Quote:
Martin Sullivan, director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, says the artist created the piece as a response to the "agony and suffering" of his partner who at the time was dying of AIDS. Using "vivid colors, and some fairly grotesque scenes, it's more a meditation on the fragility of the human flesh," Sullivan says.
But included in that meditation is a crucifix — a cross bearing the body of Christ — crawling with ants. The image, according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue, is offensive. He calls the video "hate speech" and says that "the Smithsonian would never have their little ants crawling all over an image of Muhammad."
Donohue says he complained to members of Congress and the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. "My principle is very simple," he says, "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?"
Donohue admits he has not seen the exhibition Hide/Seek, but he did see the video images of the ants on the crucifix online.
Donohue's concerns echo those of others who've complained to the National Portrait Gallery, says Sullivan. So Sullivan decided to remove A Fire In My Belly from the show.
"The concern that people of the Christian faith were apparently telling us — 'You wouldn't do this to a Muslim image' — was distracting to the larger and more important themes of the show, which is why we did the exhibition in the first place," Sullivan explains.
But included in that meditation is a crucifix — a cross bearing the body of Christ — crawling with ants. The image, according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue, is offensive. He calls the video "hate speech" and says that "the Smithsonian would never have their little ants crawling all over an image of Muhammad."
Donohue says he complained to members of Congress and the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. "My principle is very simple," he says, "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?"
Donohue admits he has not seen the exhibition Hide/Seek, but he did see the video images of the ants on the crucifix online.
Donohue's concerns echo those of others who've complained to the National Portrait Gallery, says Sullivan. So Sullivan decided to remove A Fire In My Belly from the show.
"The concern that people of the Christian faith were apparently telling us — 'You wouldn't do this to a Muslim image' — was distracting to the larger and more important themes of the show, which is why we did the exhibition in the first place," Sullivan explains.
I think this is much ado about nothing. It's the old sticks and stones thing. But the argument that "if it was..... then you would/wouldn't...." is just stupid biased speculation. It pisses me off that Sullivan caved to that kind of logic. But eh, you gotta pick your battles right.
HERE's the video. I think it's pretty cool, very emotional, though very morbid....and may not be considered work safe.
If you were Sullivan would you have removed it?
Furthermore, this got me to thinking about about a visit I had to one of the Smithsonions. I'm pretty sure it was at the Air and Space Museum. The exhibit was how planes and the air force etc, etc had contributed to our military efforts throughout history. The WWII portion was extensive. Among other pieces of famous airplanes it contained the cockpit of the Enola Gay. Noticeably lacking, however, was any commentary on the significance of the Enola Gay.
As our society wanders through popular sentiment what we see and learn at the Smithsonians is clearly censored. Still I think they're worth the time, effort and cost to the tax-payers to maintain. But maybe they're really just eye-catching propaganda??
edit - back to fix some typos.
Edited, Dec 2nd 2010 4:27pm by Elinda
