WaPo Art Critic Rants at Removal of Ant-Covered Jesus; He'd Ban Norman Rockwell
Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik is hopping mad that the National Portrait Gallery pulled a video from its "Hide/Seek" exhibit on homosexual imagery, insisting: "Now the NPG, and the Smithsonian Institution it is part of, look set to come off as cowards." Gopnik insisted the ant-covered Jesus in the video was inconsequential, and that if he played censor, he'd keep the insect-covered Christ and scrap the Norman Rockwell:
Norman Rockwell would get the boot, too, if I believed in pulling everything that I'm offended by: I can't stand the view of America that he presents, which I feel insults a huge number of us non-mainstream folks. But I didn't call for the Smithsonian American Art Museum to pull the Rockwell show that runs through Jan. 2, just down the hall from "Hide/Seek." Rockwell and his admirers got to have their say, and his detractors, including me, got to rant about how much they hated his art. Censorship would have prevented that discussion, and that's why we don't allow it.
Back then, on July 4, Gopnik sneered at Rockwell: "He had almost preternatural social intuitions, along with brilliant skills as a visual salesman. Over his seven-decade career, that coupling let him figure out what middle-class white Americans most wanted to feel about themselves, then sell it back to them in paint."
And: "Rockwell's art makes Rockwell's America seem natural and necessary. His easy, untroubled realism is the perfect vehicle for an image of the nation as easygoing and untroubled: Looking at (or through) a Rockwell surface is as painless as living in a Rockwell world."
And: "Rockwell panders, in the very substance of his pictures' making, to his public's fear of change. Rockwell's greatest sin as an artist is simple: His is an art of unending cliché. The reason we so easily "recognize ourselves" in his paintings is because they reflect the standard image we already know. His stories resonate so strongly because they are the stories we've told ourselves a thousand times."
But, finally, Gopnik declared he wants art that serves the profane and the cynical and the off-beat hipsters (including himself): "America isn't about Rockwell's one-note image of it -- or anyone else's. This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics and even, dare I say it, for metrosexual half-Canadian art critics with a fondness for offal, spinets and kilts."
I can't believe I missed this fusillade at the time.
Does Gopnik believe no one makes art to pander to his preferences? That artists don't seek to curry the favor of jaded art critics and gallery and museum operators? Or exhibit funders, like the gay and lesbian foundations that supported this exhibit? Here's the gist of Gopnik's complaint today about the cowardly curators:
Today, after a few hours of pressure from the Catholic League and various conservatives, it decided to remove a video by David Wojnarowicz, a gay artist who died from AIDS-related illness in 1992. As part of "Hide/Seek," the gallery was showing a four-minute excerpt from a 1987 piece titled "A Fire in My Belly," made in honor of Peter Hujar, an artist-colleague and lover of Wojnarowicz who had died of AIDS complications in 1987. And for 11 seconds of that meandering, stream-of-consciousness work (the full version is 30 minutes long) a crucifix appears onscreen with ants crawling on it. It seems such an inconsequential part of the total video that neither I nor anyone I've spoken to who saw the work remembered it at all.
But that is the portion of the video that the Catholic League has decried as "designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians," and described as "hate speech" - despite the artist's own hopes that the passage would speak to the suffering of his dead friend. The irony is that Wojnarowicz's reading of his piece puts it smack in the middle of the great tradition of using images of Christ to speak about the suffering of all mankind. There is a long, respectable history of showing hideously grisly images of Jesus - 17th-century sculptures in the National Gallery's recent show of Spanish sacred art could not have been more gory or distressing - and Wojnarowicz's video is nothing more than a relatively tepid reworking of that imagery, in modern terms.
Until Tuesday afternoon, museum staff, under Director Martin E. Sullivan, believed that "Fire" was interesting art that made important points. And now it looks as though they're somehow saying that they were wrong about that, and that it really was unfit to be seen or shown, after all.
If every piece of art that offended some person or some group was removed from a museum, our museums might start looking empty - or would contain nothing more than pabulum. Goya's great nudes? Gone. The Inquisition called them porn.
Gopnik compared the Catholic League to an angry set of imams -- as if there's a recent example of a Smithsonian exhibit offending Muslims. Anyone remember the Mohammed cartoon show at the National Portrait Gallery?
In America no one group - and certainly no single religion - gets to declare what the rest of us should see and hear and think about. Aren't those kinds of declarations just what extremist imams get up to, in countries with less freedom?
Of course, it's pretty clear that this has almost nothing to do with religion. Eleven seconds of an ant-covered crucifix? Come on.
This fuss is about the larger topic of the show: Gay love, and images of it. The headline that ran over coverage of the matter on the right-wing Web site CNSnews.com mentioned the crucifix -- but as only one item in a list of the exhibition's "shockers" that included "naked brothers kissing, genitalia and Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts." (Through a bra, one might note, in an image that's less shocking than many moves by Lady Gaga.) The same site decries "a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as 'homoerotic'. "
The attack is on gayness, and images of it, more than on sacrilege - even though, last I checked, many states are sanctioning gay love in marriage, and none continue to ban homosexuality.
