Conservatives want to dictate art in Smithsonian gallery; Jesus plus ants not ok

The BBQ Pit
1

The exhibit sits inside a gallery bearing a plaque that says how the gallery shows “how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality.” Apparently however, this isn’t ok if it shows the gay struggle for equality. The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” depicts a video each from the 70s and 80s, one dealing with emerging as gay at the time and another about AIDS. The AIDS video, “A Fire in My Belly,” shows Jesus on the cross covered in ants. Elsewhere in the gallery are pictures of brothers kissing, as well as Ellen DeGeneres holding her breasts. Article with pictures mentioned can be found at CNS News.

One House Rep, Jack Kingston, calls it “in-your-face perversion paid for by tax dollars,” saying, “If they’ve got money to squander like this – of a crucifix being eaten by ants, of Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, men in chains, naked brothers kissing – then I think we should look at their budget.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said it was an “outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season.” Ah yes, the old canard that the ~80% of the Christians in the country are oppressed and under attack, also being trumpeted by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who says, “This is clearly designed to offend,” and labels it hate speech. I’m not entirely clear from the articles (FOX) how ants on Jesus is offensive (aren’t ants part of God’s creatures?), but the WP headline labels it an Anti-Jesus video.

At any rate, the AIDS video has been removed by the institute. As far as I could see, that’s the only one that has been taken out due to pressure. I guess the religious lobby against anti-Jesus is stronger than the conservative lobby against gays, for which I suppose we should be grateful. But censorship is ok because it’s publicly funded? We pay the Smithsonian to include art that best serves the public, and the public needs to see that not everyone is in lockstep with being reverential for Jesus.

NASA’s publicly funded as well, right? I’m pretty offended that they’re not painting their rockets like giant boobs so that I can watch porn during space launches. Also that there are not 3-breasted green aliens that I can use in an orgy with Kirk and Arnie at the same time. Shouldn’t I get a say in how they run the space program?

On the other hand, why am I even surprised? Conservatives and religious nuts want to stand in the way of progress again. This is news?

2

No, its not news. Delusional people have serious problems with anything that implies that they are in fact, delusional. Religious(delusional) people have been burning books and people for interfering with their fantasy worlds long before you and I were even born. Sad story, say sorry.

3

The AIDS video, “A Fire in My Belly,” shows Jesus on the cross covered in ants.

I haven’t seen the video, but, honestly, with that description, I think it likely that these people were trolling. They wanted this reaction.

4

Yes, either the person at the National Portrait Gallery is an idiot (not realizing the reaction they would get from Congress once this was in the public eye) or they want to make the Smithsonian a bit more edgy and were not ready with the right pre-written response.

Interesting to me is that the exhibit itself was not done with taxpayer funds (per the Washington Post article):

So the first response is that this was funded by others. However, just because someone else funded something that many consider distasteful does not mean that it is OK. The Smithsonian should be a little more careful given their place in the public square.

I am a Christian, but I would have to see the video before I make any judgment on how much this might offend me. My faith is not so weak as to be hurt by this video, and since this is a temporary exhibit sponsored by others, I really don’t have an issue with it. The gallery itself is full of religious paintings (due to their role in the development of art through the ages), so it isn’t like there isn’t any positive Christian art currently exhibited in the same building.

5

Who cares? the religious need to get over themselves. if it showed an atheist tied to stick on fire these fascist jackasses would come in their pants. If they’re so damned compassionate and forgiving, then whats the fraggin’ problem?

Would it be as serious a problem if it was captian kirk being smeared with grape jelly and termites and the trekkies complained? would we take THEM seriously? hell no. same issue more popular science fiction story.

6

Because getting upset when people get exactly what they want seems really stupid.

Heck, getting upset means you are feeding the troll, too.

7

The article isn’t really clear, but I believe it’s only a short clip of it among other images that someone (possibly an AIDS victim) experiences during a hallucination. As far as the articles mentioned, there were no other religious symbols in the video. Other images (you can see from the CNS article) show a man with his mouth sewn shut, a mummified man, and a naked man.

And was it trolling, or lashing out at a religion that has only in the last week said that spreading AIDS is a worse sin that using a condom? And religious conservatives are angry at the pope for taking this position.

8

OMG there are PENISES on display!

9

Ah, yes. The conservative outrage over art. That’s worked well for them in the past.:rolleyes:

10

Just out of interest, if it did offend you, should we care? And should the Smithsonian refrain from displaying it?

11

Oh BTW, you should see what the freeptards are saying about this. The level of discourse on youtube is higher.

12

Me alone? Nope - no need to care. Me and enough other voters get offended and contact those we elect? Well, a Congressman or three might notice, and they control some of the purse strings.

13

It has worked VERY well for them, raised LOTS of money from folks upset about Maplethorpe and Serrano exhibits.

14

I’m not denying that ignoramus congresscritters might listen to their ignoramus constituents.

The question is more one of general principle: should an institution like the Smithsonian be threatened with defunding simply because it chooses, once in a while, to display art that offends some people?

15

And made those two artists household names, but you’re correct. Which makes their faux outrage even more cynical. They’re not stupid - they certainly know they are actually increasing the number of people who will see that art by calling attention to it. But that’s fine as long as it raises money and whips up their base.

16

Or even that offends lots of people. At least this is more definitely in the “art” category than in the “how to” category of that pedophile book that was on Amazon a couple weeks ago. At least, I think it was-- I didn’t read that whole thing too closely.

17

Yes, this is the problem when you ask for your art to be publicly funded. If you don’t like it, then (a) convince the majority of voters to agree with you; (b) exhibit your art without using taxpayer dollars.

“This WAS exhibited without using taxpayer dollars!”

No, it wasn’t.

There is no exhibit without a building, staff, and care for the objects, all of which are federally funded.

18

So is art the only publicly-funded domain allowed to be dictated by voters? See my point in the OP about NASA and boobs. Shouldn’t we leave decisions on both art selection and science to the experts trained for it?

19

That’s true.

But the American people have made clear, over a long period, that they do, in fact, support the general principle of the Smithsonian as a repository for, and museum of, artworks and other cultural artifacts. The ruckus is only being raised, so far by a very small minority, because they are offended by a few particular pieces of art that comprise a tiny percentage of the Smithsonian’s holding and exhibits. If the aim of the criticism was truly to call into question the overall mission of the Smithsonian as a publicly-funded cultural institution, it would at least have the benefit of honesty, but that’s not the point at all. They don’t actually want to shut it down; they just want its professional directors and curators to make artistic decisions that reflect the narrow and moronic viewpoint of a few jerkoff morons.

20

I hate political comments parading as art. It sounds deliberately offensive. Just a way of allowing people with little talent be seen as cutting edge by sticking it to the man. I wouldn’t want to go to a publicly funded gallery and see images of aborted fetuses, or art gloryizing torture, and I can sympathize with Christian who don’t want to have their religion mocked in a place funded by their tax dollars.

If this art is any good, which I am sure it is not, then some private gallery will display it. The idea of marginally talented assholes sucking off the public teat while giving the public the finger is grotesque.