and he that toucheth the flesh of the unclean becomes unclean.

[intertribal]

Re: The recent controversy over the Smithsonian Institute's installation "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." 

I actually really, really like the "video in question:" "Fire In My Belly," created by David Wojnarowicz in 1987.  Brutal and sad and frightening for sure (it almost reminds me of Begotten, but better).  But powerful, I think, and evocative.  You can hardly accuse it of having nothing to say or being "merely competent."  And look, people: I have mummy-phobia, and I have it pretty bad.  I don't find it pleasant either.  But judging by the way people were talking about it, and the way it was described in news articles, you would have thought it was a 4-minute video of ants crawling on a crucifix (or as the Washington Post puts it "Ant-covered Jesus video").  That segment is 11 seconds.  11 seconds!  And not even a memorable part.  That's like calling Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing a "book about abandoning dogs."

But, the video was removed after people like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (hahaha), House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Republican Whip Eric Cantor complained about it.  Catholic League guy is just grossed out: "The material is vile... This is hate speech... It is designed to insult (Christians)."  Eric Cantor is pitching to the Putting the Christ Back in Xmas demographic: "an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season."  Just want to remind: 11 seconds.  Also, not everything is about you.  Boehner threatened the Smithsonian with... something, when the Republicans take control of the House in January, if they didn't fix the problem.  But another Republican, Jack Kingston, wants to launch a Congressional investigation, because he is very angry about tax dollars - no, no, public space - being used to fund this "really perverted sick stuff" (he also thinks "Male nudity, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her own breast" are sick and perverted and kinky and questionable; presumably female nudity can still qualify as art): "They claim that this is not paid for by tax dollars, yet this is a public building with a publicly paid staff, public heat and air-conditioning, if you will, public security. So there’s no question the taxpayers are subsidizing this."

Contrast this with this snippet from the Publishers Weekly review of a book about Wojnarowicz, David Wojnarowicz: A Definitive History of Five or Six Years on the Lower East Side: "informed by his outrage against America's treatment of outsiders, in particular those suffering with AIDS." 

So on the one hand, video informed by outrage against America's treatment of outsiders.  American politician condemns video as, essentially, not representative enough of the public experience to justify public dollars being spent on it.  Yes, you ARE an outsider, says Jack Kingston.  You are not one of the public.  Your pain and your experience are not ours.  Sit down and shut up. 

Which is fucking bullshit, in case I needed to add that.

See also, a great article by John Coulthart (he makes the same point I do - "Among other things Wojnarowicz’s film depicts the artist having his lips sewn together. By shutting out Wojnarowicz from their exhibition the gallery and the Smithsonian Institute re-affirm the point he was making in the 1980s about the voices of the afflicted being silenced" - and adds a ton more, including a bonus riff on The Passion of the Christ, re: who is "allowed" to depict violation of Christ's body): "Ecce homo redux."

Comments

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Actually, the ant part seems to recur, but anyway. Not sure I like the video, though obviously I don't condemn it.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

My first though--before checking out any of the links--was that I damn well wish legislators were spending time taking care of people who are going to soon have no unemployment checks, which means no money, which means no food--that, to me, is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than fussing about an art exhibit.

So then I went and took a look, and first I looked at the video, and I wasn't sure what it was trying to say. It had lots of scary images (the blood, dripping, the mummies). It seemed to be about suffering? In the context of the soundtrack, the implication is that somehow we condemn suffering as unclean (and this is a bad thing)? The ants on the crucifix--I'm not sure why that's so particularly upsetting to people--it's nothing compared to the famous "Piss Christ". Of course, saying that something's not as bad as something else isn't going to make people who are offended feel less offended. But really, even from a religious point of view, it's possible to interpret it this way: Jesus was disrespected, humiliated, ignored. We will here show this by showing a crucifix with ants crawling around on it. In other words, just because you show an image doesn't mean you approve of it!

But I was wondering, still what the exhibit was all about, so I went to the Smithsonian page and saw that it was about sexuality and sexual difference. Then everything became clear: the congressfolk were *primed* to find something offensive, because their homophobic alarm bells had been sounded.

[eeuuugh.livejournal.com]

I'm so happy David Wojnarowicz is getting some attention! I love his photography, his band 3 Teens Kill 4 was great, and his essays in Close To The Knives are some excellent writing about AIDS and gay street life, along with Essex Hemphill and Samuel Delany. Ultimately I think this will lead to a lot more people discovering his work, and that makes me happy.