And the Portrait Gallery has given into this attack.
For a guy who opposes cliches, Gopnik ends with one of the hoariest: if you don't like it, don't see it. (But of course, pay for it, since the Smithsonian gets most of its funding from the federal government.)
Artists have the right to express themselves. Curators have the right to choose the expression they think matters most. And the rest of us have the right to see that expression, and judge those choices for ourselves.
If anyone's offended by any work in any museum, they have the easiest redress: They can vote with their feet, and avoid the art they don't like.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
He is no art critic
Submitted by TheHistorian on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:50pm.
if he would scrap Norman Rockwell. He is pedantic fool and as such should be ignored. If he can't tell the difference between art and fertilizer, frame him some manure.
And curators have the right to select garbage and put it up in any private museum, but not when I am paying for it in my tax money. And the Smithsonian is a PUBLICLY FUNDED museum.
Take his exhibit to the MOMA and let the trashy people of NYC support it and visit it all that they like. Or put it into another Washington museum; just not one I help pay for.
Dennis Prager
Another activist posing as a journalist
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:55pm.
And I'm shocked that he works for the WaPo (not really).
Here is something for him to ponder...In a democracy he is doomed to be forced to deal with the will of the 51% majority. I'd be willing to bet that more than 55% of the population would agree that Norman Rockwell accurately captured the kind of traditional life that is aspired to the majority of the country. And because of this fact, maybe the government should not be involved in subsidizing subjective things like art.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
"non-main stream folks"
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 12:58pm.
Anyone care to guess who that might be?
This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics and even, dare I say it, for metrosexual half-Canadian art critics with a fondness for offal, spinets and kilts."
Metrosexual (question that) fond of offal (animal entrails) spinets (a little harpsichord) and kilts. Seriously?
As my mom is fond of saying, there's no accounting for taste.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Liberal "ethics"
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:04pm.
Conservative, aka traditional values & Christian values, cannot be tollerated since they are judgemental and stupid. Only Liberals can preach their proper "non" values and control people with fear via PC. Why that is not judgemental at all! Liberals are living in a World View that is contrary to our history and values here in the USA. They are trying to change them by saying we are closed minded. When in fact, they constantly present lies as fact, hide history, and are indeed the ones who are self-centered and closed minded. No thought to consequence or impact on society.
This AM on Today, Gates said the Military does not get to choose. I have lost all confidence in this "leader." They vote with their feet! It is a voluntary service! I don't like politics being played out with our long term security. 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.
Art that sucks
Submitted by touche on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:02pm.
Art is a funny thing. If it is worthwhile it will support itself. If not..well we have government welfare for bad art. Not to mention guys like this who get labeled art critic.
There actually is a certain level for which even art must rise to in order to be labeled as such. Alas, not for liberals. All they need is their end justifies the means measures..If it pisses off American well then it is art. So simple even a first grader can understand.
So, it's okay for him to hate
Submitted by Bruzilla on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:05pm.
So, it's okay for him to hate the people represented by Rockwell paintings, but we're evil for hating gays???
Homosexual art critic pissed a homoerotic exhibition was edited
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:09pm.
Shocking.
Some profound and telling anagrams of Blake Gopnik:
Bleak Poking.
Gape Knob Ilk.
A Bop Leg Kink.
(Yes, I'm killing time before going to lunch)
A Bop Leg Kink?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:23pm.
Dude...there are anagram sites on the internet.
(Hint: It's a great tool for identifying retread trolls here).
But "A Bop Leg Kink" had be laughing. So thanks!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Suggested art commission
Submitted by jdlybrand on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:11pm.
"Piss Gopnik"
I'll provide the fluid.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Gopnik is one of those
Submitted by Hunter12 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:19pm.
Gopnik is one of those critics who would rave over the artist's sensitive use of corn and tomato seeds when viewing a canvas smeared with the digestive remains of the previous day's meals. The ant-covered Jesus and similar Mapplethorpe-inspired items are not art. I think exhibits like this are the payoffs for the work the artistic community put in for PBO in 2008.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Well now that the piece has
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:28pm.
Well now that the piece has been removed, and the assault on Christians is over, is everyone happy today?
smithsonia art
Submitted by Col. Kilgore on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:33pm.
Is there something in the water in D/C/ that makes libs completely wacky???
Gopnik is what used to be known as DERANGED, yet is is employed by a supposedly important newspaper in the nation's capital.
We are doomed.
OK you made me look!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 1:47pm.
I found this: http://wordsmith.org/anagram/
Some from "barack obama:"
Maraca Kabob
Baa Karma Cob
Baa Crab Amok
-- 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.
Anagrams
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:01pm.
Joe Biden:
stupidity knows no bounds
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:20pm.
Uh, pardon my "folksy" comment, but Norman Rockwell, regardless of what one may think of "the view of America that he presents" [sic], was, in fact, a contemporary artist with a modicum of talent and creativity.
Any spineless horse's ass can put honey on a crucifix to attract ants onto it with the purpose to offend, and then declare it by privileged elitist fiat to be "art."
The paradox
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:23pm.
We are constantly told by the National Endowment for the Arts and its supporters that we -- mainstream America -- are not the arbiters of defining what is and isn't art.
Hence, the Piss Christ is art. The graphic, homoerotic photography of Maplethorpe (Many would call it pornography) is art. And because no one in the private world wants to buy or exhibit it, the NEA comes to the rescue.
As as the Church Lady (SNL) would say, "Isn't that special?"
Mr. Spotnik doesn't want Rockwell's world-renowned artwork hanging in the Smithsonian because he doesn't like its message.
So, once again, we're back to the tolerance of free speech as long as we don't disagree with the Fringe Left.
It's funny how selectively
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:52pm.
It's funny how selectively deaf you folks are! You are the second person on this thread to claim that Gopnik wants Rockwell removed from the gallery. He doesn't! He specifically says that though he doesn't like the art, he is NOT calling for it to be removed because censorship is not how we debate the merits of art in an open society!
He wants both shows to go on, but, as usual, that doesn't make as nice a rant as "liberals want to censor everyone who disagrees with them," so you ignore that fact.
Sometimes I wonder if conservative eyes function differently from mine. Maybe the words don't show up on your screens :P
Maybe the skies are a
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:59pm.
Maybe the skies are a different color in our world from yours? We don't have Skittle-s#itting unicorns sliding down rainbows from the heavens in ours.
(Maybe you shouldn't have taken so many mind-altering drugs when you were small.)
Not sure if you were
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:04pm.
Not sure if you were referring to me as "the second person," but I did not make a direct claim to that effect. This is not a valid quid pro quo, because in one case, Norman Rockwell, we have art, whereas in the other case, "Ants on a Crucifix" we have the utter lack of it -- spineless anti-art in vacuo if you will.
The "Ants on a Crucifix" has but one intent: To offend. How do I know that? Because like any bully coward, the spineless gimp doesn't have the balls to use Mohammad (or the Koran) as the "subject" of his "art."
I love it: now "Ants on a
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:17pm.
I love it: now "Ants on a Crucifix" is not just the main image of the piece, it is the title. Don't you care whether your statements are consistent with reality?
Huh? What are you talking
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:31pm.
Huh? What are you talking about? I don't freaking care what its title is. I care about its offensive content, and the sarcastic moniker "Ants on a Crucifix" (AoaC) is an apt description.
the ants on a crucifix are
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:37pm.
the ants on a crucifix are one image on screen for 11 seconds of a 30 minute video. I think that makes it a pretty poor description.
11 seconds is 11 seconds too
Submitted by lotr on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:36am.
11 seconds is 11 seconds too much (and a full 1/3rd of the video, I might add). If it's so inncocuous, and such a "minor" component of the entire "exhbit," then I dare them to substitute 11 seconds of "Ants on the Koran" instead. Q.E.D.
Eleven seconds is not 1/3 of
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:12pm.
Eleven seconds is not 1/3 of thirty minutes.
oops, my bad
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:37pm.
Mental hiccup -- I thought it was 30 seconds (perhaps wishful thinking on my part). Sorry about that.
Nevertheless, 11 seconds of Ants on a Crucifx is 11 seconds too much, and again, this fully demonstrated by the obvious omission of 11 seconds of Ants on the Koran "imagery."
That's okay. I still
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:59pm.
That's okay. I still disagree with you vehemently, of course :)
Let's do one of these with
Submitted by inquiringmind on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:50pm.
Let's do one of these with Mohammad instead of Jesus and see what the art critic thinks. I'll bet he'd be too big of a coward to write an opinion saying how great and important the work is.
Gobnikk
Submitted by markprice1983 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 2:54pm.
Amazing how "courageous" these artist are with Christian symbols. Why not be avant garde and go after Mohammed or the Queeran? That would show your true gutsy artistic bona fides. And no fair using a nomme du arte.
Perhaps the reason this
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:00pm.
Perhaps the reason this American artist used Jesus in his imagery is because Mohammed is meaningless, for the most part, in the United States. The use of Mohammed would clearly stump most critics, especially in a collection of sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
Zippers: "Jesus better target than Mohammed...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:16pm.
...makes more sense, otherwise art critics would be stumped."
Yes, Jesus is always included in sexual-themed art shows.
OMG.
OMG!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:19pm.
Who knew?
However, allow me to slightly edit your last.
Yes, Jesus is always included in homo-erotic sexual-themed art shows.
There, fixed it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thanks B
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:51pm.
I'm just a simple country boy ;)
Zippius, The use of Mohammed would clearly stump most critics,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:38pm.
Yes stump, as in hands off.
Or in Hollywood parlance, two thumbs OFF....
You Didn't Build That.
Is there a reason you're
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:40pm.
Is there a reason you're calling me Zippius?
Allow me, Caesar:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:53pm.
