Does this photograph offend you?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Walt Whitman, 1891
How about now that I tell you it’s of Walt Whitman during the time he spent with his homosexual lover and Confederate deserter Peter Doyle?
How about this photo? Does it offend you?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Eakins, Salutat, 1898
But it’s showcasing the male body as an object of admiration.
How about this portrait of James Baldwin? Offensive?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Delaney, James Baldwin, 1963
Before you decide, let me remind you that he is a notorious queer writer. Really liked the penis.
Does this self-portrait of Robert Mapplethorpe offend you?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Robert Mapplethorpe, Self-Portrait, 1975
I mean there are no penises and no sodomy like other Mapplethorpe pieces, but he is a homosexual. And died of AIDS, that icky homosexual disease.
Or how about this painting by Keith Haring that he never finished? Offensive?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Haring, Unfinished Painting, 1990
He didn’t finish it because he died of AIDS, so probably totally offensive. Oh, and another big homo.
The Smithsonian presently is holding an exhibit called HIDE/SEEK at the National Portrait Gallery that claims to be the “first major exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.” It’s amazing. When I was there last week, I loved the exhibit, as it had some of my favorite artists from Warhol to Rauschenberg and actually explored queer themes. Never did I find any painting controversial. The most nudity is in Eakins’ Salutat (shown above) and all that shows is a little butt cheek. Yet Eric Kantor called the exhibition “an outrageous use of taxpayer money,” and John Boehner says “Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January.” A “mistake.” Either showing queer themes is a mistake, or the Smithsonian is going to have to deal with its liberal agenda before Republicans take over the House says Mr. Boehner, ready to fight for his party’s idea of Family Values. And the Democrats aren’t focusing on the economy?
But seriously, what is offensive here? The exhibit celebrates queer identity in the most water-downed way I have ever seen, and this is unacceptable? The most controversial piece is a video by David Wojnarowicz called A Fire In My Belly.
It depicts ants crawling on the cross bearing the body of Christ, and is supposed to represent the “agony and suffering” of Wojnarowicz’s partner who was dying of AIDS. Catholic League President argues, “If it’s wrong for the government to take the taxpayers’ money to promote religion, why is it OK to take taxpayers’ money to assault religion?” And the National Portrait Gallery complied. The video has been removed.
Whether or not the individual video is offensive is theoretically debatable although seems a bit bogus, but the true outcry is over the representation of queer themes and issues involving HIV and AIDS in a federally funded museum. How in 2010 could this be controversial? Especially with such a not in-your-face collection. Really, I though it was part of the permanent collection because the exhibit seemed so natural, so free flowing from the permanent presidential exhibit. And now it is part of the national debate and will probably be used as an excuse to take money from the arts as another provably non-effective approach to cutting the deficit. But my real concern is the assault on the first amendment, that because art alludes to queer themes it should not be exhibited under federal money. And why did these GOP leaders chose to go after the exhibit on World AIDS Day?
I’m offended.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
