The controversial removal of David Wojnarowicz's piece, A Fire in My Belly, from the exhibition Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture, has created quite a stir within the art world. Below, I've provided you a link to the exhibition website as well as a link to two of the earliest pieces to appear in the media in response to the exhibition and then, the subsequent removal of the piece.
For this E-Journal response, please do a bit of web-based research into this topic and locate at least two additional sources of commentary related to the removal of A Fire in My Belly from the exhibition. In your response, provide a link (url address) to these two sources along with your response to the controversy and the exhibition in general.
Hide/Seek Exhibiton Site
Catholic League Response
Washington Post Article
For further information on events surrounding the protest of the work's removal, please see
HIDESEEK.ORG
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArt can be interpreted multiple ways, by the way the artists or the viewer’s own interpretation. In the case of “A Fire in My Belly” the Catholic League had a different interpretation of the artist’s intentions of honoring his dead friend. Art will be controversial, but art that is offensive should not be banned from a show because a group is offended. Instead attention should be called to the piece and to why this group was offended. This gives us a better understanding of social cultures. As The New York Times points out this is not an attack on sacrilege, but of the gayness of the images in the exhibition. IT was interesting to read the Catholic League’s article on the “anti-Christian” exhibit. They are allowed to have their own opinions, but I still do not think their argument to pull down the video or taxpayers dollars from the Smithsonian was justifiable. It was good to see how many museums picked up the piece after it was removed from the exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. The Warhol museum being one, and they are playing the complete two-part version. It is no surprise the contemporary art world was ready to stand up for the film. The way institutions have joined together to host screenings to draw attention and discussion to the work and issues of censorship is comforting.
ReplyDeletehttp://smartmuseum.uchicago.edu/exhibitions/david-wojnarowicz-a-fire-in-my-belly/
http://www.warhol.org/webcalendar/event.aspx?id=2242
I read the posts listed in order, first read through the description of "Hide/Seek" and then the Catholic League review and Blake Gopnik's article in the Washington Post. What I found funny was that after I finished reading the Catholic League review I thought, they aren't arguing about this video clip because of the Christ imagery, they are arguing because of the grander topic of the exhibit, homosexuality, identity and the issue of HIV/AIDS. And then when I read Gopnik's article, he said the same thing!!! After researching further, I found Congressman Eric Cantor's attack on the piece to be totally irrelevant to the fight to remove the video, "an outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season." I find it somewhat unethical, perhaps, to allow a private group to persuade the museum into removing a piece of artwork. It has always been my own personal belief that if you find something offending, remove yourself from that offense. Under no circumstances are people being coerced into viewing the film. I thought it was interesting how Gopnik juxtaposed his own dislike for Rockwell with the Catholic League's dislike for Wojnarowicz, his tax dollars pay for both and he is not fighting to have Rockwell's art removed from exhibition. The New Museum, in New York, out of solidarity are showing the film in their lobby that was removed from the exhibition like I hope many other gallery spaces choose to do.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fire-in-my-belly-banned-f_n_793460.html
http://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/435
After reading the selected articles and doing my own digging it became painfully obvious that society has once again revealed one of the U.S.'s main problems. Our problem is that we like to pretend there is a separation between church and state. There is too much religion in every aspect of the government and how they proceed with their views for there to be a separation of church and state. This art work was not an attack on the church because it has ants crawling on a crucifix. The Catholic League claims it is an attack but really it could be more about Wojnarowicz's suffering and how the church played a role in that part of his life. Is it an attack towards the church when someone criticizes the church for attacking people that don't follow all of the behaviors in the scripture or sin? It is a statement of this artist's personal beliefs/experiences with the church. Last time I checked, that kind of freedom of speech and protest was allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe church should not be able to pressure people into censoring the rest of society from certain things that they feel are wrong. Furthermore the investors of this show knew what they were funding and should have had more of a backbone when it came to defending their reasons for backing this show but it doesn't seem like any of them did that. Gopnik said it best when he said "If anyone's offended by any work in any museum, they have the easiest redress: They can vote with their feet, and avoid the art they don't like." and we should do just that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/arts/design/11ants.html
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/12/smithsonian-fire-in-my-belly-video-by-david-wojnarowicz.html
I couldn't agree more with the responses written above... as Sio pointed out, I too think that the Catholic League seemed more offended by the homosexual content then the Christ being eaten by ants. I think the church is far too quick to jump at any opportunity to voice their discontent and disapproval with homosexuality... they begin to loose grasp of the bigger picture past the initial shock that may be depicted in the visual aspect... The story being told is both beautiful and heart breaking, bringing to light the unspoken/ taboo issues that come with the topic of homosexuality: HIV and AIDS. Had it not been Wojnarowicz's video, then I firmly believe there would have been another artist that would have sparked a similar reaction, a major show dealing with the topic of homosexuality is an all too easy target for the church to throw their hands up at and grumble about
ReplyDeleteWhat is most frustrating about this is that this show clearly took on the seemingly controversial topic of homosexuality and clearly must have known that in doing so they would have certain responsibilities in justifying the work to ensure the artists have their honest freedom of expression. Clearly they felt that they overstepped a boundary, or overly offended someone enough to the point where they removed and artist's work......................... then why even bother to tackle the controversial issue at all if you aren't then willing to stand up for the work you chose to represent? Contemporary art is FULL of offensive imagery, this for sure was not an isolated incident. One must have known that if they were going to take on the challenge of homosexuality that some sort of rude imagery would come out of it.
Clearly I am not the only one that thinks that the Gallery made a weak move by giving in to the cries of the church... as can be tracked on hideseek.org, many locations are taking part in displaying the video to show their support for artistic freedom and anger at the decision to remove the art from the show.
The church hasn't had an influence on the direction and censorship of art in decades... their fear mongering died out during the Renaissance, and I don't think now, or ever, is the right time to let them back into having a say on what can and can't be shown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/a-fire-in-my-belly-protes_n_797730.html
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2010/12/16/offensive_ica_lets_the_public_decide/
I agree with the other comments that the disapproval of the cross image from the Catholic League really had to deal with their disapproval of homosexuality. After watching the clip from the video, I realize that the scene of the ants crawling on the cross is not very prominent, appearing for a couple of seconds. Making the case that the video is a hate message apparently works and it is odd that such a large museum would submit to a single private group. Other than calling the video a hate speech, the Catholic League made the argument that the exhibition is using taxpayers’ money. The group used false information to convince a large group of people and successfully censored the art. According to a Huffington article, the Catholic League also canceled a six foot chocolate statue of Christ from another exhibition. When a church in Sweden allowed HIV/AIDS photographs of Christ and Mary, the Vatican canceled an upcoming meeting with the church. Formally the photographs look similar to la Pieta but the reference to homosexuality is a taboo according to the church. The irony of the Smithsonian story is that the Catholic League’s attempt to remove the video has spur greater attention for the exhibition. Numerous places are showing the video and more people are probably going to visit the exhibition due to all the attention. However, through all the commotion, the exhibition’s statement about homosexuality and identity might be loss due to all the talk about the cross.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/art-censorship-and-the-sc_b_806402.html
http://www.frieze.com/blog/entry/under-fire/
I can understand where the Catholic League stands and how they may be offended by images of ants crawling on a crucified Christ, but the truth of the matter is that a lot of art is disturbing to different people (and groups of people) and that is what makes it successful. It is impossible to please everyone because we are all different, and as Blake Gopnik writes, just make a point to avoid that which offends.
ReplyDeleteOn top of all this, I’ve grown sickened by the attempts to ban homosexual expression in the United States. This controversy does nothing but contribute to the matter. Granted, I am not claiming that everyone offended by this work of art is anti-gay, but I know that there are at least some people who are vehemently opposing this for that very reason. It is rather obvious (in my humble opinion) that the aforementioned clip of ants on Christ is not a message of hate. It simply depicts suffering in a way that actually makes the viewer cringe… which was the intention of the art: to shock, to show something universally relatable in terms of suffering (since the majority of America’s population assumes some denomination of Christianity).
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/12/national-portrait-gallery-censored-david-wojnarowicz-video-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/arts/design/11ants.html?_r=1