Surely you remember your big stabbing scene in the NB Senate chamber?
"Et tu, Brute?"
No seriously - have you no
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:54pm.
No seriously - have you no mind of your own?
Want me to refresh your memory?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:00pm.
The feigning-ignorance thing is no longer working.
"Huh?" "Wha?"
You're spiraling down fast as a number of others have pointed out recently.
Doubtful.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:01pm.
Doubtful.
Not doubtful. True.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:18pm.
You've burned practically every bridge you had here.
Your knee jerk posts to any issue are always 180°, and always inflammatory. You think this makes you look heroic in some way, but with the exception of a few allied trolls and your sockpuppet militia, pretty much no one can stand you anymore.
Remember your buddy list? You alienated them by yourself.
Oh look. Dead Zippers wants to make it all about him.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:41am.
Or as SickofLibs is want to call it - Another Dead Zippers Me! Me! Me! Sh!tstorm.
Dead Zippers: Stop calling me names. Braaaaacckkkk. Stop calling me names. Schwwwweachhhhhh. Stop calling me names. Squawwwwwwk. You retard.
Timex Ted
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:28pm.
(he takes a lickin'.....)
No seriously - have you no mind of your own? Was it not you who posted this?:
Perhaps the reason this American artist used Jesus in his imagery is because Mohammed is meaningless, for the most part, in the United States. The use of Mohammed would clearly stump most critics, especially in a collection of sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
- Shy Spiced Rum
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Ted 9.3
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:26pm.
Is there a reason you posted this idiocy?:
Perhaps the reason this American artist used Jesus in his imagery is because Mohammed is meaningless, for the most part, in the United States. The use of Mohammed would clearly stump most critics, especially in a collection of sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
- Shy Tracks
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Sorry Ted,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:07pm.
Gay ants or not 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 or trying to shock the audience. The people displaying the art can't have it both ways - it is either just a piece of art designed to promote emotion in which case it ignores the larger picture since Christianity makes up only a significant but not majority percentage of reIigions around the world and one of the least extreme towards homosexuality of the major religions. If it was a general swipe at religion then your point would be valid. Otherwise it was simply a convenient or lazy stunt and not art or thought provoking.
Imagine the response had the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:25pm.
Imagine the response had the video been shown in 1987 when it was made.
still a no-go Ted,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:06pm.
In 87 it would have been more edgy/provocative and that is why I distinguished between the artist and the people who selected the art for display (albeit poorly) in the previous post. The art was selected for this display because it was edgy 87 but safe in 2010. That makes it dull and baseless.
That's silly. We have entire
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:56pm.
That's silly. We have entire exhibitions of art that is interesting specifically because at the time of its creation it was new or innovative or transgressive or... anything! The idea that art should only be evaluated by modern standards and not considered in the context of its creation is bizarre.
If we went by your standards, we could burn everything in our galleries that was more than fifty years old. After all, it's old news, dull and baseless.
silly mamabear?
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:45pm.
please read again I think you missed something. Hint - time was referencing the difference between the art being created and the exhibit and how edgy has changed.
Also, I would like to go on record as saying that I would not want the art taken down and my comments are about the artist, the people creating the display and art in general not about censorship.
I would agree with your post if it was based on anything remotely similar to what was written about - I don't mean that to be insulting just letting you know. However, I don't care for the tone of your post but that is your choice.
The art was selected for this
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:15pm.
The art was selected for this display because it was edgy 87 but safe in 2010. That makes it dull and baseless.I apologize if I am misreading, but here is how this statement seems to read: because this art was edgy but isn't any more, it is dull and baseless. I am simply pointing out that plenty of art that we appreciate because of its context used to be edgy but isn't anymore. By your stement, that would make it dull and baseless. I'm happy that you don't want the art removed, but I still strongly disagree with the way you choose to value art based on what you've written here.
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 8:39pm.
some art is timeless and some is not. It is not an insult to the art or the artist just how things are in the world. Art, especially if it is socially relevant, runs the risk of being out dated just due to changing times.
Wrong Ted. The artist is
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:24pm.
Wrong Ted. The artist is simply scared to use Mohammed. The artist is a physical coward. The mear thought of what would happen if they even thought "Mohammed is gay." makes them trimble with fear and their knees go weak.
Like most liberals, they talk a tough game to the tolerant, and then hides behind them when someone else steps up to challange them. One day, those you taunt will cease to protect you. Then what?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The artist has been dead for
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:27pm.
The artist has been dead for 18 years. He is not a coward, he is not hiding, he is dead. Get it?
OS Ted 10.6.4 (Panther/Jaguar/Teddybear)
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:37pm.
The Smithsonian Institution is alive. It's run by living people. That makes for a crap load of cowards.
Rock Stupid, meet Ted. Ted, Rock Stupid. I'll let you two catch-up.
- Disco Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Snow Leopard is up to OSX
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:46pm.
Snow Leopard is up to OSX 10.6.5.
Catch up, Disco Dancer
So why put it up? Free
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:59pm.
