There's a Fight Going on in D.C.

Which isn't really a surprise, but this particular fight piqued my interest. Certain groups from all sides of the metaphorical fence including the Catholic League, the Republican party, representatives from the GLBT community, and leaders in the art world have been offended concerning a four minute surrealist video installation which had been showing in the current exhibition of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery until it was pulled due to controversy.

The exhibition, called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," is about the development of sexual difference in America and how artists have dealt with it during its changing status since "before difference" which the exhibit marks with Walt Whitman and Thomas Eakins in the 1880s. The controversy centers upon the aforementioned video piece by the late David Wojnarowicz which features an eleven second scene of ants crawling upon a toppled crucifix. The video itself is about Wojnarowicz's turmoil as he watched his partner die of AIDS, followed by Wojnarowicz's own death from the same disease. Evidently, about a month after the exhibition went up, cries of disapproval - sparked mostly by CNSnews - claimed that the video was anti-Christian and offensive after which the Smithsonian removed the piece from view. However, not knowing when to leave well-enough alone, Bill Donohue from the Catholic League decided to go one further and state that the Smithsonian doesn't deserve its federal funding since "I don't go to museums any more than any Americans do." Apparently he believes that since many Americans like him are too ignorant and lazy to seek cultural experiences, our government should be prevented from providing this service to anyone at all.

From there, the fight becomes significantly more complicated and petty (as D.C. politics tend to be) so I'll spare you the details. In essence, the Bill Donohue and his Catholic League are angry about the alleged anti-Christian sentiment, the Republicans (Boehner and friends) are bothered that the Smithsonian used federal funding for the project, the gay community is upset that they haven't been properly supported throughout the venture, and the art world is pissed that the Smithsonian gave in to censorship. In short, it's a mess. And aside from their initial move, the Smithsonian has tried to limit its further commentary on the entire fiasco.

But here's the deal, my opinion at least. Criticisms from the Catholic League, CNS, and the Republicans are just thinly veiled anti-homosexual bigotry. Attacking the use of battered Christian imagery or homo-erotic presentations in modern art is merely an uneducated and biased perspective on a ground-breaking exhibition. Both Christian imagery and homo-eroticism have been staples of Western art since Western art was born. Sure, there is a way to take it too far by exploiting either theme for the sake of shock value or mere mockery, but these images have a purpose and a message. The Republicans are just as bad if not worse by targeting the funds for this and all future projects, clearly looking for a way to get at those they marginalize without outright announcing their homophobia. It's pathetic, disgusting, and unfounded. The Smithsonian Institute needs not be named as an outstanding public organization which has served the public well and faithfully for more than 150 years. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community which can be rightfully offended, as we all should be by this nation's persistent refusal to accept them, also needs to understand that sometimes small sacrifices are necessary for a greater good. This exhibit is important; it is new; it is pushing the envelope for recognizing homosexuality as a natural, significant part of life in America. The four minute video sparking religious controversy should not take away focus from the rest of the works, and it was perhaps best to let that argument go in favor of protecting the larger message of Hide/Seek. Lastly, the art community also has the right to be aggravated by censorship, but the safest move in the end is to pull together with the museum rather than threaten to cut external support. The arts go through enough trauma already from our detractors, and we won't stand up much longer if we start dissention within ourselves.

To put the still image in context with the video here's the link. You must be at least 18 or older to watch due to some graphic images and sexual content. This YouTube edit is slightly different than the museum cut most significantly in that it doesn't use the original audio.

ArtNews article reference (with more detail and many excellent embedded links)
NYTimes (focusing more on the gay rights issues at stake)