Update: GOP Leaders Tell Smithsonian to Pull ‘Homoerotic’ Exhibit
- Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:48pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, is still weeks away from taking over the Speaker’s gavel, but is already throwing around the weight of a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
On Tuesday, the Speaker-to-be warned the Smithsonian Institution that if it did not pull its controversial exhibit — “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” — which featured images of an ant-covered crucifix and “homoerotic” art, its federal funding will come under serious scrutiny when Congress considers the next budget. 
In a follow-up to yesterday’s story on the Christmastime exhibit, CNSNews.com asked a number of congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle whether the exhibit should continue or be canceled. Both Minority Leader Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor indicated it should be canceled.
“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy,” Boehner’s Spokesman Kevin Smith told CNSNews.com. “While the amount of money involved may be small, it’s symbolic of the arrogance Washington routinely applies to thousands of spending decisions involving Americans’ hard-earned money at a time when one in every 10 Americans is out of work and our children’s future is being threatened by debt.
“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,” Smith said.
When asked to clarify what exactly Boehner meant by calling on the Smithsonian to “correct” their mistake with the exhibit, Smith responded in an email that Boehner wanted the exhibit “cancelled.”
Cantor, meanwhile, said the exhibit should be “pulled.”
“This is an outrageous use of tax payer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season,” said Cantor. “When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency. The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time.”
The offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D.-Nev., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Jim Clyburn, D.-S.C., the third-ranking Democrat in the House, were also contacted but have yet to comment on the matter.
By Tuesday afternoon, the Smithsonian announced that it would remove the portion of the exhibit which showed ants crawling over a crucifix, but insisted the rest of the exhibit would stay. In a statement, the director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery clarified that the exhibit was not meant to be “sacrilegious’:
“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious,” the statement read. “In fact, the artists’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.”
Among the exhibit’s “mature themes,” as we reported yesterday, are images of male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, a mouth being sewn shut and an Annie Lebovitz portrait of comedian Ellen Degeneres grabbing her breasts.
The “Hide/Seek” exhibit is currently scheduled to run through the Christmas season until it closes in February.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 590 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (313)
jb1972
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:21pmAdd your comments
Report Post »EP46
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:21pmIf anyone saw my previous posts regarding this along with the email address for the Smithsonian and the recommendation to cancel your subscription to their magazine and acted, thank you. . If you are not a Christian, I respect your right to practice your religion, and I feel that Christians deserve respect in return.
Report Post »Awakenow
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:17pmI look forward to ther muslim art and the depiction of Mohamad, or the depiction of an emaciated Buda, oh thats right we only allow the desicration of Christian symbols. Heads should roll, this is our country and bad taste should be treated with consequences.
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:24pm” bad taste should be treated with consequences…”
Starting with your comment. There is plenty of speech in this country that is offensive to Muslims. Just watch an episode of 24 for that. You simply do not notice it, since you are not part of that minority group. Your insensitivity, while protected by the First Amendment when uttered in the public square, is nonetheless in bad taste. So what should the consequence be?
lylee
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:01pmto ABC
Report Post »To my knowledge, none of my tax money goes to fund 24. The Smithsonian is as good of place as any to START cutting the size of government spending!
cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:35pmI find it funny that you think the Smithsonian will ever be defunded.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:49pmlylee,
I believe “we the people” would go along with private enterprise taking over the Smithsonian and stop all tax money going to it. In fact, it may be a very good place to start with cost-cutting. The idea has possibilities!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:15pmApparently, a lot of dumb people blog here. There are two points being confused. First, whether to use gov’t funds on museums. Second, whether you can defund a museum because of a particular exhibit’s content. The first one is ok. The second one is not. Most of the people here who complain would not complain if it were an exhibit with Michaelangelo works, so it is likely that they fall into the second category. This is censorship and is not allowed. There is no other argument to defeat this. The Supreme Court is very hawkish on free expression, so unless you can call it pornographic, which is not likely since it is not sexually explicit, then you are LOSING the argument. period. end of story. the rest of what is said is noise. it doesn’t enter into the legal analysis of this issue. expertise matters and most people here lack it. it is fun to use words and make up nonsense, but it doesn’t change the decisionmaking that a court would go through. please stop embarrassing yourselves.
Report Post »MidAmerican
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:04pmSo called “art” is not a license for offensive absurdity when any public funds are involved at any
Report Post »level. Reasonable people know “art” when it’s seen. If art won’t stand on its own, visually and
financially, it’s probably not art at all………the exception being after you are gone and collectors
discover your work. O:-)
Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:37pmOf course, we could all take a few minutes tonight and contact our representative and DEMAND that they defund the Smithsonian or at minimum, this entire wing come January.
Report Post »Anyone up for that?
abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:58pmDefund = Censorship. Glad to see you standing in defense of freedom…not!
Report Post »My Two Cents
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:30pmDefund = Equality For All. They can hang their offensive crap in a private museum.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:58pmGreat idea. Besides not having my tax dollars going to promote this trash, I will do anything that ****** off ABC.
DEFUND = COMMON SENSE & THE MORAL THING TO DO. These are the decisions a free people make!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »Clive
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:32pmslayer. who cares. what is art, what is offensive, people can rattle on about this stuff forever.
Report Post »its a diversion… but keep wasting your time on pointless nonsense.
packers1
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:33pmWe are lost as a people I think GOD may have to start over. We are failing as a people. The minority is dictating to the majority. All good people must stand and say enough is enough.
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:41pmWe aren’t lost yet. We just stood up and tried to stop it – to the tune of winning over 600 seats. Give it a few more months. The people we put into power haven’t been seated yet. If they don’t deliver by late January, at least on something substantial, then we can really start getting nervous.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:31pmCut them. Watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:31pmI’ve seen much of the exhibit. None of it , whether offensive or not, can be classified as art.
Report Post »Apparently, the US is starving for artistic talent.
suran
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:29pmThere goes our forthcoming trip to the Smithsonian.
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:29pmI don’t want to hear from any of you Liberals about Censorship – especially after you looked the other way while Obama’s DHS granted themselves power – at night on a weekend over a holiday – to shut down websites. And don’t tell me Catholics this or Christians that or the Crusades or any of that tired crap.
Report Post »You know full well where we’d be right now if this were Allah or Muhammed in those exhibits!
barrycooper
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:27pmPull all their money–at least for the “arts”, then fire the people who backed and continue to back this. The artists in question still have the First Amendment, and they can put on their own exhibits with their own money in places they own or rent with private money.
This is not a First Amendment issue. This is a question of whether or not we will continue to allow people trying to destroy our common culture to use our tax money to do it.
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:25pmTime to make cuts! As far as the Smithsonian is concerned now,
Report Post »DEFUND!
DEFUND!
DEFUND!
abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:56pmDefund = Censor. Glad to see you are on the side of freedom.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:52pmDefund=let art be subjected to free markets
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:33pmFlushing poop down a toilet isn’t censoring the poop, its just putting it where it can’t make anyone sick. Removing filthy art is just keeping it from making people sick.