So why put it up? Free Christian bashing and the bunch of cowards wont bash Mohammad! Bunch of lilly livered cowards. Lets see some of that "But its art!" with Mohammad fondeling a little boy, or as receptionist in hell. Its only art, and those who display it are courgeous and bold, right? Takes courage to make a statement. Well, lets see on that sayes Mohammad is gay!
Put up or shut up boys and girls.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
You're making a mistake
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:12pm.
You're making a mistake consistent with many others. The video was produced in the 80s during a period in America when Muslims were not at the top of our hit list, and Muhammed was as irrelevant as Zeus. An American artist during that decade would not use the profit of another religion to make his point, especially in illustrating what AIDS was doing to his body as portrayed in the video. Maybe the piece was his message to God.
Or maybe Wojnarowicz had a serious Jesus complex.
Oh brilliant, Zippers. "Maybe this was his message to God"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:34am.
Like you would have the remotest clue.
Kinda the same thing as when you dispense child-rearing advice to people here who actually have children..
Oh look, Dead Zippers is whining about AIDS again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:28pm.
Dead Zippers: I got AIDS and no one cares. Braaaaaccckkk. I got AIDS and no one cares. Squawwwwwwkkkk. I got AIDS and no one cares. Skreeeeeeeeechhh.
Heaven forbid a homosexual get some dreaded disease. America herself will be subjected to endless in your face whining from the liberal lot for decades. Even when a homosexual actually passes on to the big bathhouse in the sky, we are still talking about them years later via the most irritating troll here - nwahs the Dead (prophetic) Zippers troll.
Too bad a few homosexuals couldn't get cancer or diabetes. Imagine the progress we could make on those diseases with all the money they threw at AIDS. The world would have happy fever.
Yes Sir, Vet! Did Brunette
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:20pm.
Yes Sir, Vet!
Did Brunette tell you I already did 20 AND send her 20 bucks?
I'm not certain the AIDS joke is working for you. Have I told you about my gout, my Hep-C, and my extended tailbone that the jerks back in middle school teased was a tail?
It's not a tail!
Who was joking?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:06am.
And don't tell me about your myriad health problems. I don't care. You have not given the slightests rat's tushie about anyone else here. We don't care about you.
Up Your Tail FREAKSHOW.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 5:41am.
You think I am joking. Screw you. I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. If a gay man were to come down with butt cancer tommorrow, the liberal media would be all over pushing us to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to CURE BUTT CANCER.
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.
Further, the vast majority of federal AIDS spending can’t possibly lead to a cure or vaccine or prevent a single new case. Of the approximately $26 billion budgeted this year for HIV/AIDS, only 11% will go for research and 3% for prevention. The rest is care, cash and housing assistance. Federal non-research AIDS spending far exceeds the combined research grant budget for all diseases combined–including AIDS! This even as NIH has to turn away over three-fourth of grant applicants.
Why such grotesquely favorable treatment for AIDS? Partly it’s simple inertia. But much is because a huge AIDS bureaucracy now exists, with vast numbers of organizations and their employees voraciously feeding at various international, national, state and privately funded troughs.
Truly forgotten diseases are everywhere, though a better term is simply “unrecognized.” Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis are the ninth leading cause of death in this country, causing three times as many deaths as AIDS; but probably most people don’t even know what these kidney diseases are. “Nephritis” got 1.3 million Google hits over the past year. Far more important, fewer than 2,000 published medical papers appear on Medline. Yet in the past year alone, there have been about 21,000 concerning HIV.
You better start to understand the vitriolic hate I have for you when I know so much and you know jack squat yet manage to post so frequently with your damnable lies.
Yes Sir, JWF!!!
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:18pm.
Yes Sir, JWF!!!
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:40am.
Hard to argue with people that are correct, huh sissy?
Yes Sir, JWF!!!
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:23pm.
Yes Sir, JWF!!!
Still like the taste of my butt?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:50pm.
Yummy, right?
Dead Zippers LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:40pm.
•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 one percent of the funding per death as AIDS.
•Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, are the nation's sixth and 14th-leading causes of death respectively, yet HIV/AIDS gets 34 times and 25 times more per fatality respectively.
Put up or shut up boys and
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:02pm.
Put up or shut up boys and girls. This is such a strange attitude towards art! This piece isn't about world politics. It is about a friend of the artist (or the artist himself, I'm not sure which) and his personal experiences with illness and death in an American community. So the art addresses political aspects of that community, because they presumably affected the artist. Why on earth would that art include reference to Muhammad? And as someone else said on the other thread, why would any piece that WAS about the attitude of Islam towards homosexuality be part of an exhibit on American images of self in portraiture?Why was a Christian
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:55pm.
Why was a Christian religious representation of God chosen? To make a political statement about Christianity. That may be appropriate for the artist, but not for those who are forced to support the art through government money.
I am of the opinion that an
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:47pm.
I am of the opinion that an open society should value even expression that is critical of it. We all disagree about how our tax dollars should be spent, and that's fine, but I think we will lose something if the only art viewed in public galleries is stuff that no one can find offensive.
