Interesting. I'm not sure why, but I can't help but muster an ironic grin every time somebody allows themselves to get so bothered by a piece of work - simply because they can't see the value in it, or alternatively, attempt to find offense where none exists.
While I have mixed feelings about the pieces on display, what I found most shocking was that politicians would more or less make threats to withdraw funding.
We've seen pieces of art, drawings, etc. pulled before due to perceived threats to public safety, children and of course, their potential to offend certain groups.
I've always found it to be a pretty interesting discussion (I recall having some fantastic discussions surrounding the Henson photos).
Keeping in mind the intent of the artists, those who are likely to consume it, and what they might be inclined to think, when is it acceptable - if ever - to ban or put pressure on galleries, television channels, etc to withdraw "art" (or to censor pieces, movies, music etc. as some might see it)?
Full story here:http://abcnews.go.com/US/smithsonian-removes-ants-crucifix-video-exhibit-sparkin... Quote:A provocative video depicting ants crawling over a likeness of Jesus on a crucifix has been pulled from the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, sparking a debate over art, sacrilege and freedom of speech.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, called Wojnarowicz's video "hate speech" meant to denigrate Christianity.
Several Republican leaders, including incoming House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, have said they will examine taxpayer funding for the Smithsonian in the wake of the controversial display.
"Absolutely, we should look at their funds," 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."
While the exhibition itself was privately funded, taxpayer dollars are used for general operations of the museum facilities and its staff. The Smithsonian Institution received $636 million in federal funding in 2010. The National Portrait Gallery received $5.8 million.
Smithsonian Institution president Wayne Clough said he decided Tuesday to pull the video from the display. In a memo to museum staff, Clough wrote that his decision was "not made lightly or in a vacuum" and suggested he didn't want controversy over the video to distract from the rest of the exhibition.
"I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious," said National Portrait Gallery director Mark Sullivan in a statement. "In fact, the artist's intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum's intention to offend."
Smithsonian Institution spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said the removal of Wojnarowicz's work was unprecedented. The gallery has never before pulled a piece out of an exhibition because of public outcry.
She said that prior to publication of the CNS article the museum had received no complaints about the video, which she described as a small part of the show.
"It was a small screen in an alcove of the exhibit, and you had to push a button on the screen to activate it," said St. Thomas.
Forum
Pages: 1
Art vs Censorship (Read 522 times)
