The Warhol Foundation threatens to withdrawal, or at least cease to provide future funding (over $300k of it) from Smithsonian system (National Portrait Gallery) over the pulling of a video that showed ants crawling on a crucifix. Catholics and others had taken offense to a video clip that was approximately 10 seconds or so in partial length (small part of a much longer video). When they started protesting, politicians started threatening to pull funding from the NEA and other sources that might feed into the Smithsonian system and soon thereafter the video was pulled "due to sensitivities" for some patrons or some similar such jargon that was used as an excuse.
So, the National Art Gallery is damned if they do pull the video and damned if they don't (or damned if they don't show the video and damned if they do show it).
Now, I'm not a fan of censorship myself, and really don't care much for those that would preclude others from seeing art, but by the same token the museum system is a victim of having fed at the public trow and because of that they are obligated to honor the public's wishes even if they want to tell the public to F- off! Realistically, they may very well have decided to pull the video because of sensitivities to patrons, but once they started displaying it (having approved it without being that bothered by the content) they shouldn't have caved in so easily.
On the other hand, the NEA uses public funds to do at least some of their work. In doing so, they are obligating themselves to political masters. Personally I'd rather the NEA get their funding directly from the public, not from the government redistribution of wealth and assets. If they did that, they could do as they please and only have to worry about losing funding if they offend a sizable portion of their donors. In turn, if the Smithsonian system (National Portrait Gallery) uses funds from the NEA they are also lining themselves up to serve those same political masters. Again easily solved if you refuse to accept tax money.
The bigger puzzle/issue for me is that the Warhol Foundation would seem to be setting themselves up to cut off their nose to spite their face. It strikes me that they are in the business of promoting art. They seem to have decided that this particular video is art and gawd bless them for that. Others disagree and have pushed to have the display changed to lose that particular piece. Some might call it a form of censorship, but in the end if the piece offends, it probably shouldn't be there. Does that mean that the Warhol Foundation should withdrawal the funding? If they do, would they not be going directly against what they would supposedly be in existence to do? Support art?! If the museum system won't be able to show art and help patrons get to see it and appreciate it, would they not be doing the world of art a great dis-service?
I know that it's their ball and they are entitled to go home with it if they wish, but I'd like to think that perhaps this should serve as a smack across their face when it comes to being more sensitive in selecting the works of art that they'll support the display of. While they may wish to push the envelope and while they may find artistic value in some things that others don't, they could still be more tolerant of the opinions of others just as they seem to want to force tolerance of controversial pieces of art upon others.
You hit most of the high points:
#1 - there would be no problem if there was no public funding (so no threat by some clown pontificating for the populace). Solution - Remove government funding of ALL art.
#2 - I have as much right to shun an idiot for displaying something i find offensive as anyone else does for not showing it. So if there was no government funding, then the pocketbook would rule - as it should. This is not about a basic freedom people! It is about simple economics - corrupted in this case by government money.
#3 - The Smithsonian has a choice to make. Give the public what it wants - or give the special interests what they want. They could have avoided it by simply having some common sense to begin with. But alas, when government money gets involved, common sense is the firsts causality.
Thank you.
We all have the right to simply turn our heads away from things that offend us, or to roll our eyes at things that were purposefully designed to offend (as is the case with a lot of controversial "art" like the "Piss Christ" and what not), and that's generally what I suggest we all do. But forcing us to pay for those things... now that's something else entirely, isn't it?
Indeed, we use money to show support for charities, politicians and of course our family. By forcing us to pay for that which we find offensive or just do not like, we no longer have the choice to choose what we feel is good versus trash. Our freedom of choice is confiscated from us.
You guys are hitting the bigger issue that I was aiming for in that I'd much rather artists get their funding from their patrons and supporters of their own particular work. Forcing me to give money via taxes takes away my choice and makes me support art that is anything but (at least in my opinion). If my tax money isn't involved then I have no real right to complain about an artwork if I didn't contribute to it in another way and in those cases I typically would have had the choice to support the artist or the foundations which supported the artist. Why I would support a group that promotes or defends art that I clearly don't like is beyond me, but at least if it was done via support from private entities I'd still have the choice.
How come it's never something edgy, like Mohamed with a bomb on his turban, at these art shows. I guess it's easy to be controversial when there are little to no chance of repercussions. Cowards.
Exactly!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