How such an overwhelmingly culturally dominant religion in a free and open society became so thin-skinned is completely beyond me!
in a free and open society?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:49am.
You back on that illegal alien kick again?
MD
... you don't think the US is
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:34am.
... you don't think the US is a free and open society already? I'm not talking about our borders, I'm talking about our rights and freedoms.
/sarc was implied---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 2:12am.
but apparently not inferred. :o)
MD
Oh, sorry!
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:52am.
Oh, sorry!
" I'm talking about our
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:27pm.
" I'm talking about our rights and freedoms."
Don't speak of them too long ... They will be fewer by the time you finish.
This reminds me..
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 5:35am.
"How such an overwhelmingly culturally dominant religion in a free and open society became so thin-skinned is completely beyond me!"
Again someone equates defending yourself or beliefs to being thin skinned. Are all the people complaining about bullys and homophobia thin skinned? They can't even stand something being called gay. Carlos Mencia said it best, "If you can take a *$&%, you can take a joke."
You are completely missing
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:35am.
You are completely missing the point. Marginalized groups have a reason to be worried about attacks like that. Christianity is probably the most dominant cultural force in our society, and yet you guys feel the need to defend it from even the slightest insult, even if that means further alianating a marginalized group like homosexuals! Why? What is it you think is going to happen if artists are allowed to criticize your religion?
That was your point huh?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 2:24am.
Your snarky post had a point huh?
You may be surprised but people defend themselves and their beliefs regardless of how dominant a cultural force it may be. People also don't like their taxes paying for "art" they find offensive and crude. Christians aren't rioting and calling for the beheading of artists. Should the governement be removing religion from public areas while displaying "art" that is anti-religion? No, it shouldn't.
I'm sorry you think defending my relgion alienates teh gays. That's your probelm.
I'm all for defending your
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:57am.
I'm all for defending your religion against real threats. Obviously, real is in the eye of the beholder. But I think reacting this way to the enraged artistic expression of a man faced with his own death and the death of his loved ones is really unnecessary.
How would you feel mamabear
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:14am.
How would you feel mamabear if the art was depicting gays in a way you found offensive? The fact that someone is faced with their own death does not make all of their actions appropriate. Expressing his anger at his upcoming death by reviling Christianity does not make him an artist or anything else.
How would you feel mamabear
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 8:24pm.
How would you feel mamabear if the art was depicting gays in a way you found offensive? Plenty of art depicts gays in ways I find offensive. I don't actually like looking at art that depicts sex acts, sado-masochism, or any number of other things I could list here but won't for the same reason I don't like viewing them as art! I just don't condiser it my right to judge the artists who create those pieces as being cowardly or hateful, and if other people find artistic merit in them I don't judge that either. In fact, pop culture is full of caricatured stereotypes of gay people that I often find offensive. I listen to hip-hop, which is a hugely homophobic culture. But I realize that if you want to change people's minds about that sort of thing, silencing them is really not useful. All that does is prevent you from having to deal with the problem, it doesn't make the problem go away. Art that crosses over into hate speech, I think is different. I don't see that this one religious image in the whole video makes the video hate speech against Christians, but maybe you have some reason why it does.I don't like hip-hop either,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 9:39pm.
I don't like hip-hop either, but at least I know my tax dollars are not being used to support it.
Reacting what way?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:15am.
He can have his "enraged artistic expression" but our reaction is "unnecessary" in your view. I'm not even going to ask what you would consider a "real threat".
Nahhh, that's not it.
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:12pm.
His head would be separated from his shoulders chop-chop if he tried it with Moe-ham-head. (Edited for accuracy) But as it has been said, the "artist" (pornographer?) has been dead for many years now, so he is beyond caring (and we are beyond caring about him and his so-caled "art".) So, let's see a living contemporary "artist" take on Islam with the same hatred that they show for Christianity and post it publically. Show us how ballsy you artists are. Don't you want to suffer for your art? How about die for it? (End edit)
(That's the thing about liberals, they are big burly brawny manly men when it comes to soft targets like Christanity, since they know there will be no return fire, but go after something that will fight back like Islam and they run away screaming like the little girly-men that they are. Liberal males are the epitome of emasculated males; their women are more butch than they are (and they look it, too!) Look at how old Gopnik got his panties all in a wad over this, waaa-waa-waaa, what a poofter!)
I ain't the first one, BTW when is the next name change coming?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:55pm.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2010/11/18/cbs-early-show-declares-auto-bailout-success-celebrates-gms-big-comeba#comment-1380822
h/t SoL
You Didn't Build That.
So you admit you have no mind
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:58pm.
So you admit you have no mind of your own.
Good to know who I'm dealing with.
Hey UCW:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:06pm.
Welcome to the "You Have No Mind Your Own" Club.
I'm gonna be the president, since I had no-mind-of-my-own first. But you can be vice president if you like.
WTF I thought I was Vice
Submitted by ninerdog on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:00pm.