Report Post »mpa
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:02am@ABC
Defund != censorship. Defund means we won’t have to have this discussion again because the Smithsonian will go back to doing what it was intended to do.
As someone whose first career was in the arts in an organisation that was sustained by federal and state grants, I came to the conclusion long before I left there that it was just wrong for us to exist in the arts without being able to 1) make it pay for itself 2) find individual patrons that would cover the cost or 3) do something else to pay the bills and do the art for less or for free.
This particular case, from what I understand, is not one of government funding (other than that the building is owned and maintained by the feds) but more one of the government’s imprimatur having been placed on a display that was obviously intended to be obscene to the average viewer. It is one thing for the Smithsonian to house exhibits of established or popular works, both historical and current, but a thing of another sort for them to use their stamp on polemic.
What‘s been lost in the arts with the intrusion of government money is akin to what’s been lost in many areas of life with the growing scope of governmental regulation and involvement. When an artist doesn’t have to worry about communicating with the community, or at least paying patrons, or with surviving just like anyone else, they run a great risk of losing any ability to be of service to the community or to themselves. Without that aspect, your “art” is nothing but craft-y masturbation at
best, “shocking” schlock, or dismal propaganda.
Art is serious business: An exploration of a theme, or a concept brings illumination or insight. Calling something a “Christmas Exhibit” and including what this installation includes does none of this.
Not all pictures are art, not all songs are art, not all dance nor theatre works are art. Some things that people pretend or claim to be art are just either aesthetically pleasing constructs (or the opposite, on purpose) or abstract Foofas-isms that come from no position and lead nowhere. Most of the rest are propaganda of one sort or another.
Government institutions are not in a position to be able to determine what is art and what is something else, therefore they should stay out of it completely. The Smithsonian is intended, by my understanding, to be a documenter, not an initial presenter, of American “artifice” of all kinds. Let it return to that, force it to cull the politicals from its bureaucracy, and, *voila*, problem solved.
National Endowment for the Arts, you are up next.
What these people are, that we’re discussing in this instance, are propagandists, not artists. Art is *not* in the eye of the beholder. Art is in it’s connection to the community it serves. In this case, by putting their installation in a national, federally sustained space, they have determined that their community is the whole of the American people. Since much of the contents of the installation is obscene to a preponderance of Americans, we‘re stuck with a federally subsidized space and the US Government’s imprimatur on something that the majority of Americans are against.
If the government is out of the arts business, it doesn’t run this risk anymore. Let an artistic work rise to greater public attention on its own merits, not the determination of a grants board to fund it or give it an inordinate platform to spew its hate on the people paying the bills.
Report Post »ImprobableSage
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:18pmWhile I’m in no hurry to defund the Smithsonian — an institution held “in trust” by the U.S. Government, originally intended as a showcase and respository of the nation’s scientific, technological and exploratory knowledge and achievements — neither an I particularly a fan of its current administrative leadership or bureaucratic liberalism. This is the same outfit that has proven itself to be, if not outright anti-American, certainly no better than “noncommittal” when it comes to depictions of military history, exploration and colonization, and technological and social development. I would venture to say that the entire current leadership structure of the Smithsonian Institution and Facilities is no less politically liberal, antireligious, and socially progressive than the MSM. As with our nation’s educational institutions, Governmental bureucracies, and media concerns, conservatives have ceded this important and highly influential ground to the radically activist left for too many generations to be surprised by this sort of partisan behavior. If we want to reclaim America for Americans, we need to commence a society-wide “house-cleaning”… remove the offenders from the temple, if you will.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:14pmI wonder how many Billions or Trillions we could save if we did not fund any program other than State Building funds?
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:12pmWTF are the GOP’s spending their time chasing this distraction? There are more important things happening right now. Un-frickin-believable.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:19pmagreed.
If this is what they chose to show indignation over they have already failed.
toughen up, folks.
its just art.
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:31pmThis NEEDS to be chased. This is an affront to millions of people in this country and it needs to stop. NOW.
Report Post »Would you say the same if I put up art depicting homosexuals and blacks being murdered by axes?
Or if it were Muhammed or Allah in those exhibits, would you people be standing around yawning and trying to tell us to understand the point of view or get with the program?
Nope. You would not. You would be racing to get it all taken down because it was ‘intolerant’ and ‘offensive to sensibilities’.
komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:56pm@Slayer–
Report Post »ITS GONNA and Mr. Butcher aren‘t saying that this isn’t offensive, but that there are more important things to worry about, and there certainly are.
dps7215
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:02pmAgree on all points Mr. Slayer. Much agreed.
Report Post »Clive
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:26pmthis is exactly what i was thinking… who cares? the GOP wins the election, and this is how they choose to spend their time? get to the serious matters at hand here. i don’t care about a museum, i care about real issues. and BTW, if are looking for less government in your life, you would be against the government telling you what you can, and cannot see.
Report Post »schoolteacher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:08pmMy taxes should go to fund things like education, roads, national defense, etc. I do not need the government to help choose the art I see. I can do that. People will support art that reflects the gift of the artist to inspire, uplift, encourage rather than promote someone’s social agenda. Art should be privately funded and therefore stand on it’s own merits. If the Smithsonian had an exhibit that offended Allah or Muslims, or Buddha, or Mohammed someone would have to die (or several). Such as exhibit would never see the light of day because it would not be politically correct but the Christian faith can be trashed in the most vulgar way. I don’t have the words to say how offensive this exhibit is to me. Art? I saw three urinals on a wall that was an art exhibit; a pile of wads of paper or cellophane or something in a corner; one man had put his own poop in a can for an art exhibit, the crucifix upside down in urine – this is an insult to true artists.
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:50pmYou have a point. Perhaps the government has no business funding the arts. But you‘d have more credibility in making this point if you’d made it when the museum was showing Norman Rockwell’s works. Calls to defund might be principled, but usually are related to attempts to improperly censor a particular speaker or artist. The Republicans who are quashing this exhibit clearly fall into the latter camp. And I wonder about you too.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:49pm@ABC–
Report Post »OK, how about this: As an artist myself (composer), I will never knowingly take a dime of taxpayer’s money. The government has no responsibilty to subsidize me, nor provide a venue for my work.
cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:56pmI’ll have to look up the numbers again, but I’m pretty sure that the group doing this art display raised about $900,000 to put on this show. They paid to put it in the building, the building is always there and it has space for people to pay to put on their works. It isn’t costing you anything extra, the building has always been there and the staff would have been there anyway.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:13pmIf they raised money to pay to put on this exhibit, then why didn’t they use that money to purchase a privately owned and operated venue?
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:56pmI would imagine they put it there so more people would see it, also, would you rather just see the room sit empty?
Maybe all of you could raise the funds for a permanent exhibit of paintings of jet fighters, eagles, and NASCAR races.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:10pmcognitivedissonance,
I would rather not have taxpayer money go to maintain that room, that building, or any other of the many Smithsonian properties.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:23pmNot even the air and space museum, or the museum of natural history, or the museum of american history, really, get rid of all the Smithsonian properties? These are wonderful museums that bring millions of tourists to Washington DC.
