http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/7223-boehner-and-cantor-call-for-closing-of-smithsonian-exhibit
Quotes to think about when discussing this issue:
- Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said, "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 [in]."
- "When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency," said Cantor. "The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time.”
- In response, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian noted that federal funding is not used to pay for exhibits, only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff. The exhibit itself was funded by a group of donors and foundations.
Also, read some of the responses below the article. I, for one, like this one:
"Now what was it exactly that the Tea Party was yelling about? Oh, I remember, the loss of our freedoms."
I can't help but be reminded of Seranno's "Piss Christ" (remember that?) and Matthias Grunewald's 16th century Isenheim Altarpiece, which depicted Christ as covered in sores and pustules (it was to be displayed in a hospital, so that patients could identify with Christ's suffering and to remind them of Christ's humanity)-- people didn't understand it then and here's proof they still don't get it now. It's all just a little bit of History Repeating!
ReplyDeleteBeyond understanding the motivation behind the art, it is clear that Cantor and Boner (wasn't he the next-door neighbor on Growing Pains? joke.) don't even understand how the museum's exhibit was funded. Hope they just got educated on that one.
I wish the Smithsonian would have stood their ground... because this quote from the article scares the piss christ outta me:
"Both Boehner and Cantor said the National Portrait Gallery could expect to face tougher scrutiny next year when Republicans take over the House."
This is all interesting. . . That's all I can say(write)since the art was pulled and unseen. But I do have questions. I'm really interested in what raises our arts-antennaes:
ReplyDeleteIs it the fact that a piece of art was pulled down?
Is it the fact that conservatives had it pulled down?
Is it that the art involves Jesus Christ?
Would this art piece be offensive, interesting, stirring, rejected, etc if it were a picture of Bhudda or Koran covered in ants?. . . just curious.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/12/01/smithsonian_removes_gay_video/index.html
ReplyDeleteThat's the link to the video.
Kendra's questions: The piece was pulled, though the Smithsonian issued a press release saying that the "show remains intact."
The piece was pulled down by Smithsonian officials (apparently decision made by the Secretary, Wayne Clough), not BY conservatives but in response to the complaints.
The art, as you can see, does involve an image of Jesus. bonus points if you can tell what the piece actually intends to say. Though Buddha and/or the Koran have not been attacked as subjects of art pieces, there was an incident last fall when a conservative Christian minister wanted to burn the Koran. There were also cartoons in Danish newspapers depicting the prophet Mohammed that led to riots and even deaths in Muslim countries. Not aware of any local Buddhist art controversies, though there are extremely touchy issues whenever there is a major Chinese or Tibetan exhibit in town (usually these don't reach Congressional or major media interest, but they can be pretty dramatic among those cultures).
Question: If this were your museum, what would you do, especially keeping in mind that these Congresspeeps will control your budget soon. How do you gauge "public opinion" -- or do you cave in to the loudest voices, regardless of party or ideology? How would you handle an outcry from a segment of the public?
It's a Cultural Policy Wonderland!
I see that I misconstrued the thrust of Kendra's questions. I'm personally pretty hard core about freedom of expression, especially when it's done in context for artistic purposes. Of course American artists are likely to play with, attack, work with (choose verb) Christian images since most of us are brought up either in that religion or surrounded by it. You get different forms of the "cutting edge" in countries that have other religions. For me, America, though a spectacularly flawed country in so many ways, has always stood for freedom of expression and speech, and that's been the hallmark of our art, which sometimes manifests itself as juvenile or clumsily political. However it's perceived, we have thrived as a society not on support of the arts themselves but on the rights of artists to have their say and to be seen and heard.
ReplyDeleteOn that basis, to me it doesn't really matter what ideology the artist is. The art is paramount. And I suspect the Congresspeeps in question don't think that way...
(on a related note, lifelong conservative Norman Rockwell had the most recent blockbuster show at the American Art museum next door to the portrait gallery. I expected the right-wing propaganda art from Rockwell that I grew up with, and certainly saw it, but saw so much more depth and complexity to the man and his work that it was a revelation. Had I not seen the show (or had Smithsonian pulled it in case the Left complained) I would not have been able to develop a new understanding of an important artist....
"bonus points if you can tell what the piece actually intends to say" -Mike
ReplyDeleteThe ants on the crucifix can be interpreted as a reference to the earth and in turn, how fleeting life is (much like the 'vanitas' style still-life paintings). For more art history nerdiness (that comes from another source besides myself), see here: http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary/g/v_vanitas.htm
Although, I can't say exactly what the motivation was here, but that's how I interpreted it.
