Posted on 11/30/2010 1:58:23 PM PST by tobyhill
The Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery will remove a four-minute video feature that contains an image of Jesus on a crucifix covered in ants, its director said in a statement released on Tuesday.
Martin Sullivan, director of the museum, said the video by David Wojnarowicz shows images that "may be" offensive to some.
"I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious," the statement read. "In fact, the artists'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."
Earlier Tuesday, the museum was under fire for hosting the exhibit that also includes depictions of homoerotic art and an image of Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts. The exhibit outraged conservative leaders and prompted some Republican lawmakers to call for a congressional investigation.
“Absolutely, we should look at their funds,” Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Stop pouting you little twerp. Your lucky we didn’t fire you over this.
Uh—I don’t believe that the image of Christ represents an AIDS victim.
Uh...yeah...Jesus on the cross covered with ants and it’s supposed to depict AIDS victims. Don’t know why I didn’t make the connection.
Fire him anyway. He lacks common sense and good manners.
We should have.
“It was not the museum’s intention to offend”
Artists often say it IS their intention to offend. I guess it’s their intention to offend unless it’s not their intention to offend. Or maybe it’s their intention to offend until offending threatens their financial support.
I like the crack about “mature themes”. Put together by a bunch of guys whose development stopped in puberty.
Can you imagine these people standing before God trying to explain that what they did was within the bounds of artistic expression?
That day will come.
Of course, there’s always the opportunity for repentence, as long as breath remains. However, it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the Judgement. Hebrews 9:12
How much would any of us pay to see a true patriot running this outfit just gather all this crap up in a big dumpster and have it hauled to the curb?
How is it that our country has come to be run by politically correct dwwebs - bureaucratic versions of Pee Wee Herman?
> why didn’t the weak-minded weasel use a pic of moohamad as the aids victim.
Because, mooHamHead had Syphillis, silly.
If they always asked themselves...would we allow this same image if it was a Muslim depiction? And if the answer is no, then they should not go with it. End of story. That seems like a very simple litmus test to me.
'Nuff said.
The problem is, they hate Christianity and love Islam. Not that they love Islam as a religion, but they love it as a tool for attacking Christianity, Christian civilization, capitalism, individual freedom and liberty. That’s what they really hate. Individual freedom and liberty. And Christianity was the birthplace of both Western Civilization and the concepts of Individual Freedom and Liberty. So they really, really, really hate Christianity.
Islam? Heck, that’s just a bunch of fanatics out to kill Christians and those ... what did Hitler call them? ... oh yeah, vermin Jews.
So they LOVE Islam.
I wonder if I could get a Government Arts Grant for putting a Koran in a jar of urine??
And you can’t make that stuff up. It is like they have just decided to satirize themselves to save us the trouble. “Visual Studies Doctoral Program” indeed. “Larry Kramer Initiative....”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.