It’s more than hypocrisy though - it’s evidence of a potentially unconstitutional intent. The purpose isn’t to stop offense, it is to enshrine Christianity in a protected position.
However, if there was policy to “protect” Islam by not showing potentially offensive imagery, isn’t that also a problem Constitutionally. I would love it if the NAM decided to show a Quaran covered in ants or something else offensive so we could readily call the pols on their hypocrisy, I just don’t think it is going to happen. I can easily think that there is a greater willingness to offend Christians than other faiths. You can make a reasonable argument as to why that is reasonable for artists and such, but it seems unreasonable for the NAM to be engaged in it.
I agree. I have no problem with the Smithsonian showing the Koran covered in ants.
And yes, there is a greater willingness to risk offending Christianity - because it is the majority religion. When a state funded institution is seen as targeting a minority group, it sets off more alarm bells.
Personally I’d like to see art and artists gore all sacred cows. Apart from the Packers, that is. Who should be cherished.
Your post seems to imply that i am somehow in favor of refraining to depict the Prophet in order to cater to Muslim sensibilities. I’m not. During the whole cartoon kerfuffle a few years ago, i was quite clear in my belief that printing such images was not problematic, from a speech and offensiveness point of view.
My only exception, in a case like this, would be if it was determined that opponents of the artwork could be said to constitute some sort of threat to the safety of the museum and its patrons. If the threat was determined by law enforcement to be genuine, and likely to pose a real danger, then simple prudence might dictate removing the work from display. I wouldn’t like it, but i wouldn’t protest too much either, whether it were a piece of art that offended Christians or one that offended Muslims.
And there was some reason you left off my very next line?
Here are the images of the paintings which garnered this review. It’s clear that the comment was hyperbolic, since nothing looks like something a child could do, unless the child was a true prodigy.
Because money has meaning only in terms of its quantity. If it involves a miniscule amout of money then it’s a miniscule deal. If it involves an amount of money so small that you wouldn’t stoop to pick up off the ground, then it’s absurd to act like it’s your business.
You assume wrong, Kemosabe. Would you raise greater objections over the money than how the 6-year old feels? And what sort positive message do you suppose an artist is likely to be sending with such a depiction? If you can’t think of one, then something like that is probably not going to happen.
Yes, but there must be a sense of proportion. It shouldn’t go any higher than the head of the Smithsonian. If professional musum curators have no objection, then neither should anyone else. It’s way out of proportion for this to become a rancorous nationwide issue and for Congress to start micro-managing and threaten a major institution with being cut off at the knees.
And now that the exhibit has been torpedoed (the entire exhibit, not just the Jesus clip), let’s have no more complaints from conservatives about political correctness. Even apart from the hypocrisy, conservative PC is the worst kind of PC because a plastic Jesus is not your skin.
Because last time I checked, Cezanne wasn’t Klimt or one of the Symbolists.
Ahh.
Well, I guess in rereading, my intent wasn’t as clear as it could have been. I revise my remark as follows:
Maybe someone said that about, for example, Klimt and the Symbolists, but if they did, they were fooling themselves about their kid’s talent. It wasn’t until the Abstract Expressionists that this crticism could be LITERALLY leveled.
Nitpick: The National Gallery is technically not part of the Smithsonian Institution.
I think that if a video artist had a work that included a few seconds of a holy text like the Quran lying on the ground, with a couple of ants wandering over it, then yes, the National Galley would include that in its exhibit.
This art exists all over. Its just not usually in a museum of modern art. There are plenty of museums exhibiting classical art. When was the last time you ever went to one? In part you never see it, because you never go to art museums. Since you never go to art museums, catering to you would be moronic.
You seriously think there is no modern art representing patriotism and love of country. Get out some more.
I’ve never honestly seen it done about the right side of the , but I’ve no doubt it exists about both.
On this point we disagree. Cookie cutter art isn’t art. If it takes no creativity to understand it, then it took no creativity to make it.
The only reason you think those things don’t exist is because the only time you think about modern art, is when there is some huge controversy. Then your all upset about where you think your tax dollars are going (The artists themselves are usually funded privately.).
But you never go to art museums when they ARE displaying things you want to see, so why the hell would any museum cater to your tastes. The people that DO go to art museums want to see more 60’ inflatable dog poo’s and rocks stacked in funny ways. I love that stuff, and I DO go see it when it’s in town.
