Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit
Fire in My Belly de David Wojnarowicz, Diamanda Galas
Uploaded by altimsah. – Independent web videos.
Yesterday, the National Portrait Gallery pulled a video installation from the exhibit “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” following an uproar from conservative groups. The four-minute video, “A Fire in My Belly” by late artist David Wojnarowicz, depicts ants crawling over Jesus Christ, symbolizing the pain suffered by AIDS victims.
Hide/Seek marks the first major museum survey to explore sexual identity and LGBT themes in American portraiture, and features pieces by Andy Warhol, Annie Leibowitz and Jasper Johns. Although the exhibit has been in place since Oct. 30, it only drew criticism following the publication of an article on Monday by conservative news site CNSNews.com. The article notes that the “Christmas-season exhibit” has used federal funds to display “naked brothers kissing, genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The Smithsonian does receive roughly 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, though funds for specific exhibits — including this one — are raised privately.
In the maelstrom that followed, a National Portrait Gallery spokeswoman said the museum and other Smithsonian museums have been flooded with calls, with people contacting “any e-mail address they could find.” Prior to the article, she said no complaints had been received.
Museum director Martin Sullivan released a statement yesterday about the decision to pull the piece, a portion of which is as follows:
“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.
The museum’s statement at the exhibition’s entrance, “This exhibition contains mature themes,” will remain in place.”
It only takes a quick glance at the comments on CNS to see what type of feedback the Smithsonian was receiving yesterday. But the criticism hasn’t been restricted to ordinary CNS readers. The Hill reports that House Speaker-designate Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have called for the exhibit to be shuttered, with Cantor calling the exhibit “an outrageous use of taxpayer money.”
Of course, the larger question here for the Smithsonian is whether their funding is at risk. TBD notes that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has called for the Smithsonian’s budget to be reviewed and their books audited. TBD does a great job of taking a look back on whether past threats over controversial pieces have resulted in actual budget cuts for museums.
Sullivan has stated that the exhibit will remain open as planned through February 13.
UPDATE: In protest of the National Portrait Gallery’s decision, Transformer Gallery will be showing “A Fire in My Belly” on a continuous 24-hour loop. The gallery is also organizing a silent walk to the museum at 5:30 p.m.
Comments
152 Responses to “Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit”
December 1st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
[...] Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit Things You’ll Only See Once: Derek Jeter as a National [...]
December 1st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Thanks to Rebecca for reporting this! It’s great to see a media report that isn’t biased. Rebecca just reported the facts and didn’t offer a opinion of her own. Thanks Rebecca for showing high integrity reporting!
December 1st, 2010 at 1:53 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Todd Reade, Easy Gay Life. Easy Gay Life said: Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit – We Love DC http://dlvr.it/9XWWZ [...]
December 1st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Why not show a painting of Mohammad with ants on HIS face? Attacking Christ is an outrage.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I am completely mystified at the idea that people seem to have that the only possible interpretation of ants on an image constitutes an attack on what that image represents. Aside from the statement the artist was actually making (which was about the suffering of AIDS patients, and what image is a more globally recognized symbol of suffering than a crucifix?)… depicting ants on a picnic blanket doesn’t constitute an attack on the integrity of picnics and all who engage in them.
As a Christian myself, I actually think the image of ants, as an important part of the natural world’s process of decay, crawling over a crucifix makes an interesting statement about the spiritual effects of the gradual decay of our bodies, especially when accelerated by something as pernicious as AIDS. What I’m *outraged* about is the way my co-religionists are using this issue to bludgeon curators of art who are trying to bring an important social issue to their attention.
December 1st, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I understand your comment,Tiffany, but consider the fact that the image of Jesus to many should not be USED in this way. Is the artist comparing the pain of AIDS to the pain Jesus suffered for taking on the sins of the world ? I don’t think this is a useful comparison. It was done to create publicity.
AND, I am SICK AND TIRED of Jesus being used for political purposes by artists who dont give a damn how many people they offend, on the contrary as you well know, “IN YOUR FACE” and AGITATING art is the vogue and ANYTHING beautiful is forbidden.
If the piece offends ONE old lady somewhere, it’s enough to remove it. OK so why don’t you put a MOHAMMED with ants on him next time and lets see how many people get offended by that.
The ATTACKS on CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS are EVERYWHERE: even if this is not intended as an attack, it is offensive and selfish and I don’t want ONE PENNY of my tax dollars going to fund it.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
That’s it, Ava, I’m offended by your comment. Does that mean I should remove it from this site? No. Dissenting voices are important.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
@Tom Bridge,
Dissenting voices are great.
Pay for them with your own money.
That’s what this is about, not the speech itself, which I am happy to have appear in a private gallery. Knock yourself out. Just don’t use my money to pay for it against my will.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I am not for censorship but just as tax dollars should not be used to fund discrimination or offense to minorities, gays, women, etc. they shouldn’t be used to offend members of any religion either. I am aware that the government is only housing this exhibit but that is too much support. They should find a private sponsor and location.
Our new litmus test should be Islam. “HWMR” “How Would Muslims React” Could/would/should you portray Muhammad with ants and blood all over him? If not, what makes him or his adherents more deserving of respect than Jesus and his adherents?
December 1st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
AMEN Count Zero and Ava
Y’all want it – pay for it.
Don’t expect me to.
We are BROKE – BROKE…
Pull their funding now.
Let the rich artists and estates of Andy Warhol, Annie Leibowitz and Jasper Johns, and others pay for it.
Not me.
I find the entire thing a travesty.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Once you religious nuts realize that this whole sham they call religion is nothing but wise tales, the world will definitely be a better place.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Ava P….. I LOVE YOU!!!! Nicely said!!!!
December 1st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I can not say it any better then Ava—-my radio listeners feel the same. As a radio show host in the NorthEast, many people fell just like Ava. Just For once, for once, offend someone else this holiday season!
The reason you did use MOHAMMED is you know the repercussions would be just a touch more, how shall I say, Extreme??!!
December 1st, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Some people like to skim before they post instead of reading what is said, so I’ll post this bit for you.
“The Smithsonian does receive roughly 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, though funds for specific exhibits — including this one — are raised privately.”
The outrageous things said on the CNS website were so incredibly hateful and overwhelmingly violent that I was sick to my stomach for two days over the number of people who would act in such a way. What really got to me was the so called “Christians” spouting such hatred and intention of violence. One quote in the thousands of comments (and yes I read them all out of shock) even called for Jesus to kill everyone involved. I personally would never counter something I considered to be hateful with outright violence, because then who would actually have the moral high ground? I have the extreme privilege it seems of knowing no man or woman who calls themselves a Christian who would react in such a manner as this. You can be offended by something, everyone gets offended by things and everyone has the right to be angry, but what right does any man have to hate or kill another?
On a final note: It’s art. If you don’t like the content don’t go to the exhibit. I think it’s a shame that the gallery was forced to take down a piece. Some of our most famous historical pieces around the world were considered extremely offensive in their day.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:44 pm
If the show is so open and honest, lets see them nail Mohamahad’s butt to the wall and cover it with ants or better yet put his image in a jar of urine.
Stop all federal funding for this bunch of yahoos.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Every other museum has a ton of Jesus and Christian themed paintings. Now it’s off-limits for an artist to use his likeness?
December 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Well, it is beyond me how this “depicts the suffering of an aids patient”. It seems more like a depiction of madness and mindlessness. But the Clorox ad appearing as it plays is an interesting interplay of business, profit and mainstream “understanding” of how to solve or alleviate health problems brought on by the innocents who engage in risky behavior. Woe to those who don’t engage in it, but are exposed to the dangers anyway.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Heather – excellent analogy! I’m going to start using that from now on! “HWMR” or “WWMD” (What would Muslims do?).