Report Post »ImprobableSage
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:51pm“ABC
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:50pm
You have a point. Perhaps the government has no business funding the arts. But you‘d have more credibility in making this point if you’d made it when the museum was showing Norman Rockwell’s works. Calls to defund might be principled, but usually are related to attempts to improperly censor a particular speaker or artist. The Republicans who are quashing this exhibit clearly fall into the latter camp. And I wonder about you too.”
Much as I admire your stated preference for impartiality, ABC, “improperly” is very much a matter of perspective, is it not? …And, lest we forget, we ARE a majority-rules (at least, when it comes to elected represntative government) democracy. What ONE generation or body politic or municipality finds “improper”, the next might well determine as not only reasonable, but RIGHT AND PROPER. Isn’t that the crux of the issue, entire, here? That a Smithsonian exhibit that would have been entirely OUTRAGEOUS fifty, twenty, ten years ago, MIGHT be “acceptable” by TODAY’s standards?
…But I digress. I’ve been wrestling with this issue (public funding of “art”) for decades, and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Conflicted, I suppose. Here’s why:
One part of me feels quite strongly, as an abstract matter, that government — ANY government, whether it be liberal or conservative, representative or dictatorial, “good” or “bad” — has NO BUSINESS deciding what is and isn’t “art”. Not for the reason(s) you might suspect, though. My problem with this arrangement is that government is, by its very nature, “conservative” — by which I mean, desirous of MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. Government has a hard time taking fliers, whether it be in medical research, scientific experimentation, social / societal “evolution”, or what have you: Since its access to funds is, by definition, limited, despite the occasional outrage, the vast majority of public funding of ANY endeavour must be, by nature, directed to “what works” — that which is already acceptable / achievable / defensible. That’s why, in my opinion, the private sector is FAR better suited to direct and fund cutting-edge initiatives, whether it be AIDS research, space exploration and exploitation, or educational reform — because TRULY innovative and radical notions require a degree of financial and bureaucratic independence NO government is comfortable defending. ART, by nature, is innovative… inventive… uncomfortable… radical. Else, it’s just repetition, canonical regurgitation of long-held beliefs and maxims. No government on Earth would have directed public funds towards the experimentation of Escher, Dali, Picasso, Pollock or Warhol… It would have been considered irresponsible, reckless, wasteful, deviant, reprehensible. Nor should it. The overwhelming majority of experimentation in art is, in a word, crap. Which is why the marketplace — of gallery operators, collectors, and professional commentators — is in a FAR better position to deem what is supportable and in need of fiscal stewardship and encouragement, than ANY committee of apparatchiks, no matter how well-intentioned or -educated.
An example: Check out Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society”, where he and his students are initially encouraged to ascertain the “greatness” of poetry via an admitably efficient, undoubtedly bureaucratic gridlike system designed to reduce the efforts of Whitman, Dickinson, Frost and Yeats to a mere mathematical conjecture. This sort of oversimplification is exactly what any government “committee of the arts” would no doubt conceive of. Substitute metre for “innovation”, rhetoric for “controversiality”, and you end up with the same sort of institutional idiocy that gave rise to crucifixes soaked in urine or “performance” pieces where a thirtysomething vagrant destroys all his possessions in front of a Starbucks. Overcompensation for also funding a community theater production of “Our Town”? You make the call.
My second consideration is purely selfish, and more in keeping with your above criticism: I don’t want MY hard-earned, faithfully-paid monies going into the pockets of people who have made it clear they value my consternation, outrage and befuddlement far more than my approbation, appreciation or comprehension. I don‘t like contributing funds to the Society for the Advancement of What I Don’t Believe In or the Committe to Devalue Everything That I Hold Dear. Which is what the modern incarnation of the NEA seems to have become… The MSNBC of “art”.
Take that as you will. I highly doubt you’d want to contribute to my front-yard creche, either.
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:10pmSage writes:
“Much as I admire your stated preference for impartiality, ABC, “improperly” is very much a matter of perspective, is it not?”
Nope. This is the fallacy of the right–that the existence of minor inevitable bias disqualifies all expertise or authority. This is false. Doctors make mistakes, but they still are better qualified to diagnose and treat illness than plumbers. Similarly, those with expertise in the law have a stronger and more authoritative voice on matters regarding the first amendment. Much of the blogging here is bunk. pure and simple. And it is not arrogant to say so. Those without a law degree ought to learn about the law rather than talk nonsense.
“And, lest we forget, we ARE a majority-rules (at least, when it comes to elected represntative government) democracy.”
Wrong. The whole point of the Bill or Rights is to protect individuals from democratic government, which is to protect minorities from majority rule in carved out areas where the framers didn’t want majority rule to control. You cannot decide that Jews cannot drive by majority vote because of the Equal Protection Clause. That is a perfect example of how the Bill of Rights and portions of the constitution protect minorities from a democratic tyranny of the majority.
“What ONE generation or body politic or municipality finds “improper”, the next might well determine as not only reasonable, but RIGHT AND PROPER. Isn’t that the crux of the issue, entire, here?”
Nope. The crux of the issue here is that people want to use selective defunding to censor speech in the public square that they do not like. This is a clear violation of our rights and the framers’ intent. Whether people choose to go visit the exhibit is a question of taste, which might differ place to place, generation to generation, as you describe.
“That a Smithsonian exhibit that would have been entirely OUTRAGEOUS fifty, twenty, ten years ago, MIGHT be “acceptable” by TODAY’s standards?”
The law is clear that standards are set on a local basis, although the national character of the Smithsonian exhibit would make a national average the most likely reference point used by the courts. This likely means that it would not be viewed as obscene, since I’ve seen worse stuff on MTV. Further, I’m not even sure you are reaching for obscenity as the reason for blocking the exhibit.
“…But I digress. I’ve been wrestling with this issue (public funding of “art”) for decades, and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Conflicted, I suppose. Here’s why: One part of me feels quite strongly, as an abstract matter, that government — ANY government, whether it be liberal or conservative, representative or dictatorial, “good” or “bad” — has NO BUSINESS deciding what is and isn’t “art”. Not for the reason(s) you might suspect, though. My problem with this arrangement is that government is, by its very nature, “conservative” — by which I mean, desirous of MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. Government has a hard time taking fliers, whether it be in medical research, scientific experimentation, social / societal “evolution”, or what have you: Since its access to funds is, by definition, limited, despite the occasional outrage, the vast majority of public funding of ANY endeavour must be, by nature, directed to “what works” — that which is already acceptable / achievable / defensible. That’s why, in my opinion, the private sector is FAR better suited to direct and fund cutting-edge initiatives, whether it be AIDS research, space exploration and exploitation, or educational reform — because TRULY innovative and radical notions require a degree of financial and bureaucratic independence NO government is comfortable defending. ART, by nature, is innovative… inventive… uncomfortable… radical. Else, it’s just repetition, canonical regurgitation of long-held beliefs and maxims. No government on Earth would have directed public funds towards the experimentation of Escher, Dali, Picasso, Pollock or Warhol… It would have been considered irresponsible, reckless, wasteful, deviant, reprehensible. Nor should it. The overwhelming majority of experimentation in art is, in a word, crap. Which is why the marketplace — of gallery operators, collectors, and professional commentators — is in a FAR better position to deem what is supportable and in need of fiscal stewardship and encouragement, than ANY committee of apparatchiks, no matter how well-intentioned or -educated.”
A lot of muddled ideas there, but they are irrelevant. A publicly funded and controlled place, like the Smithsonian, cannot preclude certain speech unless it incites violence or is tantamount to pornography. Offensive doesn’t rise to that level, which is where I and likely most judges would put the exhibit. So the First Amendment protects the rights of those who organized the exhibit to put it on in that space. That the group paid to locate in that place makes the efforts of GOP politicians even more shameful. As I said before, they ask others to spill blood to defend freedom on foreign soil, but then they take those freedoms away at home for political expediency. The real traitors are not the far leftist who call for America to disarm. The real traitors are those who actually take away our freedoms while spilling our blood and treasure in defense of that freedom.
“An example: Check out Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society”, where he and his students are initially encouraged to ascertain the “greatness” of poetry via an admitably efficient, undoubtedly bureaucratic gridlike system designed to reduce the efforts of Whitman, Dickinson, Frost and Yeats to a mere mathematical conjecture. This sort of oversimplification is exactly what any government “committee of the arts” would no doubt conceive of. Substitute metre for “innovation”, rhetoric for “controversiality”, and you end up with the same sort of institutional idiocy that gave rise to crucifixes soaked in urine or “performance” pieces where a thirtysomething vagrant destroys all his possessions in front of a Starbucks. Overcompensation for also funding a community theater production of “Our Town”? You make the call.”
This is idle speculation and irrelevant to the legal argument one must make to justify pulling down any portion of the exhibit.
“My second consideration is purely selfish, and more in keeping with your above criticism: I don’t want MY hard-earned, faithfully-paid monies going into the pockets of people who have made it clear they value my consternation, outrage and befuddlement far more than my approbation, appreciation or comprehension. I don‘t like contributing funds to the Society for the Advancement of What I Don’t Believe In or the Committe to Devalue Everything That I Hold Dear. Which is what the modern incarnation of the NEA seems to have become… The MSNBC of “art”.”
You do not have the right to defund the public space because of the content of a particular exhibit. To rule otherwise would create a huge loop hole in the free expression clause and most certainly would be deemed unconstitutional. I’ve said this a billion times, but people here simply ignore factually correct statements that they do not want to hear. Human nature, but very bad.
“Take that as you will. I highly doubt you’d want to contribute to my front-yard creche, either.”
Not likely.
Report Post »IVillageIdiot
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:07pmSomeone needs to put some teeth in the controls that manage the bureaucratic cabal.
Don’t for the stunt the NEA pulled and the DHS when first the socialist came to power….
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:04pmLemme get this straight: The director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery says that a Christmas exhibit featuring images of male genitals, naked brothers committing an incestous act, and homoerotic pictures of men in chains was not meant to be sacrilegious?
…AT A CHRISTMAS EXIBIT???
…Hello?!
Sounds like we need to demand the head of the Director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery to me.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:00pmFor the director lodge a protest against the display and ask the museums board of regents or who he answers to for a review of the matter. Enough people doing so can have a large response that can be ending in his job or full censure and penalties against him.
Speak and write to the museums board, and his boss, be polite yet be firm. Many of us working in coordination can achieve a difference and make our desires known.
Report Post »Shawn-GA
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:02pmI am so angry at this Anti-Christian this country has turned…. Christians do more for others than ANYONE else.
Report Post »workin4alivin
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:02pmi’d say shut it down. it’s easy for all you ******** to start crying “free speach” yeah you have the right to free speach -not with my money!
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:48pmWrong. The First Amendment applies only to speech in the public square. That means speech in the square that is funded by the public. That means that you cannot withhold funds because you don’t like the speech. To rule otherwise, would be to make a huge loophole in the First Amendment. Just as I cannot withhold my tax dollars from the Iraq War, which I opposed from the start, you cannot withhold your tax dollars from the Smithsonian because you don‘t like this quarter’s exhibit. Get real.
Report Post »workin4alivin
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:55pmfree speech is not art.
Report Post »axel@25
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:57pmfirst amendment doesn’t REQUIRE a public square be provided…otherwise it would be ok to pray at a graduation ceremony, or to have a christmas concert in a school, or to put up a tree in the town hall
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:22pmWorkin’, you are wrong. Art is speech. The Supreme Court has said so.
Axel, you are also wrong. The First Amendment DOES require that the public square be made available. And the reason you cannot do the things you suggest is because of the Establishment clause, also in the First Amendment, that prevents the public square from being used to endorse a particular religion. You can put an x-mas tree in the public square, as long as you also put up a mennorah, kwanza exhibit and the like. You cannot call for a Christian prayer in the school, but you can have a moment of silence. Showing examples that violate another part of the First Amendment hardly disproved my argument. It merely shows how little you understand how the First Amendment is interpreted by our courts.
Report Post »Rapunzel
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:25pmABC – perhaps you need to reread your pocket constitution. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Nothing there about public squares!
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:30pmRapunzel, are you making a joke or are you really that stupid? Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to private property. My boss in a private company can censor my emails and speech all day. The free speech clause in the 1st amendment is unquestionably applied to speech in public spaces. When I say public square, I mean any place that is public and thus funded by the tax payer and over which the government exercises control. That you do not understand this, and believe that the Constitution is interpreted in such an infantile and literal manner, means that you understand very little about the document. I seriously doubt you have even read the Constitution, much less studied law in depth. Your ignorance gives you away.
338lapua
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:56pm@abc so glad to have such a superior intellect here. I know that intellectually we here are just childlike in our ignorance compared to such a godlike presence as you. With no due respect, please stop posting here. You bring nothing to the discussion and I am really sick of the endless castigation masquerading as disagreement. Your leftist views do not offend me but rather your self sycophantic adoration of your own “knowlege”. The day you can come down a notch and mingle with the little people I am sure you will be welcome.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:57pmUltimately if we wish to truly make changes happen there are at least three steps to take…
1. Write or call the senator and house reps of your area and ask them to defund the Smithsonian.
2. Write or call the director of exhibits at the museum to explain, politely, why you oppose the display and it’s content.
3. Encourage other people not to go to the museum, boycott the sight and museum and let the wallets and feet of each of us protest in the most effective means in additon to the above.
I understand the balance of freedom of expression via Artistic expression, and the differences between the private and public displays. So those who do not care for the material, such as myself, can do the above steps and let the voices be politely heard, strongly yet politely.
Report Post »Ashley
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:06pm@ABC you’re also wrong. We are allowed to put up Christmas tree’s in town squares because the courts have ruled that a Christmas Tree does not endorse Christianity. It has become a ceremonial thing that has no value, like the prayer congress does before it opens. Further, speech can be censored in any place if it is hateful, degrading, “fighting words” or if it is “obscene and indecent”. Usually anything that is sexually explicit has usually been deemed “obscene and indecent” for public displays. This exibit could arguably fit under this description. But like Justice Burger said, ” one man‘s obsenity is another man’s lyric.”
