Thinking with the Wrong Head

Before you even read my post, the article here deserves primary interest. I owe all credit to the geniuses at BigThink.com for relating Rep. Anthony Weiner's recent public debacle to an art historical precedent.

As Bob Duggan says in his BigThink post, Congressman Weiner's misguided digital communiqués pick up upon a tradition that has been prevalent in visual media essentially since the dawn of time when men decided that they ran the world (though we'll leave the specifics of that debate up for discussion). In short, men have always believed that bigger is better - and you better make it known who's the cock of the walk, so to speak. Duggan cites the infamously challenged progenitor King Henry VIII's portrait by Hans Holbien the Younger. The King here was trying to prove visually, before he had proved physically, that he had the might to produce a male heir. Duggan also goes on to smartly note that phallic symbols not only connote material power, but spiritual right as well with Leo Steinberg's thesis that "many images of Jesus Christ as an infant emphasized his genitalia." Thus the purely visceral concept of human sexuality and passion transcends into the religious realm of divine authority manifest in, of all things, a penis.

So where does this art history put us in regards to the contemporary world? Well, far from the divine rights of kings I'd say. I understand and very much enjoy Duggan's perspective on the male desire to visually prove to us what apparently eludes verbal description. But it's also important to note that Anthony Weiner was not, in any way, deliberately tapping into this art historical tradition. For one thing, his tweets or e-mails were intended for private communication, and even so the accompanying text with the images were of a nature decidedly less high-brow than the potentially lush spiritual metaphors of a gift bestowed from God. The argument remains, however, that for centuries even before written history (see inset of the erect bird-man from the Lascaux cave paintings circa 15,000 BCE), men and their phalluses have had the insatiable urge to demonstrate visual virility to an audience with or without our pre-approved consent.

Perhaps we should all just bite the bullet and, ahem, head-off (apologies) the inevitable sex scandals a la Weiner and Schwarzenegger by allowing powerful men to display at the forefront of their public persona their magnificent, proud arsenals in the way of King Henry VIII. On the other hand, I may just prefer to swallow that bullet instead.

Source: http://bigthink.com/ideas/38836

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)