You said it perfectly, if you would not do something to an image of Muhammed that you would do to the image of Jesus – then why are Muslims more deserving your respect than Christians?
December 1st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Perhaps artists should start portraying the prophet Mohammad in such a manner. Then, they would know the meaning of the word maelstrom.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
An art installation made with private funds but housed in a public gallery (which certainly includes a lot of religious art) makes the neo-cons explode, but yet they think LIBERALS have a “Political Correctness” problem?? Give me a fricken break.
Just go look how much incessant whining a gay-centric (I know, shocking they want it censored..) installation virtually none of them will see, or a single atheist billboard somewhere, can cause on a national level. Ridiculous.
PS: Gays and Atheists pay their taxes just like you.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
This art exhibit was put on using privately raised funds, not taxpayer dollars. So, consider that.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Tiffany and Ava, both of you have commented in words which express how I basically feel. Both have good points. I would like to say that censorship is the enemy in our land of liberty, but I (perhaps we) am/are creators of our own demise if we allow ANY depiction or effigy of our Lord and Savior to exist for “shock art” purposes. I applaud the S.I. for removing the atrocity, and I humbly accept the apology of the Director. I was just in D.C. in Nov. for a week and enjoyed the free time I had to enjoy the saved pieces of history in the other buildings. If that display was in my view, I believe I would have left the mall and gone to one of my representatives offices to complain. I just don’t think it is an appropriate method to convey feelings on what I know must be a terrible, painful, illness.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
December 1st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
To Mike Hunt.
How do you know….aren’t you taking a gigantic risk for all eternity? Think about it.
You would do well to read about Union General Lew Wallace’s Novel Ben Hur. And why he became a believer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur:_A_Tale_of_the_Christ
December 1st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Reply To Heather:
Housing represents quite a lot of support. There’s a cost to having workers install the stuff and then take it out. There’s a cost for storage. Workers also have to be paid for the time they spend cleaning up after visitors; if you have a particularly large crowd generated by an exhibit it then takes more time to clean up. There’s also increased security, and a higher utilities bill.
That’s a lot of money.
We–the taxpayers–are paying for these expenses. Ideally we would get great art, but instead we get gay incest and “Piss Christ: Part 2.”
The fact that they are housing such a controversial exhibit will get a lot of people angry, which means lost revenue from lower ticket sales.
The government will then take even more of our money to make up the difference.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The “What if you put ants on Muhammad’s face” argument is completely specious. If the artist had used an image of Muhammad, yes, it’s true, there would indeed be widespread outrage in the Muslim world, and no doubt some of that religion’s fundamentalists would be calling for all sorts of violence.
And we, as a freedom-loving people, would all be talking about how ridiculous and inappropriate that reaction is. Which is pretty much what I’m talking about right now when it’s my co-religionists doing it.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:13 pm
This video is an excellent example of what happens when you remove Christian from a society. You get completely insane artistic expression. I’ve been a professional artist for over twenty-five years and I can tell first hand the art community is full of mostly lunatics. God save us from the nightmare of these atheist nutters!
December 1st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Tiffany Bridge:
THANK YOU.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Mike Hunt: “Once you religious nuts realize that this whole sham they call religion is nothing but wise tales, the world will definitely be a better place.”
Since you believe in nothing, obviously, you’ll fall for anything.
BONUS – the last country that decided to crush the free expression of religion? THE SOVIET UNION.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I don’t really understand how the same groups who defended the use of public property for groups (churches, boyscouts, etc) who not only preach anti-gay messages (direct personal ones, like saying they are perverts, evil, dangerous, unworthy of parenthood or marriage, etc … not just a flashed imagery that could be interpreted as insensitive) but also flat out ban gays from participation could demand that something like this be removed from public property.
Would it have been more appropriate if they curator followed example and simply banned Christians from participating? I honestly don’t see any substantial difference, and the anti-gay Christian group’s own legal precedent should probably allow it.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
It makes no sense. Aids suffering! It’s 100% preventable. If gay men stop putting their dicks in each others asses, the problem will go away. Problem solved.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Further evidence of my theory that 99.99% of modern “artists” have no talent in any field that could be considered useful/marketable, and therefore gravitate to “art” where they can at least do something talentless, yet outrageous, and call it art, and some art critic, with even less “talent” than the “artist”, will claim it is great art!
December 1st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
The artist would never do this to a picture of Mohummad.
And… the museum would never accept ants crawling over a depiction of Muhummad.
Funny how Christianity is the only target they go after.
December 1st, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Would the president take his family to see it?
December 1st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
[...] put up an apologia for the offending video here. No Comments by admin on December 1, 2010 • Permalink Posted in Art, [...]
December 1st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Why did you even consider this exhibit? To me, and to all I know, this was ill-conceived, misguided, rude to the extreme, insensitive, way beyond pathetic,…. Oh, well. I have almost given up on the “ARTS” people. I believe you live in a self made delusion of grandeur.
We really need to UP all of our collective respect and manners. I have always held the Smithsonian in high regard. ..Not so much anymore! You make me feel sad.
Linnell Dunaway,
December 1st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
At least nobody was killed. Had the video been an image of the prophet Muhammad covered in ants, I think the museum may have been burnt down.
December 1st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
stop trashing jesus.. this is not art
December 1st, 2010 at 5:19 pm
oh and one more thing… you can call it what you want.. it is simply not art.. it is trash
December 1st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Sick satanists.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I always find it amusing when artists intend for their work to be “provocative” and yet are surprised when people viewing it are then provoked. That said, I’m not sure the piece is as blasphemous as some seem to think.
But whether it’s good or evil (or good or amateurish, for that matter) where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to take away money from anyone in order to give it to artists of whatever caliber?
December 1st, 2010 at 6:23 pm
This is not just about discrimination. I would have no problem with an exhibit of artwork by gays and lesbians about their love or experiences being on display in a public location if the exhibit was not a smack in the face to another interest group. I don’t think a church should use public buildings to bash and humiliate gays but I would have no problem with something that simply expresses an opinion w/o malice. This is intentionally malicious. Just like Jesus made of poop or whatever. Why do we tolerate hateful expressions of difference with Christianity but not Islam? The difference thus far is that Christians tolerate it or just verbally express outrage. Some Muslims are willing to kill for it. Both groups have a right to speak up against disrespect. Why are we afraid to mention one but totally disrespect the other?
December 1st, 2010 at 6:25 pm
For a while there, the Smithsonian was beginning to look like the William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library and Adult Book Store.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Remove govt funding from these nuts.
That would be a good start in reducing the grip these various degenerates, atheists &wackos have on art.
Art in our society is too important to be wasted on these fools.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I think its stupid to pull it… I think the worlds best art is that which inflames and makes people wonder, “Is it art”… In art there is nothing off limits… I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed… But a Christian blows his horn and gets mad if someone shows him something they don’t like… If this was out in the open, in a public park thats one thing… But in an art exhibit? Grow up… A four min video is not going to destroy Christianity.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:47 pm
[...] (Second column, 10th story, link) [...]
December 1st, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Simple solution.
Offend all thereligions with the same exhibit (or none).
Ant covered Jesus
Ant covered Muhammed
Ant covered Moses
I’d also state the obvious that no matter how vitriolic the semantics are on this issue, I dont think any heads have been lopped off…
December 1st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
My 8 year old son realizes that sometimes things happen that he doesn’t like and doesn’t agree with, but he doesn’t get to decide what other people do with their free will.
Apparently free will is something that some Christians accept only if it doesn’t offend their delicate sensibilities.