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:08pm@ABC–
The following is a comment from ImprobableSage posted on the second page of comments:
ImprobableSage
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:49pm
ABC, there’s a wide gulf of reality between the federal (or other) Government acting to SUPPRESS “legal” speech or expression (say, for example, mandating that certain perspectives or opinions be outlawed, or at least regulated / controlled, on the Internet, talk-format radio, or in private conversations), and having the Government (or an agency thereof) act with sensitivity and responsibility as the administrator of taxpayer funds used to stage public exhibits which advocate a certain controversial point of view.
The first is, by any definition, “censorship”: The act of Government / authority discouraging or illegalizing the expression of certain, otherwise Constitutionally protected, speech. The other is, simply, good (or bad, depending on your worldview) stewardship of public funds.
Put another way: There’s a big difference between, for the sake of discussion, a public-school teacher punishing a child who discusses the relationship between Christ and Christmas at recess with another classmate (censorship) and the public school expending taxpayer funds to stage a public “holiday play” that encourages attendees to accept and internalize a certain perspective on “the Christmas story”. The latter is ADVOCACY, which is what the Smithsonian Institution seems to have been engaging in, and which is NOT the role of Government. In fact, such actions violate, in spirit if not in fact (and they do, actually, since Congress holds the purse-strings of both the Department of Eduation AND the Smithsonian Facilities) the very text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION”.
Take note of the second third of that crucial Amendment as well: “…or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or ADBRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the PRESS…“ Responsibly administering the funds and monitoring the content of museum exhibits is NOT a restriction of ”free speech”. The Institution is not outlawing CONVERSATION among attendees. However, “allowing” a certain perspective to be expressed by free persons speaking their mind peaceably is NOT of a kind with MANDATING that ALL PERSPECTIVES BE OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED by the Government.
One is liberty; the other, tyranny. I realize that you, as well as a great many jurists both past and present, will disagree. That does not make you right, only similiary misinformed and deluded.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:13pmsorry axel, but abc is right.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:37pm338lapua,
“The day you can come down a notch and mingle with the little people I am sure you will be welcome.”
Don’t count on it!
Report Post »; -)
thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:45pmabc,
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:54pmPatriotdave, I’ve seen the “art” you have in your online shop and I’m concerned you may be part of a communist cell to replace all the good art with bland and uninteresting paintings.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:04pmcognitivedissonance,
Then you know nothing about good art!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:19pmAshley, you are right about the x-mas tree. I stand corrected. The correct comparison would be a cross, which would require other religious symbols. Although I stand corrected, the larger point I was trying to make still stands, namely that you should not confuse free expression and establishment clauses and their impacts. As for the exceptions to the free exception clause, there are only two: inciting violence and prurient interest. This exhibit, which is not calling for violence and is not sexually explicit, would not qualify. Your understanding of the law is much better than most here, who choose to attack me with personal insults or insinuate some sort of self-love. It is a sad state of affairs when people cannot be called out when they are wrong. As I have demonstrated here, I am quite capable of doing so. Others are apparently so insecure that they would rather attack the correct critic and continue to perpetuate their ignorance. That is why they know so little. It requires a discipline to learn, and part of that discipline is sticking to the facts. Another is being willing to admit when you are mistaken.
Report Post »sgt atilla
Posted on December 4, 2010 at 11:11amthe primary job of the Federal Govt is to “provide for the common defense” that means revenue raised by the Govt, ie. taxes should be used to that end whether we like it or not. I find nothing in the Constitution that say’s taxes should be used to fund “art” if the “artist” can’t sell his “art” in the public square then maybe he/she should find another line of work.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:59pm“In fact, the artists’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim.”
How does a crucifix with ants crawling on it somehow depict AIDS victims? Are they blaming Jesus? Was his death on the cross somehow the same suffering as an AIDS victim. Someone explain….
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:33pmThey’re mad because the Church told them NOT to have gay sex and they did it anyway and now that they have AIDS, they blame the Church who has put up tons of cash to help AIDS victims.
Report Post »Ashley
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:52pmIt‘s very hard to explain the symbolism but it’s basically saying that they are infested/infected with a virus but the virus is not only aids but the social taboo that comes with having aids. The movement says that the person who suffers from the virus is someone who is suffering physically from the hurt that comes with being a gay american. They equate it to the suffering that Christ did for the Christians.
(Which isn’t exactly the same at all, that’s just what the movement says.)
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:48pmAshley, that’s what I figured. Which is sickening…
Report Post »New-American-Saviors
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:58pmSee…Every time we get a chance for a good laugh, they spoil it !
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:35pmHere’s a good laugh – let’s get art that graphically illustrates beating homosexuals to death. THEN let’s see how fast um, CERTAIN groups run to restrict our freedom of speech.
silentwatcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:06pmexcellant point….
Report Post »KimH211
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:15pm@Slayer
Or Mohammed wrapped in bacon…
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 9:49pmCan you lefties spell SMACKDOWN, becuase you all just were! ROFLMAO…
Report Post »booger71
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:57pmI hope so
Report Post »Slayer
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:34pmAre you the same booger who writes the hysterical and brilliant ‘letters’ from Obama on one of the other sites?
Report Post »shane2813
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:57pmYou scum!!!! Defund!!!!
Report Post »teahugger
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:27pmyeah…just like they defunded NPR. not bloody likely!
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:10pmTo Teahugger,
Uh, they may not be able to defund the art gallery, but there is a regular budget cycle and budgets can be reduced until the employees sweat. Trust me, it can be done. The same goes for NPR.
Like others, I believe that people should be free in artistic expression. However, using public funds for anti-religious (ant covered Christ) or soft porn (Annie L.’s photo of Ellen) is very boggy ground. There are more than enough private museums to host those shows.
Many, many times, the art is created as a shocking and offensive statement. The artist is often seeking to “push the envelope” either socially (Robert Maplethorpe) or politically (the electric Obama statue).
I suspect this exhibit was carefully planned for the upcoming Christmas holiday. Even though the exhibit wasn’t billed as a “Christmas” exhibit, having it up during the holidays, when kids are out of school and the visitorship numbers increase is a neat ploy. What would be the point of opening it in February, when everyone is in school? No, the timing is deliberate, just like the selection of “artwork” (and I use that term loosely to be sure) to offend and attract attention by offense.
Report Post »teahugger
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 5:35pm@taquoshi: I‘m not saying they CAN’T defund it, and I‘m not saying they SHOULDN’t defund it…Its just my belief that they WON’t defund it! Not a priority, no convictions, no balls.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 4:54pmGOOD!
As this was billed as a Christmas exibit, this is an insult to Christ, and offensive to Christianity.
HKS
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:00pmCommies at work everywhere.
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:07pmIt not so surprising that NO progressives had not even one comment… It’s going to take the conservatives to save this country.
Ronmu
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:09pmSmithsonian response does not go far enough. Scrutiny!