WTF I thought I was Vice president. Dam.
Dang looks like I'm a runner up...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:33am.
Zippius is following the balinese, route...
Posts with one or two lines... soon to be posts with one or 2 words, then, maybe soon none at all....
Art Code:
If the HAZMAT gang thinks there is no bio hazard danger, then it's art, however if they haul it away then the "artist" shall pay the full bill for environmental clean up.
You Didn't Build That.
"Rockwell panders, in the
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:58pm.
"Rockwell panders, in the very substance of his pictures' making, to his public's fear of change."
I think most of Rockwell's works are closer to illustration than to art, since art is more about poetry and a lot of what Rockwell did is just cutesy scenes, so I don't hold him up as equivalent to Raphael, or Titian, or Delacroix.
But this critic has a view of Rockwell that is completely clichéd and biased himself. He should take a look at this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CijcaA9yq58/TDE6r54sW1I/AAAAAAAAGPg/EuPTPzVcdnc/s1600/good+Black+Girl+Escorted.JPG
(A black girl being escorted to school, Rockwell, 1961)
This is one of Rockwell's works that I do consider art, and it completely blows away his idiotic assertion that he pandered to the public's fear of change. The critic needs to get a new job.
No balls
Submitted by 76United on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:14pm.
Ants on Jesus, big whoop. How about an artist with enough balls to show Allah kissing a gay jew. Now that's art!
How about this...
Submitted by 76United on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 4:24pm.
...a painting of a gay man murdering and raping a child? Would gay people be up in arms about it? The artist can just say it's a statement about pedofiles and they're destruction of youth. Some crap like that. When you're an artist, you can just make up some bunk definition of what your art is and it has to be accepted. Kind of like when you go to a winery and they lay that jive on you about the wine you're sipping on. "Notice the subtle hints of oak, and an underlying ashy tone which gives it a smooth earthy flavor". Really? Taste like plain ol' wine to me. Oh, I am soooo unsophisticated. Art, just make crap up!
If this Gopnik goober hates everything Rockwell stood for...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:00pm.
...then maybe we should invite this America-hating sissy to pack his loafers and get the hell out of our America for good.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Don't know art
Submitted by touche on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 5:08pm.
Like most art critics, they are truely a clueless lot. I had a conversation not long ago with a scuplturer who had one of his pieces on display at a major University. Our conversation was in referrence to the art critics. It was quite amusing as the critics had written all sorts of stories around his work of art. Discribing the piece and the artist. According to the artist himself not one was anywhere close to reality. Most where just plain stupid. To top it off, none of the critics where really interested in his opinion either.
Pretty much sums up how liberals and art reflect each other in general for me. Particularly for the piece in question.
Rush nails cowardly Gopnik to the wall:
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 6:15pm.
Rush nails it again. If an ant-covered Jesus is free speech and something he wanted to see to stick it to those who are religiously opposed to homosexuality, and if he's upset at the lack of 'courage' in allowing said display to be pulled:
Then why doesn't the brave and honorable Mr. Gop-beatnik commission a similar display of Muhammad? Ya know Gopnick - to show you're an EQUAL opportunity blasphemer!
What's that you say? You're SCARED of making a blapshemous display featuring Muhammad? But why, Mr. Gopnik? WHY? If courage is what you're all about, then show your courage to us! Make a display, a cartoon, a painting, a statue or something that demans, humiliates and degrades Muhammad and show us all what a brave, honorable and courageous man you really are! Show us how committed you are to 'freedom of expression' by sticking it to them durn Muslims, who KILL gays in their own countries!
Gopnik: "But I can't do that! I'd be putting my LIFE in danger! You know how 'those Muslims' are!"
You're a man without courage Gopnik. You have no right to speak to anyone else about courage.
Straw man arguments
Submitted by larrybob on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 7:16pm.
Thanks for all the straw man arguments about Mohammed.
It's an interesting fact that when Wojnarowicz was alive, he successfully sued Donald Wildmon of the American Family Assocition for copyright violation for taking a piece of his art our of context in reprinting sections of a catalog from an art show in a mailing to the AFA.
Once again, a tiny excerpt of a larger work (11 seconds out of a 4 minute excerpt that was on exhibit of a work that is 30 minutes long) is being given a new interpretation by politicians and organizations with an axe to grind.
LawrenceRobert---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:22pm.
The mentions of Mohammed, as phrased, do not constitute a straw man argument.
They are a reflection of the comment about having "courage", which in context, relates to being brave only when conveniently safe from harm.
The whole point of "art" is how it is interpreted; and everyone, politicians and organizations included, have an axe to grind.
What is your point?
MD
Please clarify
Submitted by Bighead227 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:25pm.
You call it a "straw man argument" but don't say why. Please explain.
that's because it's not a strawman
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:16pm.
