You have heard, I guess – about the 65% tax payer supported Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery displaying a homo-erotic art with one display depicting an image of Jesus with ants crawling all over it. The liberals are offended that Christians are offended at some of the “art” – these are the same liberals that are deeply offended at Nativity Scenes on public property – so perhaps we should just call Nativity Scenes art?
The government-funded National Portrait Gallery in Smithsonian, near Washington DC, have unveiled a show called ‘Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture’.
And it features some rather risqué art… art that might not be in the spirit of Christmas.
For alongside pictures of men’s genitals, naked brothers kissing and men in chains, there is a picture of ‘Jesus’ covered in ants.
But get this…
Also in the show, which has been described as ‘homo-erotic’, U.S. television presenter and well-known lesbian Ellen DeGeneres is shown grabbing her breasts.
The exhibition will run all throughout yuletide and closes in mid-February.
Somehow Jesus covered in ants is homo-erotic? I would say it’s about as erotic as Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her boobs or two brothers in a passionate kiss with a one holding a gun in some sort of incestuous violent homosexual rape, two of the 100′s of other images on display – not erotic, at least not to me. I’ve seen several of the images that we tax-payers are paying for and I find AS AN ARTIST and NOT AS A CONSERVATIVE nothing particularly artistic, erotic or talented about any other them . All in all it is more blasé than risqué in my most humble opinion, perhaps somebody can explain to me how Jesus on a crucifix covered in ants is homo-erotic? I don’t get it and since I don’t get it which I guess means I have validated my own heterosexuality and view of eroticism.
But the liberal are OUTRAGED! Outraged! I tell you, that conservatives would be offended that tax dollars went to paid for not just homo-erotic displays at the Smithsonian but imagery that could be offensive to Christians – they are appalled that Christians would dare protest. The libs point out it’s religious intolerance – but yet only one religious image is cited by Christians as offense the rest of the so-called homo-erotic work is ignored… so I don’t think it’s intolerance, it’s just offense at religious disrespect of one part of one work. What do the nutty libs say?
Here is one from the Washington Post arts critic Blake Gopnik…
Now the NPG, and the Smithsonian Institution it is part of, look set to come off as cowards. Tuesday, after a few hours of pressure from the Catholic League and various conservatives, it decided to remove a video by David Wojnarowicz, a gay artist who died from AIDS-related illness in 1992. As part of “Hide/Seek,” the gallery was showing a four-minute excerpt from a 1987 piece titled “A Fire in My Belly,” made in honor of Peter Hujar, an artist-colleague and lover of Wojnarowicz who had died of AIDS complications in 1987. And for 11 seconds of that meandering, stream-of-consciousness work (the full version is 30 minutes long) a crucifix appears onscreen with ants crawling on it. It seems such an inconsequential part of the total video that neither I nor anyone I’ve spoken to who saw the work remembered it at all.
So let me ask you Mr. Gopnik how did these two guys catch AIDS? Did they get it from having sex with women? Or did they get it from being same sex butt hopping-bandits? Exactly who was it that brought us this black plague in the 80′s? Wasn’t hetro’s… just sayin’ – Anyway if I look at this “artwork” artistically and not as a conservative perhaps Wojnarowicz thought God was offended by his lifestyle and decided to produce – albeit only momentary a piece of art that was offenses to God by covering God’s son on the crucifix in ants? After all God is pretty clear on homosexuality doesn’t leave a lot of gray area, but I digress.
I have a question that is even better… Would Gopnik be as glowing and would the Smithsonian’s NPG display the video if the ants were crawling on a depiction of Mohammad? Now answer that one Gopnik?
But he babbles on…
Norman Rockwell would get the boot, too, if I believed in pulling everything that I’m offended by: I can’t stand the view of America that he presents, which I feel insults a huge number of us non-mainstream folks. But I didn’t call for the Smithsonian American Art Museum to pull the Rockwell show that runs through Jan. 2, just down the hall from “Hide/Seek.” Rockwell and his admirers got to have their say, and his detractors, including me, got to rant about how much they hated his art. Censorship would have prevented that discussion, and that’s why we don’t allow it.
So Gopnik thinks Norman Rockwell is offensive – I think that says it all as he label himself as non-mainstream. Norman Rockwell who depicted an America that most of us non-elitist in fly over country recognize is to him – offensive? Exactly what does he think ‘mainstream American’ means? He seems thinks that we are the ones with an artistic perception problem? Having a lifestyle, a view, an opinion that is out of the classical mainstream is all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t mean I need to pay for it and that is the reality that escapes Gopnik.
Now get this, Gopnik says…
In America no one group – and certainly no single religion – gets to declare what the rest of us should see and hear and think about. Aren’t those kinds of declarations just what extremist imams get up to, in countries with less freedom?
Really? Fairness doctrine? Net Neutrality? Boycott Beck? Boycott Fox? Even get the FCC to pull their license. No one is saying you can’t see it or display it, we are just saying we tax payers shouldn’t have to pay for it, take to Greenwish Village or San Fransisco and show it. But keep in mind these are the same liberals that are offended at nativity scenes displayed on public property or the Ten Commandments are displayed in public schools or a cross is displayed in veteran cemeteries – none of which are done with tax dollars and according to them all should be removed. These are the same liberals that are outraged at these Christian displays and are equally outrages at public condemnation of tax dollars being used at the Smithsonian to publicly and knowingly offend Christians. The same liberals that cry freedom of speech and at the same time want FoxNews off the air, Glenn Beck silenced, Rush Limbaugh silenced and every conservative thought oppressed – hypocrites? I think so.
Anyway the piece at the NPG was pulled and Gopnik and a host of other liberals are in a tizzy over it – but I just find it funny to see how they react to Christian outrage and find their own completely justified, acceptable and within the norm.
Someone might want to inform Gopnik that 92% of American believe in God or a higher power.
I could get into a long debate about what is art, is art only to please the eye? Is it to spark debate? Is it to give some deep hidden meaning that is to be discovered by the viewer? Or is it to simply turn a buck? Art – as it has been said – is in the eye of the beholder. What I may find to be art, you may not. Is the art of Picasso equal too or better than the art of Michelangelo? Does art lay only in the talent or in what it says?
Would one call Andy Warhol’s 1964 film Empire art? All it is – is a film of the Empire State Building in a single fixed position shot that runs 8 hours and 5 minute, it does provoke the question ‘why?’ But is it creative? Is it art or is it just stupid? It’s still known 46 years later, but is it known for what it is or who made it? I have some lovely black and white 8mm footage of me as a toddler pulling a cat around by it’s tale, but there is no Wiki page about it and I’d dare say it’s a hell of a lot more entertaining than 8 hours of Empire.
On my own walls hangs signed art from the popular and well known to one of kind originals from the obscure and outsiders, from ancient times to modern – it is very eclectic as my taste is diverse as my opinions. Frankly, I don’t care if art is gay or straight I never really give assign sexual orientation to art, but often I find groups with an agenda often produce art not to please, to be admired or spark meaningful debate but solely to offend and shock – it is about like Andy Kaufman who once said (and I’m paraphrasing) that his comedy was only designed to entertain himself and the audience was his jester.
What is art?