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:24pmSo sad to see the GOP acting so hypocritically. Sending soldiers overseas to defend freedoms that they quash at home out of political expediency. And to talk about the symbolism of misplaced funding immediately after voting down efforts to end earmarks is the height of hypocrisy. The cognitive dissonance is deafening. Offensive art is still art, and we have a first amendment right in this country to offend people. The Smithsonian should have stood their ground on the entire exhibit. If our soldiers go to their graves in the defense of freedom, then that institution ought to have been willing to stand its ground as well.
dwh320
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:26pmDEFUND them just as you would in they attacked Mohammad and Islam.
Report Post »sabrinacle
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:27pmI believe in freedom of the press for everyone, but that being said…I think Beck is free to not even print the article. We shouldnt be fueling the lookie loos by advertising the event. It will go away on its own
Report Post »teahugger
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:29pm@abc: Agreed, freedom of speech should be upheld. But let us all do it on our own dime. I would not expect you to buy my protest sign at a teaparty rally.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:31pm@abc get back under your rock
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:42pmI went to the website and nowhere is it billed as a Christmas exhibit – sorry but I couldn’t find that anywhere. http://maboulette.wordpress.com
Report Post »abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:43pmTeaHugger, I cannot defund the war in Iraq even if I disagreed wtih it from the start. You cannot defund Social Security although you might not like that program. Let’s get real here. We all contribute to public spaces that display art which we may or may not like. You are funding the institution that promotes the public good of making art available to the masses, but you do not have the right to pick and choose what is shown there, just as I am funding the ability of this country to wage war, but I do not get to choose which wars are worth fighting. The first amendment applies to public speech, which clearly includes displaying art in a publicly financed venue. Letting you censor that speech through defunding it is a violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple.
cemerius
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:45pmdestroy the religion and control the food……George Orwell 1984! Victory gardens and make sure your guns are oiled cleaned and loaded…..
axel@25
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:52pmFree speach and/or expression is just that…Free..I don‘t pay for it and you shouldn’t expect me to. That includes my tax money.
Report Post »You’re free to express yourself all you want…I’m free to ignore it or comment on it.
You’re not free to require me to pay for it or use my public spaces to display it.
You’re not free to be heard…just to speak.
abc
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 5:54pmCemerius, George Orwell was an atheist and understood that one can use religion to build a dictatorship as easily as one can destroy religion to do it. There is little difference between the Stalinist Russia that inspired 1984 and the modern Iran that he would have similarly opposed. Orwell spent much more time in 1984 warning about censorship and efforts to limit speech–as one of the highest forms of control–than he did about the sporadic exhibit of offensive materials. You should go read his great dystopia again before making such off-base comments.
silentwatcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:30pmPull it all or pull that future tax dollars. It is offensive for moral and religious issues. I would make a loud and serious issue if I had entered the Smithsonian for a tour with children and saw that crap.
Boehner and Canter had the intestinal fortitude to stand up for America and their morals. Hiding behind the doors were Pelosi, Reed, McConnell and Clyburn who are cowards with no moral standards who refused to comment on the insulting “art.”
The Smithsonian Institute and it‘s representatives should receive serious scrutiny for what they placed in public that was allegedly represented for it’s citizens. Under the guise of “art”, the Smithsonian established sacrilegious filth.
I’m fairly certain that the majority of Americans would not care to have their children stand before such an exhibit, viewing the dark side of some degenerates thought process. IF THE SMITHSONIAN DOES NOT PULL ALL THE EXHIBIT AND APOLOGIZE FOR ITS DEMORALIZING ACTIONS,,,,THEN PUBLIC FUNDING SHOULD BE SUSPENDED, IF NOT CANCELED.
We currently have a seriously deteriorating society and with certain elected, such as Pelosi and her gutter dogs as our “elected”, issues will continue to get worse.
THANK YOU BOEHNER AND CANTOR, FOR HAVING THE DECENCY AND FORTHRIGHT ATTITUDE TO STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT AND DEFEND AGAINST WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE UGLY ACTIONS OF UGLY PEOPLE.
Pelosi, Reed, McConnell, Clyburn,,,,,,,you are some of those ugly people. You had an opportunity to voice a concern with what happened and you hid from it,,,,thereby NOT standing for moral and religious issues. You inactions speak clearly for what you don’t represent and who you are…..piss off.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:31pmThis is all just theatre to retain conservative loyalty, actually getting the exhibit pulled would basically require threatening the actual funding of the National Portrait Gallery, which will never happen.
The Republicans must be so happy to have such an easily appeased base. Crying foul at the exhibit and asking to have it pulled is just tilting at windmills and if it did actually get pulled the courts would overturn the decision very quickly.
Also, if a bill to defund public art institutions actually managed to pass the house and senate, which it won’t, it would be impossible for it to pass the senate, it would be vetoed. This is all just a waste of air.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:52pm@Leftfighter
Had a Progressive associate here where I live read the original article, and he jumped all over my case, then he started reading the rest of the Blaze; he wants to “Prove me so wrong” in all the articles, will enjoy the look on his face when he finishes.
Also he is like the POTUS in his aherance to the Rights of MEN (not man), Collective Salvation, and Redistribution of Wealth around the world.
Interesting jackwad to deal with at times.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 6:54pmIt’s called “my voice”. You don’t want to hear it,,,,go to your videogame site and play with yourself. It’s my air to waste.
Report Post »teahugger
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:02pm@abc. No, you may not be able defund the war, but congress has every right to. Just as they have right to defund the Smithsonian. The amendments are in place to protect the people from the central government. The Constitution makes no guarantee of rights TO the central government, and that inclueds free speech. If We The People don’t wish to pay for something, then we have a right not to…providing our elected officials respect our opinions and vote accordingly. Which they don’t. So the point is moot.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:04pm@Silentwatcher
Agreed. We need to contact the board of regents or directors, and the legislature of our represenatives in the house and senate; politely explain the situation and ask for the matter to be defunded (the museum) in totality, and also let the letters or phone or emails be clear, direct and polite in protests.
Also, we can encourage people not to attend the museum displays and boycott the place with our wallets and boots.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:08pmI already have contacted them.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:26pmabc,
So sad to see you typing dribble and spitting out your latest rant against morality, goodness, and common sense.
PatriotShops.com
thepatriotdave
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:28pmsabrinacle,
I actually appreciate being informed. The mainstream media cannot be counted on doing the same.
PatriotShops.com
RepubliCorp
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:30pmABC if I craped in your driveway and called it art would you frame it and send me a check?
Report Post »You are defending the indefensible and that is the “height of hypocrisy”
Cemoto78
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 7:42pmSomebody help me understand some things. It’s okay for taxpayer money to fund an anti-christian themed “art”, but to have a cross in the middle of the desert to honor soldiers who fought in world war I is not. You cannot have the ten commandments in government buildings because of the supposed or dreamed up separation of church and state, but again the states money (taxpayers) fund anti-religious “art” and it’s okay. If in fact this were “art” which desecrated Islam then CAIR would complain, the ACLU would threaten legal action, and this “art” would be pulled faster then a conservative in Congress if they were to violate ANY house ethics rules. Please, someone explain to me what I am missing here cause it is very confusing the double standards being applied. I just what to follow the rules and laws, just like any other American and those fortunate beneficiaries of the DREAM ACT.
