More art Congressional Republicans should censor while they’re at it

Photo courtesy of
‘The Darwin Sisters, Censored’
courtesy of ‘Kevin H.’

No doubt you’ve heard by now that some Congressional Republicans have been making a fuss over a Portrait Gallery exhibition that deals with gay and lesbian identity in the arts. One installation has been removed already, and no word yet if additional works will be taken down from the exhibit.

I know that our good and patriotic elected representatives, having solved all other problems facing the United States in these times of global strife and economic upheaval, will be anxious to root out any other lurking homosexual undertones in our publicly-funded art while using our plentiful surplus tax dollars to promote good old-fashioned American values, like censorship, for example.  So allow me to make a few suggestions about dirty, offensive works of public art that should have their funding examined right away.

Photo courtesy of
courtesy of ‘MichaelTRuhl’

The Emancipation Memorial

Just look at it. There’s the 16th President, extending his hand over the head of a strategically placed kneeling young man. A slave, in fact, in a supplicating position. Not only is this, like, so totally gay, is anyone else troubled by the obvious domination/submission elements here? This is in a public park! Won’t someone think of the CHILDREN?

And speaking of children…

image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

The Boy Scout Memorial

A young boy, out exploring the world on his own, except that he’s guided by… a nearly-naked man. And a woman, but she’s kind of… muscular-looking, if you know what I mean. In fact, I’m not sure how this perversion became the memorial for the Boy Scouts of America because I’m pretty sure they don’t allow that sort of thing among their Scout leaders. Nope, this one’s got to go too, for the sake of honoring American values.

And finally, the most egregious example of all. One I can’t believe gets printed on so many postcards with nary a peep:

Photo courtesy of
‘Washington Monument at night’
courtesy of ‘BrianMKA’

The Washington Monument

Can we be any MORE obvious? Is it necessary that, as a nation, we walk around with our phallus just hanging out for all to see? You know where else that happens? That’s right. Pride Parades. Our tax dollars should not be used to display this shameful affront to traditional American values, so it’s time to question the funding of the National Parks Service.

Please be sure to contact incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) to let him know how you feel about having your tax dollars used so offensively.

Tiffany Baxendell Bridge is an Internet enthusiast and an incurable smartass. When not heckling the neighborhood political scene on Twitter, she can be found goofing off with her ukulele, Bollywood dancing, or obsessing about cult TV. She is That Woman With the Baby In the Bar.

Tiffany lives in Brookland with her husband Tom, son Charlie, and two high-maintenance cats. Read why Tiffany loves DC.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Flickr 

13 thoughts on “More art Congressional Republicans should censor while they’re at it

  1. None of the images and examples in your article are offensive to religious or Christian beliefs. The four-minute video, “A Fire in My Belly” by late artist David Wojnarowicz, depicting ants crawling over Jesus that was removed from display in the National Portrait Gallery was offensive to Christians. Those who argue for separation of church and state should consider that the display of an anti Christian image in a US Government facility is as offensive to those of us who believe as a display of a Christmas nativity in a US Government building may be to those who don’t.

  2. @Tiffany Bridge

    Your obtuseness is breathtaking. It’s either a display of disingenuousness — with you willfully missing the point of why Christians may adamantly prefer their tax dollars not pay for the purposeful debasement of Christ for liberal political theater — or you’re truly incapable of reasoned, or even just empathetic, thought.

    Just curious: What if a Tea Partier at rally had a photoshopped picture of President Obama’s face covered in ants — to artistically signify the encroachment of government (or whatever)? How quickly would you call the sign-holder a racist? Leftism is a brain disease.

  3. It’s cute that you think I’m a leftist, but the truth is I wouldn’t be bothered at all by Obama with ants on his face. Aside from personally finding the idea of bugs on anyone’s face kind of oogy. But that’s an aesthetic choice, not a political one.

    Really, since when have ants been a symbol of disdain for, well, anything?

  4. Wow your ignorance is stunning. The Washington Monument is not phallic, it’s a representation of a spike to warn off the vampires! It’s commented on in Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend, a cautionary tale about the bloodsuckers taking over.

    I have not read the biography – sadly forced to be sold as fiction to an ignorant populace unaware of the great man’s real achievements and skills – but I have to assume this will be documented at length in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

    Educate yourself!

  5. Tiffany Bridge – you are a tool. How would like to see an image of your naked body covered in cockroaches and paid for through public taxation? One might think the artist were maliciously commenting on your aversion to soap, but when have cockroaches ever been a symbol of disdain for anything? Apparently, you have no grounds to object according to your own juvenile argument.

  6. E Kinsey, the article is being sarcastic.

    To all whom claim the video is “offensive to Christians,” on whose authority do you speak for all Christians? Not even all Catholics object to the video. The Catholic League claimed that it was offensive, but the Catholic Leagues claims that the Simpsons is offensive and the Vatican thinks the Simpsons is pro-God and pro-religion. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has no opinion on the art piece. The protesters do not have the authority to speak for all Christians, but they lack in authority they make up for in loudness.

  7. I’m sure if someone were to depict me covered in bugs as part of an artistic statement, I would be perfectly capable of standing up for myself. Or deciding that I really didn’t care. What I most assuredly would not need is a bunch of hacks imagining offense on my behalf and pretending to speak for me.

    It never fails to astonish me that my co-religionists think Jesus is so oversensitive that he needs us to object to every tiny and imagined offense. I expect Jesus would prefer that we stop and ask ourselves if maybe the artist actually has a valid point about the way a nominally Christian society treats AIDS patients, but there I go again, with the “whatever you do to the least of these my brothers, you do unto me” stuff again.

  8. I find it hypocritical that the government is allowed to shove the Christian religion down our throats and any court challenges based on separation of church and state are defeated because it is ruled that the government is ostensibly promoting the “cultural” rather than the “religious” nature of the Chritian religion – yet when religious symbolism is viewed culturally, suddenly the religionists get all up in arms because any criticism is viewed as an attack on their religion. They can’t have it both ways – you can’t pretend that religion is “cultural” for the purposes of giving it a special place in a secular society but then turn around and claim a special religious exception tp be free from criticism when it is given a cultural treatment.

    My beliefs are extremely offended by having religionists insist that in order to pledge my allegiance to the flag of my country that I must “acknowledge” their God – but do the religionists ever care about anyone else being offended?

  9. Which is more offensive, a video of ants crawling over a small sculpture or the depiction of a naked man being tortured to death by driving spikes through his extremities?