The Video John Boehner Doesn't Want You to See

[Donnachaidh]

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/john-boehner-wojnarowicz-video?utm_source=twitterfeed

Last week, incoming House Speaker John Boehner and incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor were acting like they'd received a gift from above. On November 29, a Christian web news service published a critical story about "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," a new gay-and-lesbian themed exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery that included a seemingly sacrilegious video of an insect-infested crucifix. In response, the two top House Republicans demanded that the gallery, part of the federally funded Smithsonian Institution, cancel the entire show. Cantor dubbed the exhibit "an outrageous use of taxpayer money."

Their conservative colleagues rushed to bring the wrath of Congress down on a staid institution best known for its First Lady portraits and Gilbert Stuart renderings of George Washington. Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News, "If they've got money to squander like this—of a crucifix being eaten by ants, of Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, men in chains, naked brothers kissing—then I think we should look at their budget."

For congressional Republicans, the kerfuffle was a welcome chance to rile up their base. Evangelical Christians have been uneasy with the rise of the tea party movement and its attempt to focus on fiscal issues to the exclusion of more controversial social ones. The Portrait Gallery provided the GOP leadership with an easy way to reassure socially conservative foot soldiers that it has not forgotten them: Reviving the culture wars of the 1980s, when conservatives crusaded against objectionable federally funded art. Attacking "Hide/Seek" provided an effortless victory with little downside: The artsy types who cried censorship generally don't like Republicans, and Bohner and company know that while the tea party is a vocal part of their coalition, evangelical Christians still make up a much bigger part of the electorate (and there are many tea partiers among them, too). And besides, there's nothing better than a fight over publicly-sponsored gay art to get evangelicals fired up.

The gallery quickly responded to the outcry by yanking "Fire in My Belly," a four-minute film some jokers have dubbed "Anty Christ." The graphic video, made in 1987 by artist David Wojnarowicz, depicts the agonies of AIDS through various representations, including an 11-second shot of ants swarming a wooden crucifix. (See a version of the video below.) The montage also includes clips of a man having his lips sewn together (a reference to the old ACT-UP motto "Silence=Death") and a shot of an erect penis.

MORE at the link --

[LARED]

1. Sorry, repulsive video

It belongs in the trash bin. Looks like something a demented patient cooked up 23 years ago. Why this is considered art baffles me.

[hedgehog]

2. I think th e video is harsh - not exactly what you'd put over the living room couch -

but it treats true horror, how could it be honest and not be harsh. I think the crucifix is a use of a symbol to tie the suffering and persecution of AIDS patients to that of Christ.

[bluedave]

3. art?

Looks more like a steamin' pile to me

[vi5]

4. That's not art.

Art is Bob Ross paintings of soft, running brooks and nice happy trees. Art is Leroy Neiman paintings of basketball and baseball players. Or pictures of kittens playing with balls of yarn.

We as a country should not be supporting art that doesn't make us happy and comfortable and glad to be alive. And we definitely should not be supporting art that unsettles people or makes them unhappy. That's not what our founding fathers had in mind.

























:sarcasm:

[Donnachaidh]

5. phew! I'm so glad you put the sarcasm thingie in there

:rofl:

[vi5]

7. Normally I don't....

..Since I like to see how people react or who picks up on it, or who actually reads my posts to know I would never say anything like that.

But given that my jaw is on the ground that there are people on a liberal message board who are more or less posting that exact thing and being serious....I was not leaving anything to chance.

[MuseRider]

8. LOL, good post.

Art is SUPPOSED to do these things, stir up controversy and make people think. Some is just purely for beauty and to admire the incredible things people can portray but lots of it is not pretty. I really really do not want to live in a society that does this kind of thing or allows it's government to do it. This behavior is stupid and abhorrent. As was Ashcroft covering the breasts of statues.

Like the TV, you do not have to look at it and if you do look at it you do not have to appreciate or even approve of it. It sounds like the exhibit was doing exactly what it meant to do, stir things up.

[LynneSin]

10. Shame on you - just shameful....

How could you forget the greatest living artist of our generation, the master of light himself Thomas Kinkade.

:rofl:

[Erose999]

6. The article is wrong about Teabaggers focusing on "fiscal issues." Most all of the 'Baggers I know

are all about the fundie/racist social agenda. Most of the 'Baggers I know won't be satisfied until we make X-ianity the state religion and we bring back segregation.

[Brickbat]

9. Fooey, I thought this was going to be the video of Boehner drunk and weeping on election night.

Because that, friends, is better than any art.

[justiceischeap]

11. Whether you agree or even understand the artists conception

It is still art. I look at some things, shrug my shoulders and say, "Eh, I don't get it..." but that doesn't mean it's not socially important. The important thing to remember about this video is that it was created in the 80's when everyone was ignoring the AIDS crisis. What's the quickest way to get attention to anything? Nudity and using the image of Christ (usually by doing something not-so-nice to it). That's says a lot about our nation, our media and our priorities.