The Smithsonian caves to right-wing complaints

Sigh

Conservative uppityness never takes a break, even on World AIDS Day. While millions of people around the planet are marking Dec. 1 with activism and awareness, the religious zealotry dream team of John Boehner and the Catholic League's Bill Donohue (that guy again!) has successfully bullied the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery into removing a work from the country's "first major museum exhibition" of gay and lesbian art -- by an artist who died of AIDS-related illness.

The work, a video called "A Fire in My Belly" by David Wojnarowicz, features a brief depiction of ants crawling over a crucifix. Wojnarowicz, who died in 1992, created the film, which includes images of a statue of Jesus covered in ants, as an homage to a former lover and colleague who succumbed to AIDS complications in 1987.

The video, along with the rest of the Hide/Seek exhibit, had been humming along without a single complaint since Oct. 31. But then on Monday the right-wing CNS News suddenly got the vapors that "the federally funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition that features images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as homoerotic." It didn't take long for the Catholic League to get in on the act, sputtering that the video was "designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians." Just breathe a sigh of relief they left Ellen's breasts alone.

...

Suddenly smelling the makings of an old school culture war, Republicans Jack Kingston, Eric Cantor and, of course, John Boehner were all over the story like ants on a plastic Jesus. Boehner soon issued a statement that "American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy ... Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington." Brrrrr! Hear that, Smithsonian? Remove or lose it.

...

Never mind that only 55 percent of the Smithsonian's budget is federally funded, that generally exhibitions are mounted through private fundraising, or that, as the Washington Post notes, Hide/Seek in particular "was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show … underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues." Never mind the truth -- that your tax dollars really aren't supporting a whole 11 seconds of hot, hot Formicidae on Yahweh action.

Disgraceful. Should the Smithsonian have stood its ground? Are the threats of the Senate majority that serious?

I'm not American, but isn't freedom of speech supposedly a big deal there?

*edit*

Forgot the link.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Sigh

That pretty much says it all for me.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Disgraceful. Should the Smithsonian have stood its ground?

Yes.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Are the threats of the Senate majority that serious?

I'm guessing it's early pandering for votes, or some such. Or just to say later that they said anything, once a hot-ticket issue with similar effect pops up ("I was against the ant-christ! I'm against this! I don't flip-flop, blah blah blah"). I doubt much would actually come of it.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I'm not American, but isn't freedom of speech supposedly a big deal there?

Yes and no. It's supposed to be, but when you come down to it Americans are generally so apathetic they veer directly into complacence territory. That's why the Tea Party is such a big deal at the moment-- Americans that are actually fighting for what they believe in, however inarticulate they may be?! Can't be!

American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy ...

American families have a right to expect more from their elected officials, recipients of taxpayer funds, in a tough economy.

WipEout wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Are the threats of the Senate majority that serious?

I'm guessing it's early pandering for votes, or some such.

That's how I saw it. A little talking point the Republicans can throw up that says "Look! Now that we're in office we're going to stop all this godless nonsense that the Democrats were funding!" Heck, half my friends already believe the Democrats primary goal is to eliminate Christianity in the US. A guy I graduated with who is now a pastor even goes so far as saying he doesn't believe it's possible for someone who is actually a Christian to also be a Democrat. The Pubs have made a career in the last 20 years of being the pro-Christian party. This is great press for them.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

"Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington."

Yes, end the job-killing spending spree by taking away the Smithsonian's funding thus costing quite a few people their jobs.

Kehama wrote:

A guy I graduated with who is now a pastor even goes so far as saying he doesn't believe it's possible for someone who is actually a Christian to also be a Democrat.

Sounds like he's a really good Christian. /sarcasm

I can see the Smithsonian's point that they removed one piece from their exhibition because the controversy over one image in that video piece was detracting from the larger (and unrelated) message of the whole exhibition.

In that light, it's not so much pandering to the right as silencing them so that the real message can be heard.

Hey, at least if Boehner and Donohue are right about the existence of a Christian god, then they'll be on an express train to hell when they die.

Raise your hand if you had no idea about this exhibit before the Catholic League and Boehner stepped in? I am among them.

Two things, this only serves to make most Americans even more disillusioned with these groups, and fans the flames(not a pun) to set focus on the exhibit.

Go, small government, go!

Well, Boehner and company reacted a *lot* faster than when the pederast priest scandal broke... I guess blasphemy depends on who is wearing the collar.

Anyway, if 11 seconds of video in a highbrow art exhibition is truly a threat to Christianity, it's not long for this world.

Is it just me, or does Boehner have the best name ever?

KingGorilla wrote:

Raise your hand if you had no idea about this exhibit before the Catholic League and Boehner stepped in? I am among them.

haha. yeah. In this case, the Smithsonian is, apparently, Super Meat Boy, and John Boehner is PETA.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Kehama wrote:

A guy I graduated with who is now a pastor even goes so far as saying he doesn't believe it's possible for someone who is actually a Christian to also be a Democrat.

Sounds like he's a really good Christian. /sarcasm

The last few churches I attended were like that, and along with other related attitudes they had, it pretty much drove me away from church. Was one of the major contributing factors to my disillusionment with much of organized religion.

edosan wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Is it just me, or does Boehner have the best name ever?

Maybe if it weren't pronounced like "Bayner."

That's only if you assume that he's pronouncing his own name correctly, which I find suspect.

KingGorilla wrote:

Raise your hand if you had no idea about this exhibit before the Catholic League and Boehner stepped in? I am among them.

Likewise. If they had just ignored it, it would have gone away and nobody would have known. Now that artist is more famous than ever. Well done.

