past 100 years art didn't need to be directly representational. I understand if its not your thing, but you do have to respect that Picasso's cubist portraits, are still portraits. Even if the nose is on the side of the head and what not.
Historians often claim that Duchamp was the first to venture boldly away from representation in 1912-though I'm sure you could find earlier, non-representational examples. But the point is, even if the video in question was not wallet-sized class photo, it was still created as a self portrait of the artist and his struggle with AIDS.
So it is still classified as portraiture, even though it doesn't fit the traditional standards set for hundreds of years.
Also, i'd be pretty bad in a duel-I tend to fire nobly into the air. Never ends well for me. But I look damn good doing it!
bos, What part of Tax Payer Funded, don't you get.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 3:57pm.
Picasso, Duchamp, Soo if "public funded museums"..were available, would they use them ?
Me I like sculptures Big ones, out of this world Public funded ones...
FYI: The tallest one is my favorite, body fluids in microgravity.
You Didn't Build That.
I think
Submitted by BosTarus on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 7:26pm.
we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally I think the stated mission of the Smithsonian is an admirable one, and I'm glad there's an organization cataloguing our nation's (and the world's) historical and cultural artifacts. I feel its an important duty of any lasting culture.
However, in that cataloguing process, you may have to remember places, events, and artifacts that don't appeal to everyone. It doesn't mean they should be discarded and forgotten. David Wojnarowic played an important role in the New York art scene of the 80s. Even if you don't personally like his work, it doesn't mean he should be forgotten.
However, I will agree with you about the "sculptures"... rockets and the like are pretty awesome. I'm pretty excited that NASA has redefined what constitutes life! Finally, we can look past our earth-centric views on the galaxy!
NASA found life on PLANET EARTH.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 2:29pm.
Well NASA should stick to planets other than the earth...
Looks like 3 guys got there first, way back in 2003
The microbial arsenic cycle in Mono Lake, California
Ronald S. Oremland a,*, John F. Stolz b, James T. Hollibaugh c
90% of youtube has better videos than David W film/video, should all of them be archived in the Smithsonian?
You Didn't Build That.
I actually already
Submitted by BosTarus on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:23am.
thought we had officially redefined life due to the discoveries at the Berkeley Pit years ago... they found microbes living in there that should never be. But I guess the difference is those microbes found there way there and adapted to survive... rather than the microbes at Mono Lake which grew there on their own? I may have been grossly misinformed all these years, but the way I see it-NASA finally caught up with my definition of life! Not entirely sure-but if it means we can find "life" on one of Saturn's moons, then I'm all for it!
As for the quality of 90% of youtube-again, i can't directly comment on the quality of the video in the show-I haven't seen it. But the show was dedicated to work that redefined the concepts of portraiture in America over the last 100 years-and I know this video, for good or for bad, played a role in redefining video portraiture in the 80s art scene.
New life is discovered here on earth, most everyday.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:04am.
Here is a link to some newly found life.
Speaking about Titan...
It is more likely that a chemical process, without biology, can explain these results – for example, reactions involving mineral catalysts.”
Like I say some more "new" life, most everyday..
Mankind can't even find all new life on this planet, how's that, humans don't know squat.
You Didn't Build That.
I'm surprised that you would tell someone---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 2:43am.
that they "have to respect that Picasso's cubist portraits---" yada, yada, yada.
I don't.
You sound so pretentious regarding "art" that it appears that Henry Clay, upon leaving his domicile in the Globe Theater, tripped and fell onto an enormous artists palette, and in thrashing around to free himself, created a masterpiece of kaleidoscopic, yet visceral, renderings of poo-poo caca.
The self-portrait video by the aforementioned artist dealing with his struggle with AIDS; was that the one entitled "Riding Bareback in a San Francisco Bathhouse", or his earlier offering, "Get Thee behind me, Boyfriend"?
MD
American History, Really?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:37pm.
Hmmmm....kindly explain the French Impressionists, Italian and Dutch Renaissance, etc. etc., specifically, in regard to art.
Also, the scientific finds from across the globe...as well as artifacts, etc.
Sorry, the Smithsonian has interests far ranging beyond American Art...as you so stupidly (and ineptly) tried to claim.
I really could hardly care less what you doubt or not.
Having said that, shhhh! You are too stoopid to have an opinion in this matter.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J, I see you have met BosTurban
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:57pm.
LOL.
Vote for the American in November
LOL Dave*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:37pm.
If you introduce J to BosTurban, we will need lots of needle and thread....;-)
c2,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:48pm.
Yeah, I ran into this one last night. Jihadist apologist through and through.
LOL - I could almost smell the camel shampoo.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I'm honored!
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:50pm.
I post once every few months, and even still, I'm granted a nickname! Thanks guys!
OHH look a Conservative is hopping mad, and the mellow lefty..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:44pm.
is soo cool.. This is the basis of winning arguments in lib land.
Globnick Must LIE to push his poopy point... Like this line (paraphrased) Christians do not want any images of Jesus,published printed blah blah blah.... line.
No emaciated boy that is the moslems..
You Didn't Build That.
Art at times is provocative....
Submitted by holeinthehull on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:53pm.
This kind of "art" and the defense of it is what is wrong with the liberal psyche. People like this Gopnik, who push these kinds of agendas where they open up "their" world for the rest of the world to view who they are, and their lifestyle. In fact, many of these people are mentally ill. They don't know they are mentally ill until it is pointed out that 98% of the people in this country object to this art and the lifestyle it represents. The "illness" part is rejecting what other people plainly see as offensive, out of bounds and repugnant
This is much like going to someone's home and the place smells like tobacco smoke, foul human odors, and obnoxious pet odors and you can't help but point it out to the owner and he says "I don't smell a thing." He doesn't smell "anything" because when he rolls around and wallers in this environment every day, he becomes immune to his filthy offensive lifestyle and considers it perfectly normal.
Brent Bozell's points were strong and truthful for "normal" thinking people. Bozell even said at the outset, if you are into this kind of life-fine, but take it to some "seedy" art loft where the public will not be exposed to it, nor will they (public) have to subsidize it just so the artist can show his artistic talent.
Too many liberals on too many public institution boards are ruining these PUBLIC venues. What's next, gay bath houses at Yellowstone.
www.holeinthehull.com
The problem
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:03pm.
with most of these "artists" is that they can't keep their "artistic talent" in their pants.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
The Smithsonian is a family
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:12pm.
The Smithsonian is a family oriented publicly funded institution. This is the usual attempt by the gay agenda to desensitize average Americans to gay smut.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonBlake Gopnik and Julian
Submitted by ssquared on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 3:31pm.
Blake Gopnik and Julian Assange should be incarserated in the same cell for about 3 years.
My guess is that thier offspring would be either a centapede, a grasshopper or a scarecrow.
In aby case, it would be both ugly and offensive.
So when does
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:00pm.
the Smithsonian mount an exhibit titled "Cleaning House" depicting all the various ways artists can conceptualize their revulsion at the idea of homosexual perversion? I'm thinking maybe a video of corpses crawling with larval scavengers, titled "F/M/aggots". Or a big chart titled "Stay Out of Our Bedrooms" showing how the AIDS epidemic might have been controlled in the '80s had it not been for the behavior of homosexuals and junkies. Or an immolation scene titled "Real Flamer".
Yes, some may find it deeply offensive, but isn't that what "art" is all about? I'm sure Mr. Gopnik would be anxious to take all his neighborhood's kids to see it.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Ughh. As a professional fine
Submitted by equusarts on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:00pm.
Ughh. As a professional fine artist I see this crap all the time in our gov't, tax supported galleries. Art isn't what it used to be/should be. All these people decide to become artists and there's SO many of them now and alot of them can't even draw believe it or not (but they are artists, darn it!!), and use shock to get their names out there.
The galleries have embraced this cheap but effective form of marketing and those that truly are talented and who don't participate in the cheapening of fine art, are often left behind. Sad.
We need to make the general public more aware of where our tax dollars are going and lets give the younger, TALENTED artists a chance to get their names out!!
I couldn't agree more
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:17pm.
I remember my first visit to the National Gallery in my teens. As a student of drawing, I worked hard to develop a sense of perspective, lighting, anatomy, mood, etc. You can imagine how I felt when I saw a piece hanging in the NG that consisted of nothing but three vertical black lines on a white field. That's it. "Art".
It's no wonder the "art" world has been repeatedly taken in by paintings done by monkeys, chimps, elephants, and infants. It's one of the few worlds where literally anyone can spout the most ridiculous claptrap and be called an "expert".
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I thought you did great, Brent
Submitted by OxyCon on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 7:32pm.
I think the fact that the "art critic" didn't get offended by any of that sadomasochisitic gay trash says alot about him.. I think his own personal sexuality and whether he engages in dangerous gay sex acts is relevent to the conversation if he really wants to give his opinion on what is and what isn't offensive, because if he is a gay sadomasochist, then his opinion is jaded by his acceptance and practicing of abnormal behavior, and his opinion is clearly in the slimist of minorities.
And Brent was right, that garbage belongs in some seedy "art" gallery on the wrong side of town, not inside the respected Smithsonian.
I have no personal problem with people who engage in that stuff, but don't try to maintstream you're bizarre behavior and stop trying to shove it down our throats.
Blake Gopnik
Submitted by ssquared on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 8:24pm.
I can't say if he's a metrosexual but he couldn't even qualify as a metrosexual. That puts him pretty low on the evolutionary totem pole.
These sneaky little pro-homos
Submitted by ElConservativeRubik on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 9:39pm.
These sneaky little pro-homos are getting their dirty little fingers in every part of American culture, I'm very thankful that someone spoke up and for those that have a voice to demand that tax-payer dollars be spent more wisely than this. I'm encouraged by the comments and remarks made that also want to see this garbage thrown out of the Smithsonian.