Since you seem starved for patriotic art, I did a quick Google search and immediately found this article, discussing exhibits commemorating 9/11, a week after the events of that day.
9/11/02: Art And Culture
Those special exhibits are probably gone by now, but I’m sure that the patriotic art that appeals to you can be found if you look for it.
It’s funny, Bricker, that you contend that art is not designed to make you think, because as it happens my first gallery show will be opening in New York City tonight, a group show in which my contribution is an oil painting of a lady looking very much like Sarah Palin (some might say) with a goofy grin and her decolletage (both of ‘em) hanging out pretty much (she’s in a low cut dress, and her decolletage consists of two tea cups affixed to the canvas and painted over.) I call it “Invitation to a Tea Party,” and I’d like the viewers to wonder what exactly I mean by that title, and by the portrait itself. I definitely intend for the viewer to be perplexed, and to wonder what political statement is intended by my painting. I don’t think I’m at all alone in painters’ wishes on this subject.
Add to above post# 93: is this a patriotic picture, do you think?
The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has an Art of the Americas wing. $345 million for 43 galleries, from ancient works to modern. It includes this rather prominent depiction of George Washington.
It opened on November 20th. Does that count as “these days”?
Funny, I was at the DeYoung Museum a couple weeks ago, for the D’Orsay exhibit of post-impressionists, and the place was just packed. I got there at ten in the morning, and the earliest ticket I could get for the show was four. When Chihuly was exhibiting, you couldn’t get a ticket for a same-day showing on the weekend, unless you lined up before the exhibit opened. When I visit the MoMA, I tend to have generally similar experiences. Now, I know that living near San Francisco tends to skew the demographics somewhat, but I find it difficult to believe that all of those people were art critics. The general public seems to be plenty interested in modern art.
No, it really wouldn’t. I know this, because museums regularly display new work that is both representational and meant to be aesthetically pleasing, and these seldom cause any sort of revolt in the art world.
Again, no, it wouldn’t. There is a huge body of work in the art world that was created for the express purpose of criticizing art from the previous generation. As a general rule, artists, critics, and curators eat that shit up with a spoon.
Seen it.
Seen it.
Seen it.
Seen it.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a work of art that attempted to literally make this specific argument, but I have seen plenty of modern art that was both accessible and beautiful to look at. I don’t think that the artists meant that as any sort of philosophical statement.
Then again, I’ve never really understood the idea that moden art is particularly inaccessible. Particularly compared to a lot of classical art, a lot of which requires a fairly detailed knowledge of classical literature, mythology, and encoded symbolism used in the picture. Compared to a that, figuring out Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollack is child’s play.
Anyway, upshot is, you should really spend some more time in museums and galleries, looking at art, before you attempt to describe what’s going on in the contemporary art scene. Because you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Cutting edge? Did you see that the movie was from the 80s? It seems that it was included as part of a history of the gay rights struggle.
I just had the same reaction. What a great shot-- it’s really strikingly done!
I was there, too, Miller, and at the Birth of Impressionism exhibit earlier in the year, which was similarly packed. But we don’t count as the “general public” because we live in San Francisco (or Oakland, in my case), so by definition we’re liberal elitists.
The notion of “patriotic” painting (as opposed to whatever kind of art people think Wojnarowicz did) makes me think of this lovely piece by Komar and Melamid.
So if they don’t know about art, why are they running their ignorant mouth about it? If the Republican bigots took their job seriously they’d learn about what they’re doing. Would you want some idiot who doesn’t electrical codes messing around with your house wiring? Why would you want some idiot who doesn’t know art judging the value of art for the country?
But this isn’t the government’s speech. This is the government endorsing none-blasphemous art, and indirectly endorsing religious preference through funding. If the government took bids for dry wall, and specified only people who ate halal could bid, that’d be a problem yea? If that would be a problem then why is “halal” requirements for art okay?
I’ll make it simple. Last year the Smithsonian was visited 30,000,000 times by people from all over the country, and house tens of millions of irreplaceable national artifacts from all parts of American life. It is the American attic. Does it not have value?
Why should the American people be denied it because some Republican Congressman asshole, who you admit doesn’t seem to know art, got offended by art?
Further “fire in my belly” demonstrates a very real reality for many Americans. It has just as much a rightful place in the Smithsonian as Archie Bunker’s chair. More so, Archie’s chair never encouraged people to think about such an urgent topic.