That's because it is most assuredly not a strawman argument. The fact that we never see analogous art depicting Muslim sacred imagery, say a copy of the Koran, is direct evidence that the "artist" knows that his imagery shall offend those who hold the object to be sacred (assuming the "artist" lives on Earth and knows about Islam and that there about as many Muslims in the world as Christians). Because he knows his "exhibit" shall offend, but goes ahead and exbibits it in a national taxpayer-funded museum anyway, there is an intent, whether primary or secondary, to do precisely that: Offend. Q.E.D.
Well....
Submitted by miss911ninja on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:16pm.
I like Norman Rockwell.
Gopnik is just in a petulant froth...
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:54pm.
...because the first three letters of his last name are GOP and he hates them, he hates them! He shakes his tiny impotent fists because of them. Oh, how it burns us, it burns!!! Why couldn't the creatures that whelped him be named Libnik?!?
Isn't it funny how a no-name nobody from the 'Poofters Froth, WY Picayune' got a job at the WaPo? (I just wanted to use the name "Poofters Froth, WY" one, because it makes me laugh and two, in honor of Frank Zappa, who passed away on Dec 4, 1993. His politics and scatilogical humor may not set well with many here, but he was a helluva great musician.)
Easy Blake
Submitted by Bighead227 on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:19pm.
that's no way for a lady to talk. Don't get your panties all in a bunch. Is that offensive? Should that be censored? Some things should be censored Blake. As soon as one of you gutless wonders takes on Mohammad and how Islam treats gays I don't want to hear you whine. And I don't want to see the mean-spirited hate you mistake for art.
Libs always claim that there
Submitted by Cowboy on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 1:32am.
Libs always claim that there is a seperation of Church and state...
But we the taxpayers are supposed to pay for an ant-covered Jesus...
Would they display an ant-covered Muhammad?
Ant covered Jesus
Submitted by HARRY-O on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:14am.
Just imangine the uproar by the leftylibs and the artsy crappers if you had an ant covered koran! They would go nuclear about that.
first of all..
Submitted by el_polacko on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:35am.
this exhibit is PRIVATELY FUNDED so all this ranting about tax dollars can end. taxes keep the sprawling smithsonian buildings operational. there are thousands of exhibits in the museum...one can spend a week there and still never see all that the museum has to offer. these knee-jerk calls from our ignorant politicians to cut off funding are what's truly obscene. why would they want to prevent people from seeing archie bunker's chair or charles lindbergh's airplane ?? all they are doing is caving in to hysterical rants from their constituents who are using some alleged religious offense (the brief image in the short video is by no means intended as a slight as one would learn if they would actually take the time to look at the piece or read about the artist's intent). gopnik is correct, the real 'problem' for some people is that this particular exhibit presents the work of gay artists. if you can stomach it, look at the comments posted at the cns site. they are some of the most vile examples of bigotry against gay people one is likely to see outside of the westboro 'baptist church' rallies.
in his article, gopnik is merely pointing out that, although he has his reasons for deeply disliking the works of rockwell, he would never call for defunding or boycotts. anyone who doesn't like the gay portraiture exhibit is certainly free to criticize and discuss it (hopefully, after having seen it) but pressuring the museum to censor art that may not necessarily speak to their own experience is anti-intellectual and, frankly, un-american. gay citizens have as much right to see the works of gay artists as religious folks (and, of course, many gay people are religious as well) have a right to see the sistine chapel...oh wait... michelangelo was gay too... oh well, you know what i mean. this is all much ado about absolutely nothing other than the torch and pitchfork crowd getting riled up once again over the mere mention of the fact that homosexually-oriented people exist...and using their particular brand of religion to bully everyone else while claiming to somehow being victimized themselves. it's all very tired. the middle ages are over. it's time that we moved on.
second of all.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 5:03am.
We were all taught around about the 2nd or 3rd grade the difference between a capitalized letter and one that is not.
I know you were there during the lessons. I saw you picking your nose and eating the boogers.
You act like that public education payed off by using proper capitalization, and we will actually read your little rant.
Otherwise, huh?
Swing and a miss
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 6:35am.
Care to try again, since you're a switch hitter?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Well, golly gee!
Submitted by ohiochili on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:56pm.
I didn't know the 'artist' was gay until just now....I hated it before, and I still hate it.
I am also a non-believer....go ahead, call me an atheist. I still hate it. The only reason it exists is because somebody wanted to insult a lot of good people.
Leave Archie Bunker's chair out of this. It never hurt anybody. I am not sure about Howdy Doody, though.
wrong
Submitted by lotr on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 11:24am.
Absolute tripe.
Just trying to pad his readership
Submitted by Bronco46 on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:23pm.
This guy is just an anarchist masquerading as an art critic. All this man
endorses are things that tear at the fabric of this country. He hates almost
everything that makes this country what it is. I guess since hardly anyone
read the art critic column of any paper he can get away with this kind of
crap; since the editors can't be worried about his readership. And if he's
controversial enough he might double his readership to 50.
You too can be an artist.....
Submitted by Diesel on Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:50pm.
.....simply wipe your arse with the WaPo, hang it in a frame & "VOILA!"
You're a great artist!