Report Post »dkhartman
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:00pmABC , I believe you’re missing the point. The point being that if an ‘artist’ were to create ‘art’ of mohammed getting punched in the gut by a homosexual with a pig leg, it WOULD be called out and forced to be removed. You’re ignorant if you think otherwise..
NOW, this is all the sudden okay?
I‘m a Christian and I’ve accepted that the world isn’t perfect and there are going to be folks out there disrespecting my beliefs. I’ve come to terms with this.. And I just pray for them. However, when people defend other religions (islam, atheism, jewish) and claim what is said against them is considered ‘hatred’ but then when it comes to Christianity those same people are the ones trashing it and calling it free speech.
That my friend, is the problem.
Free Speech is free speech is free speech..
But at the end of the day liberals seem to only be okay with free speech until it’s about GLBT, racism, or any OTHER religion except Christianity..
Start making fun of other religions and people might be more excepting of this ‘freedom of speech’
Report Post »CatB
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 8:28pmMoney talks … they should have known better … not a good time to pull this type of cr*p.
Report Post »moriarty70
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 9:38pm@LEFTFIGHTER
I know I’m late to the party on your comment, but it wasn’t billed as a Christmas exhibit by the museum, only by articles trying to make it look like an attack on Christmas. Christmas exhibits don’t run from the end of October to the middle of February.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 9:38pmABC, please learn the 123′s, you are a fool, a chinless moron of the highest order. It is people like you who insult the intellegent being. The world would be a much better place without the likes of you and your progressive/communist ilk! Let me put it bluntly, you a puny little worm who needs to be squashed! Get the hell out of our country and go live in China or N. Korea and try to speak your utter gibberish – no one wants you here. Take a hike, pal!
Spookytruck
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:00pm@ABC
My wife is an artist. She is a damn good artist. She has sold quite a few paintings and is respected for what she does. If she sells a painting, it is because someone had an interest in it and they probably had an interest in it because it is good art. She does not take, nor would she accept federal money for her work. If she cannot make money from her art, she doesn’t think it is worthy to sell. Junk is junk. The government has no business subsidizing garbage in the name of art. Art is beautiful. Garbage stinks. Why do we subsidize garbage with our hard earned tax money that no honest Art museum would buy? Pigs spitting on a canvas is not art. It is stupidity and it is about time we stop denigrating real artists and the arts by calling offensive garbage art.
Art is a talent. Not everyone is artistic. $#!+ is $#!+ and it will never be anything but $#!+. Rembrandt, Degas, Renoir, Rodin, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, John Milton and countless others did not need government subsidizes. Why? Because everyone knew it was art. They didn’t need some national museum to tell them it was art. They didn’t need some government to sell their crucifix in a jar of piss to say it was art. They had talent. Real artistic talent. I don’t need to spend my hard earned tax money on sh!+ and then have some ignorant bass turd (sic) try to tell me it’s art. Get a life. Get some culture, but don’t try to sell me sh!+ from someone with no talent and call it art.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:07pmABC, you are absolutely right. In order to show how tolerant Americans are, the Smithsonian exhibit should be updated to include a depiction of two homosexuals molded from cow crap with ants crawling all over them and it could be called “AIDS – Self Inflicted Wounds in the Homosexual Community.” Next to it we can have a depiction of Muhammad burning in a lake of fire and that exhibit can be called “Islam – The Demonic Religion from Hell.” Since you probably don’t pay a penny in income taxes, I’ll bet you’ll be the first to donate money for these exhibits, because an avid supporter of free expression like yourself surely would want to demonstrate that you don’t mind having your own money used to express ideas that you find reprehensible.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:20pmABC wrote: “You are funding the institution that promotes the public good of making art available to the masses, but you do not have the right to pick and choose what is shown there, just as I am funding the ability of this country to wage war, but I do not get to choose which wars are worth fighting.”
—–
ABC, you are really a despicable coward. I wish America could send people like you over to Afghanistan and plop you right in the middle of Kabul. Perhaps when you were futilely begging for your life and having your head sliced from your shoulders by the peace loving Muslims we have “chosen” to war with, you would finally understand that cowardice is not the way to deal with Islamic barbarians. It truly is tragic that courageous soldiers have died so that scum like you can enjoy the freedoms in America.
Report Post »ddrhoades
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:27pm@ ABC…Look…I haven’t even been to church in 20 years…, and I’m NOT a Catholic, but I’m as equally disturbed by the “exhibit” just as a normal human being with Common Sense.. I just don’t believe that we have nothing better to spend our money on as something as trivial and unimportant AND as offensive as this particular piece of “ART”. And before you get your panties in an uproar..I know our tax dollars aren’t buying the art, but they do go to the facility, faculty and does in fact facilitate the art being shown. I don’t have a problem with people who want to see this type of art seeing it, but I don’t feel that I should help foot the bill in ANY way shape or form. Just as I wouldn’t expect you to tithe at my church or any other church to facilitate their message….Is that clear enough for you, or are you still to ignorant to understand that point of view. Funny…Liberal / progressives are supposed to be all about free speech, but when I or anyone with a differing opinion tries to relay their message , they are quickly called “Christian Fundamentalists”, or “Right wing wackos” in an attemp to discredit them.. Don’t be affraid of the truth…
Report Post »James
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:30pmInsane, this is nothing more than an attempt to offend Christians, at taxpayer’s expense. Imagine if they did this with a Muslim exibit?
I get that there is a certain amount of license that is taken with art, I also get creativity and artistic statements but, there are hundreds of galleries that would be more suitable. People take their kids to the Smithsonian so this is horribly inaproprite.
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 10:57pmI dare them to put a wooden sculpture of Mohanned along side and fill it with ants ….and stand back and watch BARRY….eerrrr….Barack ..squeel like the Muslim piggy he is
Report Post »Robert W
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:00pmIf any Christian sets foot in the Smithsonian they should be ashamed. I use to love going there, but they crossed the line! Displaying that crap right before Christmas? Unforgivable!!!
Report Post »jzs
Posted on November 30, 2010 at 11:45pmThanks for your posts ABC. The Smithsonian is one of the great museums in the entire world with probably in excess of 100,000 of exhibits in its nineteen (I think) locations. I find it impossible to believe that a single person who has ever been there would post an objection.
But of course here we have the intersection of politics and ignorance. The people on this website, who mock the Muslim prohibition against any depiction of Mohamed , which I think is silly too (although “graven images” are also prohibited by the Bible) are outraged by a representation of Christ in a way they perceive as offensive, and clamor to defund one of the world’s greatest repositories of art, science and history based on a single exhibit.
The Smithsonian is not going to be “defunded.” This is pure political grandstanding and nothing more. And the people here are sucking it up.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:09amthe museum says it wasn’t their intention to offend anyone….did they even look at the “art” before they displayed it…yeah right…
Report Post »Creestof
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:12amAs a christian, this offends me as well. However, as an American I support the “artists” right to make it and display is. What I take exception to is taxpayer money being used to display this crap…it is as much “art” as Andrew Dice Clay was a comedian. Both exist just to shock a response from you by being over the top insulting to your sensibilities.
