"Seeking to convey his anger at the American government for its inattention to AIDS..."
Odds that a conservative who thinks we've overspent on AIDS as a disease getting space at the Smithsonian: 0. Let alone a conservative making said point by misusing religious icons.
Of the examples pointed out in this post, none of them are obscene or pornographic (unless you consider nudity as such in which case perhaps you have a problem with the Sistine Chapel). Regardless they're part of the artist's experience and expression and should be observed as such. Censorship of art, particularly when you don't understand it, is a prime indicator of the dictatorship so many conservatives claim to refute.
The article also clearly states the exhibit was paid for by outside sources and while the building and staff are Smithsonian owned and funded, the taxpayers include more than those who may, for whatever reason, be offended. Non-christians, homosexuals, or those who appreciate different viewpoints are taxpayers too. If someone reads about the exhibit and decides based on those opinions not to go, they don't have to.
If there were a notable artist who uses such symbolism in their work, I'd hope people would be all for it's expression. This exhibit isn't about inciting politics or religious animosity, it's about expressing the artist's experience. In this case, the artist didn't feel such anger towards Islamic figures.
Obviously you don't know enough about art to judge but you might try seeing the work outside of some narrow ideology.
I hadn't been to D.C. in awhile and last week I went through most of the galleries and walked into this exhibit not knowing the subject. It didn't take long before I reversed course out when all you see are nude males on the walls, etc. I had seen the "mature subject matter" sign at the entrance, but I guess what I would consider mature art differs from the Smithsonian.
Ironically, there was a large Norman Rockwell exhibit on a lower floor. Can't get much more of a juxtaposition than that.
A thought experiment: Imagine I am an artist (a stretch, believe me!). Imagine that my "experience and expression" is virulently anit-Muslim and anti-gay. Now imagine that the expression of my "experience an expression" were on display at the Smithsonian paid for with your tax dollars and donations.
1. Would you be inclined to decry me as an offensive bigot or would you zealously guard my right to free expression? (Recognizing that the answer could be "both.")
2. Would you expect the media to excoriate me for my insensitivity (a la Rev. Terry Jones) or celebrate my creativity and willingness to express deeply controversial ideas in the face of certain condemnation (a la Mapplethorpe)?
3. Would you expect Muslims worldwide to riot in the streets (Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy) or write strongly worded letters to the editor and create angry blogs in which they impotently complain about my offensiveness (Corpus Christi, TX)?
I don't expect you to answer this out loud. It would be too hard to be honest. (Not sure I could be honest about it out loud -- and I suspect I might not be proud of my private response.) But just think about it.
Personally, I don't think the government should be funding art of any kind. In my view, it creates an opportunity for the government to favor one point of view over another (a threat to free speech almost as dangerous as censorship) and is not a Constitutional expenditure. But if the government does fund art, as I suppose it will forever, then I DO NOT support censorship. I do, however, support my free speech right to condemn the art as offensive. Hardly dictatorial there.
Substitute a copy of the Koran and a flattering picture of a white supremacist for the ant covered Jesus and the naked brothers kissing, and I suspect we would be having a very different discussion.
In any event, I do not support offensive art AND I do not support censorship of offensive art. First Amendment for me and thee.
Oh, Hughman, Please give us the benefit of your vastly superior knowledge about "art". Please demonstrate for us how you "know enough about art" to be able to judge the opinion of another who disagrees with you as a clear indication they do NOT know enough? Please demonstrate for us the superior knowledge you possess about art that enables you to recognize the difference between artistic expression and shallow shock value? And please answer Brian H's question: If an artist were to feel anger toward Muslim extremism that was of sufficient degree to meet your threshold for credibility and entitle him to express that anger in a depiction of Mohammed in excrement, do you honestly suggest you would be defending such depiction on free speech grounds? Do you think this museum would EVER consider displaying that image? Not in a million years, which demonstrates that their choices here were not artistic, but purely political. To suggest otherwise is to either be dishonest or incredibly naive.
"Seeking to convey his anger at the American government for its inattention to AIDS..."
Odds that a conservative who thinks we've overspent on AIDS as a disease getting space at the Smithsonian: 0. Let alone a conservative making said point by misusing religious icons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf the examples pointed out in this post, none of them are obscene or pornographic (unless you consider nudity as such in which case perhaps you have a problem with the Sistine Chapel). Regardless they're part of the artist's experience and expression and should be observed as such. Censorship of art, particularly when you don't understand it, is a prime indicator of the dictatorship so many conservatives claim to refute.
The article also clearly states the exhibit was paid for by outside sources and while the building and staff are Smithsonian owned and funded, the taxpayers include more than those who may, for whatever reason, be offended. Non-christians, homosexuals, or those who appreciate different viewpoints are taxpayers too. If someone reads about the exhibit and decides based on those opinions not to go, they don't have to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, when do we see the ant-covered Mohammed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" ... and Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts"
Is there a word for the opposite of pornography?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So, when do we see the ant-covered Mohammed?"
If there were a notable artist who uses such symbolism in their work, I'd hope people would be all for it's expression. This exhibit isn't about inciting politics or religious animosity, it's about expressing the artist's experience. In this case, the artist didn't feel such anger towards Islamic figures.
Obviously you don't know enough about art to judge but you might try seeing the work outside of some narrow ideology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hadn't been to D.C. in awhile and last week I went through most of the galleries and walked into this exhibit not knowing the subject. It didn't take long before I reversed course out when all you see are nude males on the walls, etc. I had seen the "mature subject matter" sign at the entrance, but I guess what I would consider mature art differs from the Smithsonian.
Ironically, there was a large Norman Rockwell exhibit on a lower floor. Can't get much more of a juxtaposition than that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHughman,
A thought experiment: Imagine I am an artist (a stretch, believe me!). Imagine that my "experience and expression" is virulently anit-Muslim and anti-gay. Now imagine that the expression of my "experience an expression" were on display at the Smithsonian paid for with your tax dollars and donations.
1. Would you be inclined to decry me as an offensive bigot or would you zealously guard my right to free expression? (Recognizing that the answer could be "both.")
2. Would you expect the media to excoriate me for my insensitivity (a la Rev. Terry Jones) or celebrate my creativity and willingness to express deeply controversial ideas in the face of certain condemnation (a la Mapplethorpe)?
3. Would you expect Muslims worldwide to riot in the streets (Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy) or write strongly worded letters to the editor and create angry blogs in which they impotently complain about my offensiveness (Corpus Christi, TX)?
I don't expect you to answer this out loud. It would be too hard to be honest. (Not sure I could be honest about it out loud -- and I suspect I might not be proud of my private response.) But just think about it.
Personally, I don't think the government should be funding art of any kind. In my view, it creates an opportunity for the government to favor one point of view over another (a threat to free speech almost as dangerous as censorship) and is not a Constitutional expenditure. But if the government does fund art, as I suppose it will forever, then I DO NOT support censorship. I do, however, support my free speech right to condemn the art as offensive. Hardly dictatorial there.
Substitute a copy of the Koran and a flattering picture of a white supremacist for the ant covered Jesus and the naked brothers kissing, and I suspect we would be having a very different discussion.
In any event, I do not support offensive art AND I do not support censorship of offensive art. First Amendment for me and thee.
Best.
Brian
Perhaps it was not the intent of the
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, Hughman, Please give us the benefit of your vastly superior knowledge about "art". Please demonstrate for us how you "know enough about art" to be able to judge the opinion of another who disagrees with you as a clear indication they do NOT know enough? Please demonstrate for us the superior knowledge you possess about art that enables you to recognize the difference between artistic expression and shallow shock value? And please answer Brian H's question: If an artist were to feel anger toward Muslim extremism that was of sufficient degree to meet your threshold for credibility and entitle him to express that anger in a depiction of Mohammed in excrement, do you honestly suggest you would be defending such depiction on free speech grounds? Do you think this museum would EVER consider displaying that image? Not in a million years, which demonstrates that their choices here were not artistic, but purely political. To suggest otherwise is to either be dishonest or incredibly naive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse