National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
As we at Ricochet have been debating what constitutes art versus obscenity, the Smithsonian has decided that portions of the National Portrait Gallery's "homoerotic" exhibit, Hide/Seek, are indeed obscene.
Specifically, the National Portrait Gallery has pulled the controversial video "Fire In My Belly" from the exhibit on the grounds that the video appeared to be "intentionally sacrilegious," according to the museum's director. He went on to say, "It was not the museum's intention to offend. We are removing the video today."
The video featured ants crawling all over a sculpture of Jesus, an image that symbolizes "the suffering of an AIDS victim," according to its late artist David Wojnarowicz. You can watch the video here--but please note it contains violent and sexual imagery, including images of a man masturbating.
Don't think for a moment that the museum, in a flash of enlightened wisdom, decided to pull the video on its own. What happened was this: after CNS News published its article about Hide/Seek on Monday, which highlighted the controversial and pornographic images from the exhibit, the Smithsonian was inundated with complaints by phone and e-mail:
It only takes a quick glance at the comments on CNS to see what type of feedback the Smithsonian was receiving yesterday. But the criticism hasn’t been restricted to ordinary CNS readers. The Hill reports that House Speaker-designate Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have called for the exhibit to be shuttered, with Cantor calling the exhibit “an outrageous use of taxpayer money.”
Of course, the larger question here for the Smithsonian is whether their funding is at risk. TBD notes that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has called for the Smithsonian’s budget to be reviewed and their books audited. TBD does a great job of taking a look back on whether past threats over controversial pieces have resulted in actual budget cuts for museums.
I know that some people--maybe even some people here at Ricochet--will take issue with the Smithsonian's decision to pull the video, saying that censorship in the arts is never permissible. But I happen to applaud the Smithsonian's sensible choice. The National Portrait Gallery is an art museum that is meant to house...art. The video that they pulled, by the fact alone that it contains images of a man masturbating, is pornography, and not art. There are other issues with the video, too, but to me, this particular issue is the most obviously incendiary.
That doesn't mean that the video should be destroyed forever and banned--censored in the absolute sense of the word--but I don't think it belongs in a museum, where the highest forms of artistic excellence ought to be displayed and celebrated.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Emily: In MFR's related post on contemporary art on the member's feed, Lady Kurobara posted this link to the Art Renewal Center which is great. On it, there are links to a series of youtube slide shows about the need for beauty in art (Duh). The videos are clear and easy to understand and make the argument that beauty in art is a necessary component of it. Agree or not, for those who have a gut reaction to garbage in a museum, they are edifying.
Jun '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
The degenerate left loves to shove their adolescent exhibitionism in our faces. I suppose they expect us to accept their arrested psychological and social development as some sort of virtue(?). Playing with excrement is something most children learn to abandon shortly after infancy. These supposed adults can be described in one word: pathetic. That's the sum of it.
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
I love that youtube slide show. I wish I could find the embed code so that I could post it.
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
It's just amazing to me that in a span of a 100 years or so you could go from the beautiful portraits and scenes of 19th century art--and the centuries-long tradition from which they sprang--to the contemporary garbage that's been celebrated for the last few decades. What a radical change.
Aug '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
in a span of a 100 years or so you could go from the beautiful to the contemporary garbage
Deconstructing the family, the country, the culture, and the religion - sound familiar ? There's alot more than adolescent exhibitionism being shoved right now (see Kevin Jennings).
Frustrated utopian collectivists. We should be thankful that we have been spared the murderously genocidal part of their usual modus operandi.
And , if occasionally, we appear to be a bit puritan about things, well that does reflect the first large immigration into the country. There's nothing wrong with being closeminded when the future (i.e.our children) is at stake.
We have some very hard work ahead and we need to make it clear what our values are. Arts funding will probably go away, and as someone said the other day, acts like this practically cry out for defunding. The defenders of the "new culture" will find themselves left behind, holding a steaming pile of elephant dung smeared pictures of our saints.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 8:05amSep '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
My reaction to this sort of thing is not so much disgust - well it is disgusting of course - but I'm dismayed and saddend by it more than angry. My Grandfather used to refer to himself as a Whiskeypalian and I'm not more devout than that but the people who make and admire this kind of dreck deserve more pity than anything else, in my opinion, although making fun of them could be fun too. And what hypocrisy for the Smithsonian who clearly cares more about its budget than its offensiveness or lack thereof.
Jun '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
And as for the curators of this trash, they might be highly credentialed, but they don't have the common sense God gave most herbivores.
May '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
A good artist -- whether the medium is painting, video, literature, music, dance or other -- controls the scope of reasonable interpretations of his or her work. In other words, a good work of art conveys what the artist intends to convey. There is nothing admirable about a work of "art" that must be explained by its author.
Art is a form of communication. Any work will be misunderstood by some, but misunderstanding by most suggests poor communication. That is one reason why so much of modern "art" is truly corruption and apathy.
Conservatives must not concede that such things are works are art. If we are to regain the standards of beauty and wisdom that have been subverted (over centuries), we must have the very basic courage to speak plainly when we disagree with people. Next time you visit a friend's house and see a picture that you can't make heads or tails of, don't just shrug and politely keep silent; be blunt and honest. We allow too many lies just for fear of discomfort (ours or others').
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Aaron Miller:
Conservatives must not concede that such things are works are art. If we are to regain the standards of beauty and wisdom that have been subverted (over centuries), we must have the very basic courage to speak plainly when we disagree with people. Next time you visit a friend's house and see a picture that you can't make heads or tails of, don't just shrug and politely keep silent; be blunt and honest. We allow too many lies just for fear of discomfort (ours or others'). · Dec 2 at 8:11am
I can see doing what you say, Aaron, to a friend of yours who fancies himself an art connoisseur, but what if your friend is just innocently trying to decorate his house, and happens to have bad taste?
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 8:18amJul '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Calling a Mule a Horse will not make it a horse.
I think it was the late 60's early 70's when the intimidation factor in art began to take place. When a person reacted to a piece that belonged on a refrigerator door rather than in a gallery and suddenly found themselves under attack for "Not Knowing What Art Is."
Well I'm sorry, but I cannot give a definition of "What Art Is" but I know it when I see it.
And I'll agree with Rush, "If I can do the same thing, it ain't art."
Aug '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
To me, the most insufferable part of the video was that obnoxious voice.
I get that there's supposed to be something ironic/tragic (see the slash?) about reciting Levitical codes against uncleanness in a memorial to gay AIDS victims. It's hard not to get it. So the sneering delivery is just gratuitous.
It was like watching a perverted, nightmarish Monty Python skit that was not at all funny. Bleagh!
Perhaps it's making a statement of some kind to create a memorial that annoys the viewer rather than communicating a sense of loss or tenderness.
But why is it a statement that must be made?
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 8:25amOct '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Art is one of the truest expressions of the human soul. Because we are made in the image of God, we have a creative as well as a worshipful impulse. But, because man is a created being, his creativity is not truely original but analogical. When man is worshipful of the Creator, his creations will tend to be in harmony with creation. When man is in rebellion against God, his creations tend to be dissonant abstractions of the real world, misshapen representations of his inner struggle with good and evil.
Thanks, Midge, for your member post, and welcome back.
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Most folks (myself included) have a knee jerk reaction about the word censorship, but of course, we "censor" people all the time. Usually we call it "selecting" or "editing." In fact, this is the job of a curator -- to select and edit a limited collection of material that can be displayed in a gallery. The culturally sad fact is, the dunderhead who chose this garbage in the first place was probably trying to be "edgy" or bold or whatever it is curators feel they're supposed to be these days, rather than use the space of a public gallery to uplift the human spirit -- which is the whole purpose of art! It's pathetic that parents and families now need ratings systems to confidently set foot into a gallery.
Nov '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Probably not going to say anything that isn't a variation of what's already said, but here goes:
To me, art is about expressing onesself. Example: my father in law can mud a wall and make it as smooth as glass. I've never seen anyone do it the way he does it. he thinks a textured wall is for "Dutchmen", which is his way of saying amateur. Knowing how to mud a wall and do it well is called craftsmanship. Doing it the way he does it, is an expression of himself, and I call it art. Some may disagree. The point is, art doesn't have to be a painting, a sculpture, or music. It can be anything that expresses who you are, we all know that.
Having said all of that, what these guys are doing isn't art. I say that because I don't think they are trying to express themselves. I think they are just trying to inflame a social debate. They are trying to evoke a response. I don't think that is the essence of art. It is the essence of meanness, however.
Aug '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
I believe I know what you mean, but art is not simply expressing yourself.
Not all self-expression is good, after all, as my own memories of childhood temper-tantrums remind me. Probably, what you mean is that art is positive self-expression, expressing something good or noble from within.
Ken Owsley:
Having said all of that, what these guys are doing isn't art. I say that because I don't think they are trying to express themselves. I think they are just trying to inflame a social debate.
Some people do express themselves by inflaming and provoking those around them, by being as nasty as they can just to get a reaction. But it's not a worthwhile type of self-expression, nor is it one than need encouragement (human nature has a big enough problem with it already).
Jul '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Marybeth Hicks
The culturally sad fact is, the dunderhead who chose this garbage in the first place was probably trying to be "edgy" or bold or whatever it is curators feel they're supposed to be these days, rather than use the space of a public gallery to uplift the human spirit -- which is the whole purpose of art! It's pathetic that parents and families now need ratings systems to confidently set foot into a gallery. · Dec 2 at 8:58am
I think you are giving the benefit of the doubt where it is undeserved Marybeth.
When I read the quote that this man finds Norman Rockwell paintings "Offensive" I knew that this trash was right in line with his Superior Knowledge as to What Art Is.
I do believe he was motivated by his own beleifs rather than an effort to be fashionable.
Nov '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
No, I think you can express something in yourself that isn't positive, noble, or good. Thinking about the subject art exhibit, there certainly folks out there who have experienced bigotry because of their sexual orientation. If Matthew Shepherd were alive, he could probably write a poem, or paint a picture, or express in someway what he feels about what he experienced. That probably would be somewhat troubling. The point I am making is that a lot of this stuff that offends us, isn't about someone sharing something about themselves. It seems to be more about instigating some controversy.
May '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
I love what Robert Hughes said about the pompier art at the Musee d'Orsay, and think I it is very appropriate in light of what most commenters here define as "art" and "obscenity."
"The one aspect of Orsay's collection that is likely to be controversial -- though not with the general public, which is sure to love it -- is the amount of space given to so-called pompier art of the Third Empire. (They) have dredged up an astounding panoply of period kitsch, from 1850s imitators of Ingres through Bouguereau to what must be the most obsessively pederastic elocution in all art history...Woven through these galleries are some of the most deliriously awful canvases of the 19th century, marvels of the salon in their day, high-finance porn of the ripest sort."
1/2
May '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
cont'd
"The aim is to show 19th century taste as it was, not as it ought, in the eyes of a retrospective modernism, to have been. Orsay...was right to include the work of these heroic flatterers and contaminated virtuosos...but they help one recognize the true achievement of the avant-garde alternative. The triumph of the avant- garde over the pompiers has been so complete that one can now look at the losers with calm interest and historical understanding. This is not a matter of camp revival, as some moralists insist, but of real history as against pious polemic."
And as Black Gopnik notes in his response NPG's bow to censors, "My decency is your disgust, and one point of museums, and of contemporary art in general, is to test where lines get drawn and how we might want to rethink them. A great museum is a laboratory where ideas get tested, not a mausoleum full of dead thoughts and bromides."
But what I'm most pleased about is that you guys are talking about this exhibit! You've saved the donors a bundle with all the free press and advertising. DC thanks you!
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 11:13amAug '10
Re: National Portrait Gallery Pulls Controversial Video from Exhibit
Ken Owsley
No, I think you can express something in yourself that isn't positive, noble, or good. Thinking about the subject art exhibit, there certainly folks out there who have experienced bigotry because of their sexual orientation. If Matthew Shepherd were alive, he could probably write a poem, or paint a picture, or express in someway what he feels about what he experienced.
I guess I wasn't clear and I apologize: Of course troubling, sad, and even evil themes aren't off-limits in art, but I believe that true art expresses even these "negative" themes in positive, constructive ways -- ways that ennoble humanity instead of degrading it.
Art's great gift is to transmute even suffering and injustice into something beautiful.
Our experience of suffering, artistically speaking, is by itself
"...but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress".
We can express ourselves, even the painful, ugly parts of ourselves, through art, but not every self-expressive outburst is art.
Edited on Dec 2, 2010 at 11:24am