Pull the plug on their taxpayer funding. This crap can survive (or die) based upon patrons of the art donating to it, or not.
Report Post »judg724
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:43amDe-fund all these non-essential recipients of taxpayer money. The military IS an essential and legitimate function of government, but not welfare, aid to foreign countries, food stamps, tuition assistance, public schools, PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, all Ear Marks, Medicare, Social Security, and on and on. If a group like the Smithsonian can’t survive on its own, auction it off to a group that can run it efficiently without the government. What a joke! What a crazy, sick bunch of fools we have as artists, and in our government for allowing this gutter slime to exist.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:36amHere here SUPER *****! You keep the spirit of true libertarianism alive.
Report Post »johnnycatt
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:36amYou are right the Smithsonian’s response did NOT go far enough! Did we get the money BACK from the “artist?” Did the one who allowed it to be displayed get fired?
Why are we funding “art” at all? Where is that in the Constitution? If the art is worth a damn, then the artist will have no problem finding a patron to buy it!
Report Post »tom
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:42am@ABC
Where does it say in the first amendment that you have a right to OFFEND people? You have a right to free speech. If I’m offended by your free speech, well then I have a right to say so by the first amendment. Majority still rules in this country. Libs like you twist everything to suit you desire. No more.
Report Post »AzCowboy
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:57am@silentwatcher
Report Post »Bravo. Thats not ART, thats fART. Smells in here
jH…
Nutthuggers
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 7:36amWhen I see photos, art, models made out of dung, etc…of Mohamed I will believe in artistic freedom. “Brave artists” don‘t do it because they don’t want to offend Muslims and they are scared. Now it is time for Christians to stand up and say WE are offended so take down what offends US! If artistic freedom isn’t the same for every religion, race (this means controversial art about different races), sex, sexual orientation, etc…then it isn’t free. People wouldn’t allow racist, or sexist art to be paid for with taxpayer money…so now Christians are finally standing up for religion. The push back begins!!
Report Post »BernieKittyCat
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:30am@SpookyTruck
RIGHT ON! Common sense, people! If crap were art then I’ve been flushing money hand over fist.
ADD Moment: I was at the National Portrait Museum before 8/28. A couple was standing in front of the huge Geo.Washington portrait. The wife says to her husband, “Now, which president is this again?” Unbelievable. If the masses can’t recognize GW what makes everyone think they can recognize art?!?!?!?!
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:11amI sent a letter (snail mail) to the National Gallery I find the entire Christmastime display an Offense–
Report Post »anti-Christian– and an abuse of the concept of America’s promise of equality.If this SMUT is
“essential Contribution to Art and Modern American Culture we are in DEEP DOODOO.
ltb
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:41amJZS, you Liberals are brain dead idiots who pride yourself for being morons. It’s pointless to even try and argue with you people, because you imbeciles are always arguing the wrong point. If someone tells a Liberal the sky is blue, he will argue that clouds are fluffy. Here’s the point people are arguing Stupid… people don’t like having their money used to promote things that they find offensive. I’ll try to dummy it down so even an ignorant, stupid Liberal will understand. Say I took $10 from your pocket and bought a box of earthworms and then made you eat those earthworms. Let’s assume you don’t like eating earthworms and say, “But I don’t like eating earthworms and besides I didn’t tell you that you could take $10 out of my pocket and buy earthworms to shove in my mouth,” then in reply, acting like an ignorant Liberal, I would say, “Oh, shut up and eat your earthworms, people in Africa eat earthworms all the time and if you won’t eat these earthworms then clearly you are a racist.” I DON’T WANT BUREAUCRATS TAKING MONEY OUT OF MY POCKET AND USING IT TO SHOVE THIS CRAP IN MY FACE – GET IT YOU STUPID MORON?
Report Post »FedUP
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 11:11am@ABC. The government is not forcing the Smithsonian to remove the “art” they are just saying the American public chooses not to pay for it. This is not censorship or an encroachment to free speech. The Smithsonian COULD go ahead and display it.
Report Post »Flagwaver
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 11:32amIf this is how they view Christians, they need to pull their head out of their fourth point of contact and actually read the NEW TESTAMENT.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 12:51pmI support the right for museums to have ant-covered Jesuses.
I just don’t like government-funded museums right now.
Report Post »UPSETVET
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:28pmThree cheers for Boehner and Cantor for their stand against the ridiculous exhibit on display at the Smithsonian Institute Museum. Hopefully it has been “canceled ”or “pulled”. It was obviously someones sick attempt at offending Christians. I’m a Christian and I was offended. I‘m also a taxpayer that doesn’t want our tax dollars wasted on such exhibits that have no educational value and are offfensive to most Americans.
Report Post »rontard
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:47pmTime to put on the gloves! Progressives need a little Rock em Sock em Robots time.
Report Post »cognitivedissonance
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 1:52pmYou do realize this is all impotent grandstanding, right?
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 2:32pmABC,
You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the downfall of the USA…
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »SemperCivis4Ever
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:11pmDo you want to know why the forces that want to kill God, Liberty and Art are prevailing? Its called Progressive-Dada (their true name) politic and is fully explained here: http://www.marcrubin.com/dada.ivnu. This online video and short essay, created by Marc Rubin, will open your eyes and connect the dots for you. Marc has been fighting them for 35 years, ever since being the youngest person to ever hang in the Art Institute of Chicago.
Report Post »912always
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 3:34pmTo SUPER *****
You talk about censorship and then want to censor other people’s views on this site, why do you not follow your own advice and go to a site where you do not have to find things to complain about. Are you scared that you might actually be in the minority?
In your own words, “What negativity? How about the negativity associated with forced censorship…
Report Post »You don’t like the art piece? then close your eyes; stop trying to find things to complain about! Grow up or Shut Up…
… Better yet just shut up – no one (well, at least no one with a remedial grasp on life) wants to hear your backwards talk circle jerk yourself into a perceived utopia.”
pajamash
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:01pmWHAAAAAAT! Sanity on the part of a government entity?!
Report Post »abc
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 6:13pmSpooky, you’re wrong about the famous artists. Most of them received funding from the Church or royalty, which were the governments at that time. Also, there are many artists who died penniless (e.g., Edgar Allen Poe, Louis I. Kahn) even in this country, since private enterprise wouldn’t pay for works that we now universally recognize as significant art.
Fedup, it is naive to watch powerful Senators threaten to defund and then say that such a threat is not censorship. If the exhibit goes on as intended, then those legislators could indeed defund the institution. Such defunding on the basis of particular content rather than general budgetary or philosophical concerns about the idea of funding in general, WOULD be censorship and a violation of the 1st amendment.
Tom, the words political protest do not show up in the first amendment, but they are protected. The right to make provocative or even offensive art is similarly protected. The only exceptions are speech that can cause bodily harm (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater) or speech with a prurient interest (e.g., porn). Your comments, in short, are wrong.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 8:31pmltb
Posted on December 1, 2010 at 9:41am
Bravo!
Couldn’t have said it better myself. People need to keep in mind that progressives are the enmy of the USA and their goal is to oppose anything that we find moral and good. They do this in support of Communism, and they know it.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »