National Portrait Gallery Removes Video Criticized for Religious Imagery

[villager]

Source: NY Times

National Portrait Gallery Removes Video Criticized for Religious Imagery

By DAVE ITZKOFF

The National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian in Washington removed a video from one of its exhibitions and apologized for its contents after the video was criticized by the Catholic League and members of the House of Representatives for being offensive to Christians.

The video, called “A Fire in My Belly,” was created by David Wojnarowicz and was being shown as part of an exhibition called “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.” The exhibition, which opened on Oct. 30, addresses issues of sexual and gender identity and bills itself as “the first major museum exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture,” according to the museum’s Web site.

Mr. Wojnarowicz, who died of AIDS in 1992, made the video in the 1980s. Among the imagery that he uses to depict the suffering of an AIDS patient is a scene of ants crawling on a crucifix. In a telephone interview, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, said “A Fire in My Belly” was a form of hate speech.

“It would jump out at people if they had ants crawling all over the body of Mohammed,” said Mr. Donohue, who has criticized the institution for displaying works by other artists he considers anti-Catholic, “except that they wouldn’t do it, of course, for obvious reasons.”

He added: “I’m not going to buy the argument that this is some statement about some poor guy dying of AIDS. Was this supposed to be a Christmas present to Catholics?”

Mr. Donohue said it would be appropriate for the federal government to cut its funding of art institutions like the Smithsonian in these circumstances.

<snip>

Read more: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/national-portrait-gallery-removes-video-criticized-for-religious-imagery/?src=twt&twt=nytimes

[CBGLuthier]

1. There is no such thing as The Catholic League, it is all

Bill Donahue a world class whiner who should be nailed to a cross himself for all the suffering he claims.

[Newsjock]

2. Fuck you, Bill Donohue

And for this to hit the news on World AIDS Day ... reprehensible.

[DeadEyeDyck]

9. I used to like him when he had his talk show

he was one of the first

[starroute]

13. Are you thinking of Phil Donahue?

Totally different person.

[bongbong]

3. Gawd

"Our God is all-powerful, but he is HELPLESS before a piece of art from a guy who died 20 years ago!"

[No Elephants]

8. With apologies to Mae West, Neither goodness nor God had anything to do with this.

God never objected to the painting or hid it, only humans did. So, why bring God into this debacle?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. Have Atheists ever complained about the offensive nature of

paintings depicting the resurrection of Jesus, etc?

I wish, if people are offended by art, they'd just not look at it.

[Igel]

6. Only if visible from public places or in a public, governmental place.

There are public buildings that incorporate religious motives. My BIL is militantly atheist: Frescos, murals, and other things on public property must not contain crosses or other religious symbols, make reference to any "sacred" work, represent any deity.

No, he doesn't like pictures of Athena or Mercury, either.

I've run into more that would tolerate Gk and Latin deities, but nothing currently worshiped.

So, yes. One could say, "Atheists have complained about the offensive nature of paintings depicting," among other things, "the resurrection of Jesus."

As long as "atheists" isn't taken as a generic, but as referring to specific atheists. Yes, I feel it's necessary to point out this bit of grammar because some will assume that by "atheists" I mean all atheists or perhaps atheists as a class. There's a tendency on boards like this to assume that if a sentence can mean something offensive or insulting that it does, or if a possible meaning can be controverted that's the meaning intended.

[No Elephants]

10. A museum is not a courthouse or city hall. Any objections from atheists

to stuff in government museums?

Another false equivalency-- the Constitution says nothing at all about government keeping it distamce from AIDs patients speaking out, via art, about their suffering. It does say something very important about theocracy.

[blackspade]

5. Oh, boo hoo.

The Christian corpse god can't defend himself from ants on a crucifix!
Total crap.

[No Elephants]

11. Please see Reply # 8. Whether or not you believe in God, why blame God

for what some humans did?

[blackspade]

15. Not blaming 'God' for this.

Just his more idiot followers that feel that he is so impotent that he is threatened by art.

[No Elephants]

7. Yes, bc religion never had an effect on AIDs research or added to an AIDs patient's suffering in any

other way.

And we censored.

[daleo]

12. I am sure ants have crawled on many crucifixes throughout history

It seems like an odd thing to get worked up about.

I also think it likely that an ant or two actually did crawl on Mohamed now and again. I know they have crawled on me, when I have sat a good long spell on the ground.

[boppers]

14. When you start worshipping symbols, you start defending symbols.

Mr. Donohue might do well to read what the scriptures have to say about idols.