Freedom isn’t free, remember? The price of a free society means that sometimes people will do things you don’t like. Being a mature human being means that you can accept that.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I will say this: covering Jesus with ants is artistically lazy. If you can’t paint or draw or take a picture, then you shock the middle-class with stuff that is deliberately offensive. It just reeks of 1980s era culture war, like a faded poster of Jesse Helms. The curators at the Smithsonian have the right to exhibit whatever they want. But the artist is a hack.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Free speech, right? Or is that only when it agrees with your personal theology? …
Religious zealots are the biggest PC demanding, freedom hating cowards around. And no, not everyone does or has to like them. Plenty think their beliefs to be a dangerous social disease, and given their crime, divorce, abuse, drug, etc. epidemic I’d say their is some truth in it. But who the heck cares? Go watch just about any national news any night of the week and you’ll probably see condemnations of others far more insensitive than a vaguely, abstractedly critical 4 minute clip they’ll never see.
Basically; if you are too fragile in your beliefs to even hear of the existence of a critical viewpoint, then that’s your own problem. You have to deal with others and their beliefs if you expect them to deal with you and yours.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:38 pm
gee i watched this video and it looked more like a 9-inch nails music video than anything else. so let’s see… if freedom isn’t free, TJ, why is someone else’s video-masturbation my responsibility to pay for? as others said, if you wish to say it, or show it, pay for it yourself. does an 8 year old son have to ‘pay’ for someone else’s disagreeable what-evers? with what — his allowance? that was the dumbest post i ever saw. oh yeah and in the video, what’s with the guy unzipping his pants and taking ‘it’ out? keep it where it belongs and you’ll avoid all kinds of diseases and sufferings. hey TJ did you tell that to your 8 year old? you may want to consider it. free will is one thing. making me pay for your freedom-art ain’t freedom for me.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I have read many comments about the fact that no museum would EVER allow ANY depiction of Muhammad out of respect (fear of death at the hands of a member of the Religion of peace is closer to the truth)
I challenge the Arts World to start showing it’s integrity and start using Muhammad and Allah in it’s work the same way God and Jesus are used. Let’s start with Hollywood utilizing Allah’s and Muhammad’s names in the same way Jesus Christ and God are maligned. For example: “Muhammad F*cking Prophet” or “Allah Damn it”. OK – time to go back to reality – it’ll never happen because all Christians do is boycott, protest or try to prevent their tax dollars from being used to insult the God that they worship. They are not known to strap bombs to themselves , while running int crowds screaming “Jehovah Ahkbar!”
December 1st, 2010 at 7:49 pm
if Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity
December 1st, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Do this crap on your own time and on your own dime!
This is a free country, why is this institute tax
supported anyway, especially during such dark economic times as this!
December 1st, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Making fun of Allah would get you dead It is not OK with me to be Anti-Christian or politically correct Stop this Dung I do not want my Tax monies to go for this junk defund them now
December 1st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
If it weren’t for their double standards, the left would have no standards at all. Splitting hairs and contradicting themselves is the liberal sport of life. If these cowardly artists really wanted to make a statement, they’d boldly confront Islam’s mistreatment of homosexuals and women with an “in your face Mohammed” statement. But of course real outrage, requires real courage, a quantity is short supply on the morally equivocating left. And for another bold move, instead of sucking up tax payer funds to subsidize agenda-driven “art”, why not forgo the feast at the public trough and redirect those self-serving “art dollars” to feeding the the hungry. Oh, and while the lefties have no problem spending, or pocketing other people’s tax money as “art subsidies”, it’s common knowledge how tight-fisted they are with their own charitable contributions. And for the final bogus arguement that the outrage over the defiling of Jesus is censorship, you can say or paint whatever you want, but don’t ask the taxpayer to be your sugar daddy. Grow up, man up, and wake up.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I wonder how the gay community would feel if the Smithsonian supported a mocking, anti-gay exhibit.
Would they be tolerant and call it thought provoking ‘art,’ or would they demand it be shut down?
I think we all know how that would go over.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:13 pm
While I am generally against censorship (esp government censorship), this “work” needs to be looked at in the cultural context of our day. Fact: when “art” depicts anything that might possibly be objectionable to Muslims no matter how unreasonable the objection, great deference is shown to Muslims. Why? When “art” depicts Christianity in a less than pleasing light, the powers that be call it “edgy.” I call this double standard cowardice, which underlies all political correctness. Here’s a challenge for “artists” (so-called): since most of you lean left and since you play to a left leaning crowd (you know you do), the brave thing – the edgy thing would be to create art that the Right appreciates and that tweaks YOUR audience. What’s going on most of the time is better called “performance art” where the underlying “piece” is simply a provocation, and the REAL SHOW is the vitriolic anger of those who are offended (again, as long as the offended aren’t Muslims, or blacks, or liberal women, etc.). Completely gutless.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:15 pm
JOE says, “I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed…”
Until the morally relativist phonies can ever be honest with themselves, anyone with a modicum of discernment realizes their idiocies for what they are: simply verbal masturbation. If it wasn’t for the whining of the tiny atheist minority in this country demanding the removal of prayers in school, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, nativity scenes in parks, using the word “Christmas” in department stores, and on, and on, and on … Christians would not be as outraged at your death by a thousand cuts strategy to marginalize and destroy them. Any idea how foolish it sounds to say, “I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed… “???
December 1st, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Freedom of speech must be protected at all cost! This is a fact of our Democracy, pure and simple. However, “reasonable” action, decency and discretion, also should be promoted within our society, especially by folks in positions of power and authority. The Smithsonian, a historic, esteemed and iconic American institution, was made possible by a Brit who never saw the shores of this great land. The purpose of his endowment was for the “increase & diffusion of Knowledge among men.” Accordingly, I’m pretty sure that imagery of ants crawling upon a likeness of Jesus Christ or photos of naked brothers kissing probably were NOT what he had in mind.
The museum’s current “director,” a Mr. Martin Sullivan, has shown through this exhibit a seemingly complete disregard for the Smithsonian’s founder’s intentions. Moreover, he has clearly brought into question his own ability to distinguish between that which is reasonable, decent and discrete, versus that which is Pure Horse Crap!
Accordingly, Mr. Sullivan, find some grace and kindly step down from your position. Voters, take a moment to contact your Senators and Congressmen to have the plug pulled on federal funding of the Smithsonian. Not only is your money being wasted, but we simply cannot afford it!
As for Freedom Speech, our Constitutions 1st Amendment, I’m going to do my part to protect it at all cost. And, ultimately, the only way to do so is by practicing the 2nd Amendment. How does that sit with all you free-thinking, self-absorbed, straight-male-WASP-hating, Godless liberals?
December 1st, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Katarica:
The Smithsonian should not host it as the facility is tax supported. If someone wants to peddle this kind of fecal matter let them exhibit it in a facility that is not supported by my dollars.
If the Smithsonian can not stick to science and history and the display of its development then I am for not funding it at all. Let the Gay, lesbian, transvestite, bi-sexual, trans-species-sexual, trans-natural community pool their own money together and and create an exhibit hall for themselves, then they can show their (expletive) to their hearts content!
December 1st, 2010 at 8:31 pm
In Jesus own words “Father forgive them…for they know not what they do”
Praise God for forgivness and mercy because this nation needs some.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Just a few quick points I’d like to make to my some of you who have commented:
1) Christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship with God, please stop representing us by throwing on the Christian jersey if you aren’t actually playing for the team; you are the reason so many people think we are hypocrites.
2) Yes it IS offensive when people who have stolen the fruit of my labors turn and use those fruits to fund things which display my Savior to the world in ways that do not glorify Him.
3) Didn’t the Smithsonian used to be a little more elevated? Have none of my fellow Christians taken note of the barren fig tree? Were we not instructed about how we would know the season of the last days? Remember the faithful Jeremiah, and how the people of his day refused to hear the truth, but listened only to the false prophets who continually told them that all was well, that they should go back to sleep… But what did Christ say? “But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.”
December 1st, 2010 at 8:32 pm
“making me pay for your freedom-art ain’t freedom for me.”
BS. Gays pay taxes that fund YOUR sherades, FAR more of it, and they can’t even so much as get married in most places. Stop getting your panties in a bind over nothing.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:44 pm
All the “artist” had to do was put an AIDS victim on the cross…not Jesus Christ. He could have skipped the cross all together. Then the point would have been made,but he wouldn’t be the “hero” to his GLBT friends. No, he knew what he was doing and chose to be…well, you put in the word.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Dear Taxpaying Americans,
I am an Artist. A theatre artist. I never took a nickel of grant money or public money.
I produce excellent plays based upon mythology, folk tales, religious tales and original work.
I am not famous nor do I lust for fame. Many of my colleagues are of the same mind.
You do not have to fund artists. The graphic arts industry in in the hundreds of billions.
Theatre Arts industry just spent 330 million on a broadway show named spiderman–while 400 families control the union that works the Broadway houses.
Actors make upwards of 20 million a picture. Let them pay for their friends, relatives and others who can only get jobs through the “casting couch” method.
The music industry amasses hundreds of billions of dollars–why do taxpayers have to fund music?
If the Market does not need the artists works, why should we pay for it.
I ask for noone to fund my work…I actually earn the money to produce my works.
Let all Artists find the courage of their convictions and stop begging hardworking Americans for their hard earned money to fund the wims of a few cowardly artists.
Rowdy Boots
December 1st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The mild imagery in this apparently “anti-Christian” piece was FAR too kind. Just look at how personally all the filthy ego-masturbating “Christians” on this thread imagined it. They are not the only American citizens, they are not the tax payers, and they certainly are not the only people worthy of human concerns. I don’t care if your too insecure to handle a free society.
And, FYI, some find you, your life, and your tax subsidized activities offensive as well – especially people who watched thousands of friends die as your leaders laughed and cheered, and continue to demonize and demand legal and social supremacy today.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:03 pm
One person’s religiosity should not be another person’s problem.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“It was not the museum’s intention to offend.”
What a load!
It was absolutely their intention to offend. What they completely miscalculated is HOW MUCH it would offend any reasonable human being.
There is no other possible reason for their DECISION to use a depiction of Jesus Christ, when their point could be made just as well with any other likeness.
As others have stated, they might as well have used a Mohammad likeness, but where the idiots think offending Christians is fun / funny, they seem to have the presence of mind to realize offending Muslims can be a lethal mistake.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I am so sick and tired of folks claiming any sort of perversion and offensive use of religious symbols is “art” because some jerk who calls himself an artist slapped some material together and threw it out there for the world to see. Hog wash. Its garbage, its insulting to a most holy God and His people. My gosh, what is wrong with people when they are willing to accept these this sort of rubbish? This stuff is like an open sewer, and yes, there is no way it would have been allowed if it had been Muhammad. If the subject is AIDS there were a heck of a lot of other ways to get the message across. Disgusting.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:25 pm
OMFG, 11 seconds of a 4 minute clip that’s paid for privately, a flash of imagery so inconsequential as to be essentially unnoticeable unless your looking for it, shows a cross with ants on it!!!! Call the media, call your senators, call the police, destroy the Smithsonian!!! Only I get to use facilities paid for by their taxes.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Why does the left continue to attack Judeo-Christian values? This is constant — “piss Christ” from Basquiat, various “Jesus was gay” works, etc.
I’d like to see them besmirch the buddha, mohammed, and shiva, but I’m not holding my breath.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:31 pm
PLEASE TAKE THIS “TAX PAID FOR” GARBAGE OUT! I AM SO SICK OF BEING “OFFENDED BY THE LIBERAL ELITES. THE NEW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS NEEDS TO ONCE AND FOR ALL CUT OFF ALL FUNDING TO THE ARTS AND NPR! SEND THE MONEY TO THE DOWN AND OUT UNEMPLOYED THAT ARE ABOUT TO BECOME HOMELESS!
December 1st, 2010 at 9:47 pm
It seems that there is some confusion reading some of these comments about the nature of objections to the supposed art.
1. There are no violent protests as there has been from Mohammedan cartoons.
2. The cartoons were privately funded.
3. Smithsonian Curators should have developed better taste as to what is good artistic expression.
4. AIDS is a preventable disease spread by promiscuous behavior.
5. As an artist myself, I avoid viewing hideous works if at all possible.
6. There is really nothing about this work that is desirable whatsoever.
7. The Smithsonian should have it’s funding cut like the rest of Americans that are not living off of taxpayer money and have had to do with less.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:52 pm
The hatred posted on here is ridiculous. This exhibit was PRIVATELY FUNDED and if you don’t like what’s in it then DON’T GO IN IT. It’s pretty sad that I sometimes feel embarrassed to say that I was raised a Christian, because of the intense hatred that so many Christians spew. Remember Sunday school when you were taught to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”? We expect our children to do these things, and yet the majority of us completely forget them as soon as we see something we don’t like.
Absolutely nothing about the video was meant to be offensive or to attack any religion. If you are so lacking in confidence in your own beliefs that you find offense in art that was not malicious in any way, then you need to reevaluate your opinions rather than attack others’.
I personally am looking forward to seeing that exhibit as soon as I get the chance. All the haters on here would probably also benefit from visiting it.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:55 pm
This is why God commanded us to NOT carve graven images of anything in Heaven! It’s in the book…read it! ;)
December 1st, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“Apparently free will is something that some Christians accept only if it doesn’t offend their delicate sensibilities.”
Then don’t use their money.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:10 pm
I have read the Bible multiple times. If a person is not a Christian and decides that showing ants crawling on a crucifix is what he needs to make a point, do Christians have a right to criticize? NO. Not at all. Christians should NOT impose their beliefs on others, because it is a person’s choice to believe in Christ. Being bombarded does nothing. So in the meantime, tolerance and acceptance need to be exercised, NOT ALL THIS HATRED. Good lord these comments really depress me.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:16 pm
“If Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity”
brilliant
December 1st, 2010 at 10:24 pm
It seems ridiculous to spend tax dollars on museums that can not support themselves. If people want to see art or literature or… then let them pay for it and support those areas. We can’t continue putting money in non-essential areas at the expense of losing the ability to give us choices and support the job and life-giving goal we need now. If we continue as we are, the chinese will soon be collecting our money. But not as taxes, but as the governments take to make this a country that becomes a sattelite for them, equal for all. They have trouble with a life that is legislated…do we want that because we don’t see the depth of our woes?
December 1st, 2010 at 10:29 pm
If you don’t want you tax money funding the arts, then don’t pay the portion of your tax dollars which goes to the arts.
Every year true pacifists with the courage of their convictions withhold the portion of their taxes which would go to the Department of Defense. I bet Jesus would do it.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:33 pm
I have been to the smithsonian several times. That will be no more! I hope the rest of this country takes offence to this POS museum of garbage. I would want to see this place totally disfunded from the government and the persons responsible for this insult brought to justice.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:39 pm
You know it’s odd that an HIV/AIDs activist would trash Jesus, when following the Bible’s teachings on sexuality would virtually eliminate STDs.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:41 pm
“I have read the Bible multiple times. If a person is not a Christian and decides that showing ants crawling on a crucifix is what he needs to make a point, do Christians have a right to criticize? NO. Not at all.”
So we don’t have the right to express criticism concerning a sacreligious “work of art”? I thought that’s what the freedom of speech was about. Who’s being intolerant?
December 1st, 2010 at 10:44 pm
“The hatred posted on here is ridiculous.”
It’s hateful to express criticism about a “work of art”?
“This exhibit was PRIVATELY FUNDED and if you don’t like what’s in it then DON’T GO IN IT.”
Can you provide a link to the profit and loss statement for this exhibit? Thanks.
“It’s pretty sad that I sometimes feel embarrassed to say that I was raised a Christian, because of the intense hatred that so many Christians spew.”
Why would you be embarrassed? If Christians aren’t following Jesus’ teachings, it’s not a reflection on Jesus, now is it?
“Remember Sunday school when you were taught to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”? We expect our children to do these things, and yet the majority of us completely forget them as soon as we see something we don’t like.”
True.
“Absolutely nothing about the video was meant to be offensive or to attack any religion.”
How do you know?
“If you are so lacking in confidence in your own beliefs”
I’m not, thanks.
“that you find offense in art that was not malicious in any way,”
How do you know?
“then you need to reevaluate your opinions rather than attack others’.”
You assume a lot in your post.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Aside from the ants on the crucifix, what is all the masterbation about? Why does every exhibit about gay life have to be so full of pornagraphic images?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Interesting how quiet it was until a small conservative Christian website revealed what was done. Had this been Muhammad instead of Jesus, the uproar from MSM would have been deafening.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Dittos on Ava P. (#6)!!!
I wonder what made the lesbos at the Smithsonian think this was acceptable in any venue???
Why not show Obama covered in ants? At least it would correctly depict the failed Hoax and Chains he placed on the black community he says he’s supports! Bush doesn’t look so bad after 2-years of Obooboo (Jimmy Carter on steroids!)
December 1st, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Interesting how much emphasis on tolerance by Christians. If we keep moving towards an Islam enviornment, such as Europe is doing, we will say goodbye to tolerance. Really, can you imagine anything close to this being accepted by Muslims. There is definitely a double standard.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I am sure if this would have been Muhammed, it would never have been included in the exhibit out of sensitivity for Islam, after all it is a religion of peace. The same kind of sensitivity never goes for Christianity or Christ or depictions of Mary at the Whitney. What we’ve got here in the entire exhibit is political crap masquerading as art.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:49 pm
ants on muhammmed?? more like flies… ants aren’t attracted to fecal matter!!
December 1st, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Justin-
Christians should have free speech like everyone else. We’re Americans, that’s our right. But if Christians are truly loving as God commands they would not be so malicious. I can’t see how you could could call yourself a Christian and yet say such vicious things. These are not intellectual criticisms of art, but attacks against someone else’s beliefs and feelings. If you feel the need to react this way to something, then that implies to the world that you don’t have confidence in yourself. If you’ve ever taken a psychology class or paid attention to people around you, you know this.
Funding? Research it. “While the Smithsonian receives federal funding for their facilities, funds for exhibitions are raised privately, Smithsonian spokesperson Linda St. Thomas told CNS. Donors for the exhibit included The Calamus Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, The John Burton Harter Charitable Foundation, and The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation. Donors to the exhibit have decried the decision.” In one of the comments someone said that Andy Warhol and other artists should be funding this, there ya go. They are. So get over it. And don’t go to the damn exhibit if it’s such a big deal.
If you want to accuse me of assuming, read through all the posts on here. I think people’s opinions and hatred are spelled out pretty well. If you want to read some of David Wojnarowicz’s beliefs, google him and read his quotes. Let me know if you find something malicious, because I have yet to. It was stated explicitly in multiple comments made by museum spokespersons that he had not meant to attack anyone by it. So why on earth should any of us jump to the conclusion that that was his intent? The other posts on here are jumping to far more conclusions than I am!
http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/DavidW/DW_index.html
This is a work of his that I thought was especially poignant. He is stating facts how he sees them. At no point does he attack anyone else. Look through his other art. It depicts sexual and morbid things, because that is how he saw his life: he was very sexual and dealt with impending death daily because of his AIDS. Sooo next time someone wants to paint a Madonna and Child and have it displayed in a public museum, Atheists should get up in arms because the artist is expressing his/her opinion through religious symbols that infringe upon the Atheist’s beliefs, right?! Right. There is so much hypocrisy on this page.
And in the end, WHY DOES ANY OF THE SEMANTICS MATTER!!!!??!?!??!?!!? If you proclaim to be a Christian, for God’s sake (and in no way am I taking the Lord’s name in vain…I mean that quite literally) STOP ATTACKING A PERSON WHOM YOU DO NOT KNOW AND HAVE NO SOLID EVIDENCE WITH WHICH TO ACCUSE HIM OF THESE THINGS.
Oh, and I’m embarrassed because these mean and intolerant Christians give all Christians a horrible name, and the more “Christians” becoming these loathing, judgemental people, the more I doubt that this is a religion for me. Yeah, I don’t have confidence in my own religious beliefs. But I don’t take it out on others.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:54 pm
““If Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity”
brilliant”
More than brilliant! This comment gets right to the heart of the matter! If this exhibit had been about Mohammed it would have never seen the light of day, but because it contained a christian image, the powers that be saw no harm in allowing it! Considering their reaction to the cartoons the hypocrisy of leftists is truly amazing!
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
“The “What if you put ants on Muhammad’s face” argument is completely specious.”
Nonsense. “Brave” artists use Christian symbols on a regular basis, and often while sucking on public funds. The response is, at worst, some minor grumbling from Christians and questions about the use of gov’t funds for such “art”. Some “bravery” there, some risks taken.
I’m waiting for the “brave” artist to use a likeness of Muhammad. The response, given murderous rampages around the world over cartoons, would be serious. THAT would require bravery. Thus it won’t happen.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
@CB You may have been raised in a Christian home, but are you sure you’re a true Christian? Most Bible believing Christians would not see such a show, as the Bible tells us in, Phillipians 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Since this exhibit and others like it are none of these, Christians ought not to see such exhibits.
This may be a privately funded exhibit, but as many others have already pointed out, it is a tax funded, publically owned institution, and those who are employed to work are paid by tax payers, so using the private exhibit argument doesn’t wash.
I’m an artist as well, so to my fellow artists on the comments here- thank you! I don’t and will never take tax money for my work either. To the person who commented about the fact that liberals donate heavily to such “endowments” and foundations yet contribute miniscule amounts if ever to actual charities to help those they claim to care about-the poor, thank you for pointing that out!
If folks want to see this kind of exhibit- go for it! Just do it in a private gallery with private donations. That’s not censorship.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 am
All we are saying is to cover the Lord Jesus Christ with ants is not making a statement. It is a lack of respect and understanding for those who claim Jesus is Lord and the Prince of Peace. Comparing what would happen if the same ‘art’ was aimed at Islam, is to show how intolerant those who desire tolerance of everyone else are. Any artist doing the same thing to Muhammend would fear for his life, not only have to worry about comments from those who disagree.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 am
“While the Smithsonian receives federal funding for their facilities, funds for exhibitions are raised privately…”
Give me a break. Money is fungible, period. Gov’t money obtained for facilities is money that doesn’t have to be raised privately for that purpose, thus it can be reserved for exhibitions. The public is still on the hook and the exhibitors are still on the dole.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
OH MY GOD, PEOPLE! You may be right that Islam is treated with more care than Christianity. I agree that we should be able to depict Mohammed without fear of violence. But Christians are told that they will be persecuted. And that they should still turn the other cheek. So please, people, grow up and be the bigger person. I don’t even go to church anymore because I am so disillusioned by these hypocrisies, and yet I somehow retained these teachings more than most of these practicing Christians. If you react so volatily you are as bad as the people persecuting you. So how on earth are you supposed to convince others that Christianity is the way to go? There’s a reason that there are fewer and fewer Christians in the world each year.
Let people express their opinions. And the next time an Atheist demands a Bible statue in front of a courthouse should be taken down, shut up and get over it. Because you’re just as bad. I’m done with these intolerant comments. Go ahead and bash everything I say. I’m gonna go do something more important with my life than hate on someone’s art and peaceful expression. And I encourage all of you to do the same. Your hate does nothing but hurt you and push others away.
Thank you to all the people on here who did not immediately assume that gays and “lesbos” (thanks for that gem, ‘Sick of Smithson. perverts’) and other unique PEOPLES (because yes, they are human beings too) are out to get them. We need more people like you in the world.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 am
CB’s tirades are laughable. Why, how dare taxpayers and/or Christians react to purile “art” subsidized by public funds that made insensitive use of religious symbols? Don’t they understand that that amounts to “hate”? Don’t they know how depressing it is? Don’t they understand that only “brave artists” have a right to (subsidized) freedom of speech?
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 am
How does video of a man masturbating (2:07-2:20) express the suffering of those with AIDS? It is ridiculous to assert that the only problem with this video is the ants crawling on the crucifix. What’s the purpose of putting Jesus on the cross, side by side with a man masturbating, side by side with demonic images? Anyone who asserts this is just a video about suffering caused by AIDS needs to check their presumptions and their baises.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 am
“You may be right that Islam is treated with more care than Christianity.”
And the Sun “might” rise in the East tomorrow.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 am
To those defending this pathetic excuse for art can you tell me why we haven’t seen the cartoons of Mohammed in the Smithsonian. I’m thinking because the curators didn’t want to be killed for their expression like that Dutch cartoonist. Get it…a cartoonist is killed for drawing a cartoon!? If you liberals and atheists want religion out of government that also means the government should get out of supporting any display or facility that shows anything related to religion. If a creche or the ten commandments on a tablet are taboo then everything and anything that contains a religious connotation should be barred from any entity that receives gov’t support. Or that entity can voluntarily refuse any further gov’t funding — forever.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:41 am
A huge loss for anti Christian Zionists and Liberals alike. Nicely done.
December 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 am
Who cares? There is a LGBT club (among other related activities) in most US high schools today. The US has no morals anymore. Unless you consider blatant feminism and complete lack of common sense morals. Enjoy the future fools….
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 am
[...] This was a movie on GAY LOVE??? What would constitute a movie on gay nightmares?The response of the museum organizers of the so-called “Hide/Seek” is, of course, to blame those DARNED conservative knuckle-draggers [...]
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 am
LOL the same idiots that scream that a baby Jesus on a town hall lawn supported by tax dollars can’t be displayed because the government is endorsing religion have no problem with the mocking of Jesus in a Museum suported with tax dollars.
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:28 am
Its ok to have an opinion in this Country as long as your not a Christian. Sad future for this Nation. I’ll stick to loving my God with all my heart, soul and might. Lived 30 years without him & I would never go back to life without him.
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:28 am
The Seattle cartoonist whose artwork sparked the controversial “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!” has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI after being targeted by a radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, according to the newspaper that published her comics.
Molly Norris has moved and changed her name.
Artists don’t worry about Christians cutting off their heads if they mock Jesus. Keep telling yourself all religions are the same.
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 am
The next time you meet a homosexual you can thank them for bringing HIV-AIDS to America during the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. A depiction of ant’s crawling on homosexual would have been appropriate in light of the history of HIV-AIDS in America.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 am
I’m announcing that I’m planning on creating a new exciting art exhibit.
It’s going to show various images of a nude Mohammed covered in maggots. Next to Mohammed will be a glass top coffee table, with a solar powered crescent-shaped vibrator vibrating all across the top the table. A light will be shining on the solar panel at all times.
A copy of the Koran will be visible underneath the table through the glass top.
It’s a metaphor for the struggle of women and the World’s poor.
What are my chances of getting it exhibited anywhere in America? In the world?
Any takers? Publicity will not be a problem.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 am
This isn’t a freedom of speech issue you morons. The gov’t isn’t shutting down the exhibit. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if Christ is depicted in this way—because it’s such a tired and cowardly cliche to insult Christianity. And yes, they are cowards for the very reason Ava listed (WWMD?) but we know US artists will never have the balls the Danish cartoonists had (except for the South Park guys). That said, yes it’s offensive, but you ant-Christ supporters should be more angry at the SMITHSONIAN for pulling it. Why are THEY so weak? Because they want government funding, that’s why. Therefore, your precious ant-Christ artist is the “sacrificial lamb” to the greedy SMITHSONIAN can get their hands on the $$$$. A privately owned gallery could have just given the finger to all the Christians, right? Run the exhibit excited about all the free publicity?
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:25 am
if the christian community had not been under attack for so long this wouldn’t be an issue. It would have been a boycott and a few statements from Pat Robertson or somebody. The christian community has been bending over backwards for a long time, watching their culture degrade. What you have to expect is that if you poke at someone long enough your gonna get punched. What you liberals need to learn is that us religious right wingers are the majority. If you keep poking at our culture while we have been slowly letting yours co-mingle with ours we will fight back. I don’t want to see this nation slam hard right, but that is what is about to happen. Read your history books. This is not the first time it’s happened.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:59 am
I wonder how well this type of art would be tolerated in other certain countries. You don’t even see this spew in christian hating or anti jew countries. We all have the freedom of speech true. Govt funding is all screwed up true. What you do in your free time is your business and not mine. so say what you wanna say. I served this country so you could. You liberals like to scream racist, religious or political intolerance, or hate every time we speak up, or disagree. We are getting tired of it. Get ready to watch it come back around. We see your tricks and are educating our friends and family. I do not feel bad for you and you will get nothing more from me. Meet you again at the polls 2012. We are taking this country back.
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 am
Obviously, progressives only want to separate church and state when it suits them…
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:23 am
After reading Tiffany Bridge’s comments concerning the supposed feigned outrage of Christians being offended, I think possibly the most “specious” claim I’ve read is her announcement, and always first prefaced as defense, “I’m a Christian” to disarm. Really? If so, you’re a woefully confused one.
Perhaps Ms. Bridges you can explain the apparent conflict of Christ’s decay, being the resurrection and the story of the cross is the antithesis of decay. If you can’t see deviancy is this junk euphemistically referred to as “art”, I not only question your sincerity, but sanity.
So let’s flip the script and put the very valid comparison of Muslims aside for a minute, which is not specious or duplicitous in the least.
Let’s say some Christian, in his or her personal tirade against what he perceived as perversion, decided to paint the faces of well known homosexuals, decayed and residing in hell. While the exhibit is privately funded, his request is to have exhibit in the very public Smithsonian, under the guise of “Fire in the Rectum.”
Something tells me you’d be first in line screaming at the offense and demanding the exhibit be removed.
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 am
The Avant-garde so-called art community will never get it. Taxpayers will ALWAYS get enraged when it learns how its hard earned tax dollars are used to prop up fringe expression that has no financially self-sustaining audience of its own.
By definition, the publicly funded arts must steer toward conventionally accepted norms of propriety. Those people wishing to push the limits of expression, those wishing to make average people uncomfortable, those looking to offend MUST NOT the public to pay for it against their will.
Of course, the truth is, without coerced financing from the unwilling, these exhibits would not exist, because there is no viable market for it.
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 am
If an artist has to resort to desecrating an image of Jesus to make a point, then they can’t be that artistically literate.
His point of suffering from aids is completely lost. He has failed to evoke sympathy, and has only evoked disgust.
What genius deemed this as “creative”? The museum director’s qualifications are clearly questionable. This is not art. It’s a feeble attempt at making “art.”
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:35 am
I just watched the video with the article. Without taking any religious implications into account, this was not worth the time it took to watch it. It surely doesn’t promote the cause of those with AIDS.
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 am
Doesn’t really bother me but I am willing to bet that the same people that are for this would be dead set against the same art depicting Mohammad.. My point is that it seems OK to hate on Christians but everyone else is taboo.
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:50 am
when our tax $$$ goes toward supporting this sort of tripe, ESPECIALLY when we are toying with $$$ we do not have, i think of so many other similar incidents.
fund it yourself. portray it yourself. don’t ask me and others like me to contribute to your social agenda.
the smithsonian should be ashamed, but i’m sure they could give a flip about doing anything other than pleasing left wing darlings.
December 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
The liberal elites in the media and at the museums would never do anything, exhibit anything, or say anything that might offend muslims. The liberal elites lay awake at night worrying about the islamic fundamentalists that might kidnap their staff members, kidnap their reporters, chop off their employees heads, blow up their buildings, or kill their family members. The liberal elites have destroyed America. The Smithsonian exhibit is just one more example of their filth, degeneracy, hate filled speech, bigotry, and anti-Christian held positions. Funny how if liberals don’t intend to harm or offend, then in their minds their is no harm. Yet liberals freely and often criticize conservatives of offending others regardless of the intent of conservatives comments. It must be fun being a hypocrite. The apologists claim that the money for the exhibit was all privately raised. Wasn’t the exhibit held in a public building? I guess that the brilliant reporter failed to ask the appropriate follow-up questions. More deliberate ignorance displayed by the liberal elite media. They no longer are able to hide. They will all be exposed as the perverts, degnerates, and corrupt and dishonest people that they are.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 am
The inevitable result of government support for the arts…totally unfair, not subject to arts market forces, who decides what art gets hung or paid for…it’s just blatantly elitist and unfair..no one ever gave $1 for my artistic endeavors…except the public..STOP PUBLIC FUNDING FOR THE ARTS (THAT ART GOVERNMENT CHOOSES OR FUNDS)… Artists of the US Unite and stop being welfare cases….this is not a liberal or conservative issue..it is an issue of government control of the arts through $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$….If your organization or artwork fails….so be it…tough…
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:24 am
Just another move by B. Hussein Obama to prop up his Muslim faith by permitting denegration of any other faith. His politics are the same. Wonder if he will have his Mao Christmas ornament on the WH tree this year? Probably will. Maybe he’ll add some of his other favorites like Marx.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:31 am
I’m amazed at all the so-called “artists” that have to pull Christianity into their themes in a degrading way. “Piss-Christ”, dung on the Madonna, etc….
If it’s all just religious based, why not Muhammed?? Where are those artists depicting him in this manner? The Islamic world does nothing to help prevent aids or the gay rights movement, on the contrary, kills all homosexual/gay people. But….only crickets from that community on the second largest religion in the world.
So…why not have Muhammed in any exhibits?
Could it be you’re just chicken-sh”t hypocrites?
Yeah, I think that’s the answer.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
It’s a shame they pulled this work. The work depicted suffering of AIDS victims. It didn’t depict Jesus as gay, it didn’t depict Jesus as the cause. It depicted SUFFERING. It did not depict AIDS sufferers as “Saviors.” I think it depicted Jesus understanding for those who suffer regardless. Those conservatives should be embarassed that they think that they have a sole attachment to Jesus. I certainly hope they aren’t stupid (yes I said stupid) enough to believe that Jesus only loves them and empathizes and sympothizes with them.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
I am not a “religious nut” as I am not a fan of organized religion and don’t even go to church – but I was raised as a Christian and pretty much live by the teachings, which are good principles to live by. Love your fellow man, forgive your enemies, etc… Peace and love, my friends, are not a bad combination.
Given the opportunity to vote on this topic, I don’t want my tax dollars (of which I pay a considerable amount) funding this type of garbage in the name of art. I watched the video on this link, and to call this stuff “art” is an extreme stretch; one that makes me question the quality and motives of the curator who would display it.
But I guess you can call anything “art” that you want to… If I took a dump on an open Koran, laid it on a butchered hog and photographed it, I could call it art. But I wouldn’t do it because it is tasteless and because it would offend many people needlessly with no cultural benefit or redeeming value.
What offends me more than anything about this display (particularly because it is at a national institution that supposedly reflects the best of America) is that it is a perfect example of the destructive double standard prevalent in America today. Do something that is offensive to a Christian, a white male, a heterosexual, or any other conservative group and that’s OK – people don’t want to hear the outrage of the conservatives. But do the same thing targeting a Muslim, an African American, an LGBT, or any fringe group you care to name, and the media (as well as those “offended” parties) react with outrage that most would consider justifiable. Then comes talk of “hate” speech, crimes, etc. and the whole thing gets magnified a hundred times.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but people today probably don’t even understand the value of that statement. I would suggest that we try to steer the world away from the “shock and offend” path we’re on, and back toward a “golden rule” objective. Life is tough enough as it is without all the additional aggravation. Can’t we all just get along?
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 am
Probably getting into this late, but here is a christian liberatarian view. If taxes are used then the art shouldn’t offend.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
This “artist” or any other would have the guts to place Muhammed in such a light. They’re all cowards. That goes for every other Christian basher who gets on tv making Jesus jokes. They know they Christians don’t come after people looping heads off, so they think they’re safe. Gutless wonders.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 am
Try portraying a picture of Muhammed with ants crawling out of his belly and see what happens.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
I’m frankly tired of people think it’s ok to trash persons faith and call it art, that is my free speech opinion. It you want to do this, do it on your own dime, don’t expect the taxpayers to dole out money for this garbage. I’m not paying for it. Also, if this were Mohammad covered in ants, you know we’d be attacked in some way and pay for it with our lives. I protect your right to free speech, but I’m not going to pay for it with my taxes.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
This video is extremely disturbing and bastardizes Christianity. If the artist was depicting anything evil, he succeeded in producing an exquisite evil attack on a person’s faith. This was the most disturbing video I’ve ever seen regarding attacks on Christianity. I didn’t see any AIDS victims here, just a sick artist trashing a faith. Again, if this was Muhammad, we’d really be paying for it.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
Oh Tex, whatever that “something” is that tells you what my reaction would be is wrong, but feel free to continue making baseless assumptions about strangers on the Internet. And silly me for thinking that when Jesus explicitly said that the way we treat the sick and the downtrodden is the way we treat him, he *meant it*, and when he condemned those who spent more time drawing a hedge around the Law and contemplating their own righteousness than lifting up the sick and the downtrodden, he *meant that too*. In fact, I’d argue that the use of a crucifix to communicate the suffering of the sick and marginalized is more theologically correct than pretty much any of the outrage about it. Don’t forget, while you are complaining about the way an artist who died an excruciating, outcast’s death has offended the American religious establishment, that Jesus suffered an excruciating, outcast’s death for offending the religious establishment of his own culture.
And it continues to be ridiculous to rhetorically ask why the artist didn’t use Muslim imagery. Art exists in a cultural context, and critiques the culture it’s part of. There certainly are artists using Islamic imagery to provoke a reaction- they are part of Islam-dominant cultures.
It’s reasonable to argue that it’s not particularly good or effective art- that’s a defensible position, and reasonable adults can disagree. And the question of public funding of the arts is a thorny issue, and worthy of debate as well; there are many thoughtful and nuanced positions to take. But all the complaining that crucifix + ants = ASSAULT ON CHRISTIANITY!!!! is just shrieking that engages with neither the artistic questions nor the policy questions involved.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 am
CB Says: “The hatred posted on here is ridiculous.”
You are confusing what is disgust of filth at the Smithsonian with hate.
CB Says: “This exhibit was PRIVATELY FUNDED and if you don’t like what’s in it then DON’T GO IN IT.”
The Smithsonian wouldn’t exist without taxpayer funds. Of course I won’t go. I just have to pay to keep their doors open regardless.
CB Says: “It’s pretty sad that I sometimes feel embarrassed to say that I was raised a Christian, because of the intense hatred that so many Christians spew.”
What is sad is that you are obsessed with making false ‘hate’ accusations.
CB Says: “Remember Sunday school when you were taught to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”?”
How about if I pray for you to understand how preposterous and awful this video is? My God help you discover who Jesus is.
CB Says: “We expect our children to do these things, and yet the majority of us completely forget them as soon as we see something we don’t like.”
II expect my children to stand up to evil and pray for their enemy.
CB Says: “Absolutely nothing about the video was meant to be offensive or to attack any religion”
How do you know that it wasn’t meant to get a reaction knowingly and willingly?
CB Says: “If you are so lacking in confidence in your own beliefs that you find offense in art that was not malicious in any way, then you need to reevaluate your opinions rather than attack others’.”
As an artist and sculptor I have confidence that I know what is aesthetically pleasing and what is just plain crap. You don’t seem to know the difference between good and evil, moral from immoral, fact from fiction, friend from foe, or art from garbage. It’s you who is lacking of principles and character, not I.
CB Says: “I personally am looking forward to seeing that exhibit as soon as I get the chance.”
You seem to have an affection for the hideous and repulsive.
CB Says: “All the haters on here would probably also benefit from visiting it.”
There is no redeeming value to benefit from this exhibit, none, nada, zip, zilch, nothing. If one would like to gag, go see the how the taxpayer funded Smithsonian exhibits the vile, heinous and abominable at Christmas. Hate has nothing to do with it. It’s as if you believe repeating a lie over and over constitutes fact when it does not. How preposterous.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:57 am
It’s all fun and games until someone goes to hell.
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Whoever approved this garbage for display in the first place should be fired from the Smithsonian. In a society where ‘Christmas’ has somehow become offensive, it’s shameful that such filth would even see the light of day.
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
[...] started by CNS report about the Bug Christ exhibit at the Smithsonian, they’ve decided to pull that piece of “art”. But they’re keeping the incestuous, naked brothers giving each other the tongue. Their [...]
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 am
I have to laugh at how “brave” these courageous gay artists when it comes to dessicrating Christian symbols… but when it comes to Islam and their Prophet… whose teaching against homosexuals makes Christian teaching look like a therapy session.. they are BIG COWARDS!
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Soon I will take a dump in 2 jars and call it “Ode to Sasha and Malia Obama”.
I will call it art, and you will be forced to apperciate it.
December 2nd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Great article and very well written! If only the comments were the same.
December 2nd, 2010 at 11:07 pm
The only part of me particularly offended is my aesthetic sensibility. The video is crap.
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:35 am
# Kev Says:
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
Those conservatives should be embarassed that they think that they have a sole attachment to Jesus. I certainly hope they aren’t stupid (yes I said stupid) enough to believe that Jesus only loves them and empathizes and sympothizes with them.
This conservative Christian KNOWS that Jesus loves everyone, even the person who made this video. That does not mean that he would like the video. A little into 2 min & a man is masterbateing ! That is NOT art !!! Lets be real & call it for what it is. Sick & tasteless.
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:55 am
It wasn’t even intentionally sacreligious, and if a straight guy created the exact same imagery I doubt there would be any uproar. Anti-gay conservatives simply they they and they alone own God. This censorship is selfish and cowardly to the core.
Quote:
“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious,” Sullivan told the Associated Press.
Sullivan explained that the video conveyed the idea that humans are created in the image of Christ and that “we’re all going back into the earth, that we’re decaying.”
“If you look at Latin American art and imagery, really over time there are a lot of portrayals of Christian iconography with suffering, agony and death,” Sullivan said.”
December 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Jake, you are wrong on that. Straight people get bashed for sacrilige also!!! It wasn’t just the Christ thing either. It was the package.
December 3rd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Hold on a minute hear the fact is God so loved the world the world has rejected God after he made it prefect we Sinned and this world been bad ever since God came to save us from Our Sins And we ether except His free gift His Son YESHUA MESSIAH For all this dung about Christians Not wanting filth as art is correct Homosexuals have a choice ether stop sinning are continue to sin Stop pushing you choice on the rest of us God loves everyone He hates our sins This is why Christ died for us Repent of your sin confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and you will be saved If not the wages of sin his death completed separation from God Hell
December 3rd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
you’re right pastor Carmen. God did so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should never perish but have eternal life. Also, By grace are you saved through faith in christ jesus, not of your own works, it is a gift of God lest anyone should boast.
Please specify in these verses of grace where there are requirements aside from faith?
If faith was inspired in me by the holy spirit and i believe in jesus as my savior then I am saved, gay or not. If I am required to do something (like stop sinning) then there is no longer any grace, but I have to earn my salvation. That would be works righteousness, and therefore the concept of actual grace would be a fallacy.
December 4th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Kev, I’m glad you know Jesus as your Savior, and yes, it is by faith not works in which we are saved. However, when we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, we realize our sinful behavior (no matter or whatever the sin as we are all sinners) we will repent, turn away and seek forgiveness. Jesus has saved us all (whether or not people believe is another matter) but there are numerous verses which address continuing in sin. Jesus Himself said to the woman brought to Him by the pharisees who accused her of adultery told her that He doesn’t condemn her, but to go and sin no more. Later, in Romans, the issue is spoken about as well:
Rom 6:1-5 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
December 4th, 2010 at 9:20 am
(carolyn you had said: Jesus has saved us all (whether or not people believe is another matter)This is not so according to the Bible)-
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Faith without works is dead. James 2:26
except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13:3,5
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. romans 10:9 shows that we must obviously be saved and that we need to be saved through Jesus alone. There are many that believe in their haed, but not in their heart. thats why we have so many people who don’t act like Christian and just live in sin and hatefulness. They aren’t really saved. Thats why many don’t want Jesus.
December 4th, 2010 at 9:31 am
[...] Institute to pull the exhibit. The full article detailing my success and your failure is here, in an article entitled “Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit. Hoo boy, [...]
December 4th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Is anything/everything connected with AIDS considered, “art”? It was rightly pulled, but
more because it was suck-ass piss-poor piece of
shit attempt at art, than for any other reason.
What, was the semen covered picture of Andy Warhol
not available for viewing?
December 6th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Carolyn,
You are correct. We should try to sin no more. That is the outter manifestation of having a saving faith. However, people are weak. If they/we are unable to effect such bold changes and cannot sin no more, we are not condemned. A weak person is still saved, through faith. Or what about the person that doesn’t believe EXACTLY as you do? What if they are wrong, yet they still have faith, but they believe in reading the scriptures differently? Are they condemned because of it? Their faith then is not enough to save them? “Sinning no more” was not/is not a requirement of salvation – a persons faith in Jesus cleans our sins away in the sight of God the Father.
December 7th, 2010 at 11:52 am
[...] on December 7, 2010 by bestofblogsdetroit And we got it! Did you read about the Smithsonian pulling the video installation “Fire In My Belly” from the LGBT exhibit “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in [...]
February 27th, 2011 at 1:13 am
[...] NPG pulls Ant-covered Jesus exhibit. THANKS FOR THE PHONE CALLS [...]