LouZiffer wrote:

Is it just me, or does Boehner have the best name ever?

Maybe if it weren't pronounced like "Bayner."

Seth wrote:
edosan wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Is it just me, or does Boehner have the best name ever?

Maybe if it weren't pronounced like "Bayner."

That's only if you assume that he's pronouncing his own name correctly, which I find suspect.

If my name was Jon Erection, I'd probably pronounce it Eray-shan.

This has happened before. The Enola Gay controversy.

Badferret wrote:

This has happened before. The Enola Gay controversy.

I was totally expecting somebody to be outraged by the name of the plane.

I found this on Facebook, so I'm not sure that there's an easy way to link this:

Statement from Jonathan D. Katz, co-curator of the National Portrait Gallery’s Hide/Seek:Difference and Desire in American Portraiture

I curated, with David C. Ward of the National Portrait Gallery, the groundbreaking exhibition Hide/Seek. Sadly, I was not consulted when the Smithsonian elected to censor a work by David Wojnarowicz, and then redoubled that insult by referring to “AIDS victims” in their statement—employing the very victimizing locution Wojnarowicz fought with his dying breath to oppose. (Ward was "consulted" but his objections were ignored.) An exhibition explicitly intended to finally, in 2010, break a 21-year-old blacklist against the representation of same sex desire in America’s major museums now, ironically, finds itself in the same boat. In 1989, Senator Jesse Helms demonized Robert Mapplethorpe’s sexuality, and by extension, his art, and with little effort pulled a cowering art world to its knees. His weapon was threatening to disrupt the already pitiful Federal support for the arts. And once again, that same weapon is being brandished and once again we cower. When will it be time for the decent majority of Americans stand against a far-Right fringe that sees censorship as a replacement for dialog and debate? There are larger principles at work, and generations hence will judge our actions today.

This is a culture war we did not seek out, nor start. But appeasing tyranny has never worked and can never work, for tyranny wants only obedience, and blind obedience is antithetical to what this nation stands for; we were, as a people, born in protest to tyranny. Were the men and women whose portraits grace the National Portrait Gallery able to take a stand, I have little doubt they would line up behind the separation of Church and State, enshrined in our Constitution, that this incident calls so painfully into question. Furthermore, they would readily agree that America’s core value, also enshrined in our Constitution, is our freedom of speech. With this as our defining principle, it stands to reason we will disagree, but our disagreements are healthy, even necessary to achieving a genuine democracy. We should be promoting this national conversation, not killing it. Art in general, and this kind of art in particular, is precisely a spur to conversation and to thought--something all civil society should support and celebrate. But when the Smithsonian, under pressure to be sure, starts bowing to its censors, it abrogates its charge as our National museum. But let's also not lose sight of the fact that the National Portrait Gallery alone had the courage to defy a shameful silence that every other institution in the US upheld. We can not and should not leave them hanging. Where are our democratic Representatives when we most need them to be battling this naked power grab by a resurgent Right? Please write your Senators and Congressional Representatives and urge them to stand against Boehner, Cantor and their calls for a police state. We must nip this in the bud lest 2010 become the 80s all over again.

Over a century and half ago, Walt Whitman wrote, in support of precisely the core values currently under threat:
Unscrew the locks from the doors! Unscrew the doors themselves from their jambs!
Whoever degrades another degrades me, And whatever is done or said returns at last to me….
Through me forbidden voices, Voices of sexes and lusts, voices veil'd and I remove the veil, Voices indecent by me clarified and transfigur'd.

We sought to remove a veil and in opposing that move, our enemies have damaged our democracy once again. I pray it is not another 21 years before someone else tries to remove that veil again. I am sad for us all.

Thanks,

Jonathan

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Badferret wrote:

This has happened before. The Enola Gay controversy.

I was totally expecting somebody to be outraged by the name of the plane.

That's what I thought, too. I mean, when you think about it... Fat Man and Little Boy? It's like NAMBLA had its hooks in the Manhattan Project.

That, and those new Pedotor drones flying over Afghanistan.

edosan wrote:

Go, small government, go!

NICE!

The perfect comment.

That's only if you assume that he's pronouncing his own name correctly, which I find suspect.

The name is German in origin, and "Bayner" is a very close approximation of the original pronunciation due to the "o-umlaut" represented in English by "oe". So yeah, he's saying it right.

Besides, "Boner" would not be the most dignified name in Congress...

Robear wrote:
That's only if you assume that he's pronouncing his own name correctly, which I find suspect.

The name is German in origin, and "Bayner" is a very close approximation of the original pronunciation due to the "o-umlaut" represented in English by "oe". So yeah, he's saying it right.

Besides, "Boner" would not be the most dignified name in Congress...

A Congressman who acts, in my estimation, like a phallus, and has a name coincidentally close to a synonym for a phallus, and you bring up German pronunciation? tsk tsk.

Robear wrote:
That's only if you assume that he's pronouncing his own name correctly, which I find suspect.

The name is German in origin, and "Bayner" is a very close approximation of the original pronunciation due to the "o-umlaut" represented in English by "oe". So yeah, he's saying it right.

Besides, "Boner" would not be the most dignified name in Congress...

Doesn't ö/oe phonetically sound more like "ew" than "ay"? His name would be pronounced "Bew-ner" if he were going for the Germanic pronunciation. I'd say "Boner" and "Bayner" are each about as accurate as the other, since phonetically his name should be pronounced with a mix of "bay" and "bow". I'd even argue that "Booner" is more accurate than either of those pronunciations. Also depends on what part of Germany the name originates, I guess, but I only ever learned Hochdeutsch.