And Mandee, I'm glad you brought up the "Piss Christ" because that was all about symbols, too. A cross is merely an object, not a holy thing in and of itself, but every Sunday, at church, I direct my eyes to it like it's something that's not man-made. Putting a symbolic object like that in a substance like urine was supposed to challenge the viewers' ideas about how we worship these 'things' like THEY were God or Christ. Full disclosure: a)I am a Christian, and b)I like both of the pieces (the video and the Serrano piece) very much. I like art that challenges me, my beliefs, and what I think I know. It's sad that some people just look at a work for a few seconds, create their own idea about the artist's "agenda" and then are disgusted because they don't want to have to think about works. They want "Picture as window" (sorry, another art history nerdy term) works. No challenge there.
Oh, and a sidenote: Serrano had a bathroom several years ago that had its walls totally covered with crucifixes. He was obsessed with them. (One of my undergrad art history professors went to his apartment once)
ReplyDelete"bonus points if you can tell what the piece actually intends to say" -Mike
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that the crawling ants represent the suffering of those afflicted with AIDS. In America, what's the most recognized symbol of human suffering? Christ on cross, of course. In my opinion, it's a rudimentary work, and in my opinion, not one of Wojnarowicz' best--or most emotionally moving. Anyway, I digress.
Censorship raises its ugly head every few years. It's certainly not the first time the Smithsonian backed down from a fight...Enola Gay. So, what are we going to do about it this time?
Here's an interesting and somewhat relevant article from November 2001. http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1012
And Mike, I agree with you about Norman Rockwell. His real life was so far-removed from his fantasy depictions. He's a fascinating character.
Boehner and Cantor were trying really hard to find troubles! Did they ever pay this much attention on arts before? Ever? I hope these two political figures won't set their top priority on threatening Smithsonian. What are common standards of decency? What does “Decency” mean? What about freedom of speech?
ReplyDeleteI wish NPG could have hung on there for a longer time before pulling the installation. The reaction was fast! by doing that (no matter what NPG said), NPG gave in and agreed to Boehner and Cantor. Wait… were any donors or foundations pissed off by that art work as well?
Look, I agree that it was soft on the part of the NPG (or Wayne Clough) to pull the piece, however, I understand it. I think by keeping the piece on display, the NPG would have engaged in a culture war (battle?) with the right. No one knows more than right-wing politicos that perception is reality. Cliché or not, it's true. Like so many other hot-button issues, conservative leaders came out guns-a-blazing with tough rhetoric and threats without knowing the facts. To the public/media, the NPG's response was virtually irrelevant. The only way anyone would have listened or responded would be if the NPG made a bold and/or controversial statement in return. And then it still may not have mattered. By keeping the piece up, the repubs would have had that much more reason to harp on the issue even more a la the NEA. And then it's not about the NPG anymore... it's OBAMA! Of course they would never say it outright but they sure as hell would paint that picture. Look at the tax bill which just got shot down. The right-wing has successfully convinced Americans to support tax policy which goes directly against 99.9% of the population's best interests. Unreal. But that's what we're dealing with. Could the NPG have spun the situation in a way to take a moral and artistic high ground? Maybe. Perhaps they could have even made the exhibit sound edgy to attract more visitors. But they didn't, and, when you weigh potential risks, I get that. You can't argue with crazy. These folks may be ignorant but they do have influence and that matters in a time when the arts have taken a big enough hit as it is. If the NPG kept the piece up, it would have been perceived as making a statement, which could have had political repercussions well beyond the NPG. I think the left and moderates will have to take a stand against the absurdity of the senate and house republicans at some point, but perhaps this issue isn't the best with which to do so.
ReplyDeleteMan. This blog is frustrating. I just spent like a half hour typing up (really well done/thought provoking/profound/life changing...) comments and then there was an error when I tried posting. URG.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell: Anyone know the reaction of people in the artist's corner or close to the artist (he died in 1992)? Anyone know if the piece is being shown elsewhere?
I had two other things: One is that maybe they could edit the video to take out the 30 seconds or so that the ants are on the crucifix and the bit with the man's genitals. Do we think that people close to the artist wouldn't want to do this? Too much censorship? Just an idea for a solution...
Second was that this is just unfortunate. Eddie is right: the NPG realizes that they rely on those people for funding so of course they had to take it down. That really stinks. I am also, like you all apparently, for the freedom of expression, especially in art. It is "paramount," to use Mike's word. Also, the tax money isn't even going towards funding this particular piece and even if it was, what is the total amount of money spent here? It can't be much. Wall space and a projector? Come on.
Nick-- I believe it's being shown at Transformer Gallery, almost in protest of the fact that it was taken down from the NPG.
ReplyDelete