Fire in My Belly de David Wojnarowicz, Diamanda Galas
Uploaded by altimsah. – Independent web videos.
Yesterday, the National Portrait Gallery pulled a video installation from the exhibit “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” following an uproar from conservative groups. The four-minute video, “A Fire in My Belly” by late artist David Wojnarowicz, depicts ants crawling over Jesus Christ, symbolizing the pain suffered by AIDS victims.
Hide/Seek marks the first major museum survey to explore sexual identity and LGBT themes in American portraiture, and features pieces by Andy Warhol, Annie Leibowitz and Jasper Johns. Although the exhibit has been in place since Oct. 30, it only drew criticism following the publication of an article on Monday by conservative news site CNSNews.com. The article notes that the “Christmas-season exhibit” has used federal funds to display “naked brothers kissing, genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The Smithsonian does receive roughly 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, though funds for specific exhibits — including this one — are raised privately.
In the maelstrom that followed, a National Portrait Gallery spokeswoman said the museum and other Smithsonian museums have been flooded with calls, with people contacting “any e-mail address they could find.” Prior to the article, she said no complaints had been received.
Museum director Martin Sullivan released a statement yesterday about the decision to pull the piece, a portion of which is as follows:
“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.
The museum’s statement at the exhibition’s entrance, “This exhibition contains mature themes,” will remain in place.”
It only takes a quick glance at the comments on CNS to see what type of feedback the Smithsonian was receiving yesterday. But the criticism hasn’t been restricted to ordinary CNS readers. The Hill reports that House Speaker-designate Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have called for the exhibit to be shuttered, with Cantor calling the exhibit “an outrageous use of taxpayer money.”
Of course, the larger question here for the Smithsonian is whether their funding is at risk. TBD notes that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has called for the Smithsonian’s budget to be reviewed and their books audited. TBD does a great job of taking a look back on whether past threats over controversial pieces have resulted in actual budget cuts for museums.
Sullivan has stated that the exhibit will remain open as planned through February 13.
UPDATE: In protest of the National Portrait Gallery’s decision, Transformer Gallery will be showing “A Fire in My Belly” on a continuous 24-hour loop. The gallery is also organizing a silent walk to the museum at 5:30 p.m.
Pingback: More art Congressional Republicans should censor while they’re at it » We Love DC
Thanks to Rebecca for reporting this! It’s great to see a media report that isn’t biased. Rebecca just reported the facts and didn’t offer a opinion of her own. Thanks Rebecca for showing high integrity reporting!
Pingback: Tweets that mention Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit » We Love DC -- Topsy.com
Why not show a painting of Mohammad with ants on HIS face? Attacking Christ is an outrage.
I am completely mystified at the idea that people seem to have that the only possible interpretation of ants on an image constitutes an attack on what that image represents. Aside from the statement the artist was actually making (which was about the suffering of AIDS patients, and what image is a more globally recognized symbol of suffering than a crucifix?)… depicting ants on a picnic blanket doesn’t constitute an attack on the integrity of picnics and all who engage in them.
As a Christian myself, I actually think the image of ants, as an important part of the natural world’s process of decay, crawling over a crucifix makes an interesting statement about the spiritual effects of the gradual decay of our bodies, especially when accelerated by something as pernicious as AIDS. What I’m *outraged* about is the way my co-religionists are using this issue to bludgeon curators of art who are trying to bring an important social issue to their attention.
I understand your comment,Tiffany, but consider the fact that the image of Jesus to many should not be USED in this way. Is the artist comparing the pain of AIDS to the pain Jesus suffered for taking on the sins of the world ? I don’t think this is a useful comparison. It was done to create publicity.
AND, I am SICK AND TIRED of Jesus being used for political purposes by artists who dont give a damn how many people they offend, on the contrary as you well know, “IN YOUR FACE” and AGITATING art is the vogue and ANYTHING beautiful is forbidden.
If the piece offends ONE old lady somewhere, it’s enough to remove it. OK so why don’t you put a MOHAMMED with ants on him next time and lets see how many people get offended by that.
The ATTACKS on CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS are EVERYWHERE: even if this is not intended as an attack, it is offensive and selfish and I don’t want ONE PENNY of my tax dollars going to fund it.
That’s it, Ava, I’m offended by your comment. Does that mean I should remove it from this site? No. Dissenting voices are important.
@Tom Bridge,
Dissenting voices are great.
Pay for them with your own money.
That’s what this is about, not the speech itself, which I am happy to have appear in a private gallery. Knock yourself out. Just don’t use my money to pay for it against my will.
I am not for censorship but just as tax dollars should not be used to fund discrimination or offense to minorities, gays, women, etc. they shouldn’t be used to offend members of any religion either. I am aware that the government is only housing this exhibit but that is too much support. They should find a private sponsor and location.
Our new litmus test should be Islam. “HWMR” “How Would Muslims React” Could/would/should you portray Muhammad with ants and blood all over him? If not, what makes him or his adherents more deserving of respect than Jesus and his adherents?
AMEN Count Zero and Ava
Y’all want it – pay for it.
Don’t expect me to.
We are BROKE – BROKE…
Pull their funding now.
Let the rich artists and estates of Andy Warhol, Annie Leibowitz and Jasper Johns, and others pay for it.
Not me.
I find the entire thing a travesty.
Once you religious nuts realize that this whole sham they call religion is nothing but wise tales, the world will definitely be a better place.
Ava P….. I LOVE YOU!!!! Nicely said!!!!
I can not say it any better then Ava—-my radio listeners feel the same. As a radio show host in the NorthEast, many people fell just like Ava. Just For once, for once, offend someone else this holiday season!
The reason you did use MOHAMMED is you know the repercussions would be just a touch more, how shall I say, Extreme??!!
Some people like to skim before they post instead of reading what is said, so I’ll post this bit for you.
“The Smithsonian does receive roughly 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, though funds for specific exhibits — including this one — are raised privately.”
The outrageous things said on the CNS website were so incredibly hateful and overwhelmingly violent that I was sick to my stomach for two days over the number of people who would act in such a way. What really got to me was the so called “Christians” spouting such hatred and intention of violence. One quote in the thousands of comments (and yes I read them all out of shock) even called for Jesus to kill everyone involved. I personally would never counter something I considered to be hateful with outright violence, because then who would actually have the moral high ground? I have the extreme privilege it seems of knowing no man or woman who calls themselves a Christian who would react in such a manner as this. You can be offended by something, everyone gets offended by things and everyone has the right to be angry, but what right does any man have to hate or kill another?
On a final note: It’s art. If you don’t like the content don’t go to the exhibit. I think it’s a shame that the gallery was forced to take down a piece. Some of our most famous historical pieces around the world were considered extremely offensive in their day.
If the show is so open and honest, lets see them nail Mohamahad’s butt to the wall and cover it with ants or better yet put his image in a jar of urine.
Stop all federal funding for this bunch of yahoos.
Every other museum has a ton of Jesus and Christian themed paintings. Now it’s off-limits for an artist to use his likeness?
Well, it is beyond me how this “depicts the suffering of an aids patient”. It seems more like a depiction of madness and mindlessness. But the Clorox ad appearing as it plays is an interesting interplay of business, profit and mainstream “understanding” of how to solve or alleviate health problems brought on by the innocents who engage in risky behavior. Woe to those who don’t engage in it, but are exposed to the dangers anyway.
Heather – excellent analogy! I’m going to start using that from now on! “HWMR” or “WWMD” (What would Muslims do?).
You said it perfectly, if you would not do something to an image of Muhammed that you would do to the image of Jesus – then why are Muslims more deserving your respect than Christians?
Perhaps artists should start portraying the prophet Mohammad in such a manner. Then, they would know the meaning of the word maelstrom.
An art installation made with private funds but housed in a public gallery (which certainly includes a lot of religious art) makes the neo-cons explode, but yet they think LIBERALS have a “Political Correctness” problem?? Give me a fricken break.
Just go look how much incessant whining a gay-centric (I know, shocking they want it censored..) installation virtually none of them will see, or a single atheist billboard somewhere, can cause on a national level. Ridiculous.
PS: Gays and Atheists pay their taxes just like you.
This art exhibit was put on using privately raised funds, not taxpayer dollars. So, consider that.
Tiffany and Ava, both of you have commented in words which express how I basically feel. Both have good points. I would like to say that censorship is the enemy in our land of liberty, but I (perhaps we) am/are creators of our own demise if we allow ANY depiction or effigy of our Lord and Savior to exist for “shock art” purposes. I applaud the S.I. for removing the atrocity, and I humbly accept the apology of the Director. I was just in D.C. in Nov. for a week and enjoyed the free time I had to enjoy the saved pieces of history in the other buildings. If that display was in my view, I believe I would have left the mall and gone to one of my representatives offices to complain. I just don’t think it is an appropriate method to convey feelings on what I know must be a terrible, painful, illness.
This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
To Mike Hunt.
How do you know….aren’t you taking a gigantic risk for all eternity? Think about it.
You would do well to read about Union General Lew Wallace’s Novel Ben Hur. And why he became a believer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur:_A_Tale_of_the_Christ
Reply To Heather:
Housing represents quite a lot of support. There’s a cost to having workers install the stuff and then take it out. There’s a cost for storage. Workers also have to be paid for the time they spend cleaning up after visitors; if you have a particularly large crowd generated by an exhibit it then takes more time to clean up. There’s also increased security, and a higher utilities bill.
That’s a lot of money.
We–the taxpayers–are paying for these expenses. Ideally we would get great art, but instead we get gay incest and “Piss Christ: Part 2.”
The fact that they are housing such a controversial exhibit will get a lot of people angry, which means lost revenue from lower ticket sales.
The government will then take even more of our money to make up the difference.
The “What if you put ants on Muhammad’s face” argument is completely specious. If the artist had used an image of Muhammad, yes, it’s true, there would indeed be widespread outrage in the Muslim world, and no doubt some of that religion’s fundamentalists would be calling for all sorts of violence.
And we, as a freedom-loving people, would all be talking about how ridiculous and inappropriate that reaction is. Which is pretty much what I’m talking about right now when it’s my co-religionists doing it.
This video is an excellent example of what happens when you remove Christian from a society. You get completely insane artistic expression. I’ve been a professional artist for over twenty-five years and I can tell first hand the art community is full of mostly lunatics. God save us from the nightmare of these atheist nutters!
Tiffany Bridge:
THANK YOU.
Mike Hunt: “Once you religious nuts realize that this whole sham they call religion is nothing but wise tales, the world will definitely be a better place.”
Since you believe in nothing, obviously, you’ll fall for anything.
BONUS – the last country that decided to crush the free expression of religion? THE SOVIET UNION.
I don’t really understand how the same groups who defended the use of public property for groups (churches, boyscouts, etc) who not only preach anti-gay messages (direct personal ones, like saying they are perverts, evil, dangerous, unworthy of parenthood or marriage, etc … not just a flashed imagery that could be interpreted as insensitive) but also flat out ban gays from participation could demand that something like this be removed from public property.
Would it have been more appropriate if they curator followed example and simply banned Christians from participating? I honestly don’t see any substantial difference, and the anti-gay Christian group’s own legal precedent should probably allow it.
It makes no sense. Aids suffering! It’s 100% preventable. If gay men stop putting their dicks in each others asses, the problem will go away. Problem solved.
Further evidence of my theory that 99.99% of modern “artists” have no talent in any field that could be considered useful/marketable, and therefore gravitate to “art” where they can at least do something talentless, yet outrageous, and call it art, and some art critic, with even less “talent” than the “artist”, will claim it is great art!
The artist would never do this to a picture of Mohummad.
And… the museum would never accept ants crawling over a depiction of Muhummad.
Funny how Christianity is the only target they go after.
Would the president take his family to see it?
Pingback: Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit | Steinblóm
Why did you even consider this exhibit? To me, and to all I know, this was ill-conceived, misguided, rude to the extreme, insensitive, way beyond pathetic,…. Oh, well. I have almost given up on the “ARTS” people. I believe you live in a self made delusion of grandeur.
We really need to UP all of our collective respect and manners. I have always held the Smithsonian in high regard. ..Not so much anymore! You make me feel sad.
Linnell Dunaway,
At least nobody was killed. Had the video been an image of the prophet Muhammad covered in ants, I think the museum may have been burnt down.
stop trashing jesus.. this is not art
oh and one more thing… you can call it what you want.. it is simply not art.. it is trash
Sick satanists.
I always find it amusing when artists intend for their work to be “provocative” and yet are surprised when people viewing it are then provoked. That said, I’m not sure the piece is as blasphemous as some seem to think.
But whether it’s good or evil (or good or amateurish, for that matter) where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to take away money from anyone in order to give it to artists of whatever caliber?
This is not just about discrimination. I would have no problem with an exhibit of artwork by gays and lesbians about their love or experiences being on display in a public location if the exhibit was not a smack in the face to another interest group. I don’t think a church should use public buildings to bash and humiliate gays but I would have no problem with something that simply expresses an opinion w/o malice. This is intentionally malicious. Just like Jesus made of poop or whatever. Why do we tolerate hateful expressions of difference with Christianity but not Islam? The difference thus far is that Christians tolerate it or just verbally express outrage. Some Muslims are willing to kill for it. Both groups have a right to speak up against disrespect. Why are we afraid to mention one but totally disrespect the other?
For a while there, the Smithsonian was beginning to look like the William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library and Adult Book Store.
Remove govt funding from these nuts.
That would be a good start in reducing the grip these various degenerates, atheists &wackos have on art.
Art in our society is too important to be wasted on these fools.
I think its stupid to pull it… I think the worlds best art is that which inflames and makes people wonder, “Is it art”… In art there is nothing off limits… I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed… But a Christian blows his horn and gets mad if someone shows him something they don’t like… If this was out in the open, in a public park thats one thing… But in an art exhibit? Grow up… A four min video is not going to destroy Christianity.
Pingback: Smithsonian pulls ant-covered Jesus piece from exhibit… | The Daily Conservative
Simple solution.
Offend all thereligions with the same exhibit (or none).
Ant covered Jesus
Ant covered Muhammed
Ant covered Moses
I’d also state the obvious that no matter how vitriolic the semantics are on this issue, I dont think any heads have been lopped off…
My 8 year old son realizes that sometimes things happen that he doesn’t like and doesn’t agree with, but he doesn’t get to decide what other people do with their free will.
Apparently free will is something that some Christians accept only if it doesn’t offend their delicate sensibilities.
Freedom isn’t free, remember? The price of a free society means that sometimes people will do things you don’t like. Being a mature human being means that you can accept that.
I will say this: covering Jesus with ants is artistically lazy. If you can’t paint or draw or take a picture, then you shock the middle-class with stuff that is deliberately offensive. It just reeks of 1980s era culture war, like a faded poster of Jesse Helms. The curators at the Smithsonian have the right to exhibit whatever they want. But the artist is a hack.
Free speech, right? Or is that only when it agrees with your personal theology? …
Religious zealots are the biggest PC demanding, freedom hating cowards around. And no, not everyone does or has to like them. Plenty think their beliefs to be a dangerous social disease, and given their crime, divorce, abuse, drug, etc. epidemic I’d say their is some truth in it. But who the heck cares? Go watch just about any national news any night of the week and you’ll probably see condemnations of others far more insensitive than a vaguely, abstractedly critical 4 minute clip they’ll never see.
Basically; if you are too fragile in your beliefs to even hear of the existence of a critical viewpoint, then that’s your own problem. You have to deal with others and their beliefs if you expect them to deal with you and yours.