Tuesday's Washington Post Style section carried this front-page headline "Pesky ant video refuses to die." But the only new developments on the National Portrait Gallery story were security officers removing two (left-wing) protesters on Saturday and the laments of a radical curator on Monday. No one in Jacqueline Trescott's article spoke for the conservatives. An award for unintentional hilarity should go to curator Jonathan Katz, who lamented "homophobia and raw politics" ruined his exhibit -- it was "lost in the mudslinging," as if they weren't slinging mud (or bugs) at the Cross -- and furthermore, "the way forward is to refocus attention to the degree by which the show, by remaining up, continues to resist politics."
Ridiculous. Anyone who's seen the show and read the exhibit captions knows the exhibit is thoroughly political, with captions railing against the "Lavender Scare" of the 1950s, and an artwork where heterosexuals are a set of clowns shaped like a hangman's noose.
"It was an incredibly stupid decision. I am flabbergasted that they rose to the bait so readily," Katz told the Post on Monday. The David Wojnarowicz ants-on-Christ video was "in the tradition of film surrealism from the late 1960s and early 1970s. We have been distorted. It is not anti-religion or sacrilegious. It is a powerful use of imagery."
Trescott awarded precious space to the lonely protests of Mike Blasenstein, who stood at the entrance to the "Hide/Seek' gay art exhibit with the removed video playing on an iPad around his neck as he handed out pamphlets. (His video redefining "resisting politics" is here.)
Blasenstein said he had been looking forward to the show and was appalled when he "read about the art being censored." He was detained with photographer Michael Dax Iacovone, who was taking a video of the protest.
The duo arrived at the museum right after it opened but didn't find many people in the exhibition. Then they moved to the entrance, and Blasenstein put the iPad around his neck with the video running. "I made the mistake one time of passing one flyer out. The guard said you can't pass them out. I was then holding them," said Blasenstein, 37, who works in Washington as a webmaster for a nonprofit organization.
Smithsonian rules allow protests outside the buildings, but photography and video are prohibited inside the art galleries.
Blasenstein and Iacovone were given "barring notice" citations, according to the police document, and cannot come into the building that houses the Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
Blasenstein cited the AIDS/HIV crisis in its early days and recalled its slogan. [Its slogan? Radical ACT UP's slogan defined the whole controversy?]
"Suddenly I realized that 'Silence Equals Death' wasn't some retro relic, but something that made it possible for me as a gay man to enjoy whatever acceptance and protections I have today. I wanted to make sure that this man who died 18 years ago wasn't swept from view again - especially from an exhibition professing to honor the marginalized," he said. The New York-based Wojnarowicz died of complications from AIDS in 1992 at the age of 37.
Katz, an art historian and pioneer in gay and lesbian studies, acknowledged historical context as well. "In 1989 Senator Jesse Helms demonized Robert Mapplethorpe's sexuality, and by extension, his art, and with little effort pulled a cowering art world to its knees. His weapon was threatening to disrupt the already pitiful federal support for the arts. And once again, that same weapon is being brandished, and once again we cower," said Katz.
Does it really sound like Katz and his exhibit were "resisting politics" to anyone? All these artistic activists were resisting was anyone daring to talk back.
PS: After noting the Post played up 75 or 100 protesters of the Portrait Gallery last week, it should be noted that Tuesday's Post put 300 "antiabortion" protesters on the top and front of the Metro section, with a large color photograph. The story by Rob Stein and Lena Sun was balanced, and only sounded a little odd as it tried to explain the obvious: why late-term abortions are morally offensive...to some (some outside the Post newsroom):
Misgivings about some late-term abortions, even among those who consider themselves generally in favor of legal abortion, is probably due to several factors, including concerns that the developing fetus looks more like a fully developed child, experts said. Research showing that some fetuses appear able to discriminate between their mother's voice and other voices or possibly feel pain, for example, could play a role.
"The main reason why people have more trouble with the morality of late-term abortion is that the fetus is increasingly more developed and becomes closer and closer to a newborn baby. As it gets closer to that, it's going to be troubling to more people," said Josephine Johnston, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y.
Those are paragraphs that explain the pro-life side, and don't show a liberal bias. It's just that pro-lifers don't think you need "experts" to explain it.
