Connect with us

Sacrilege Or Censorship? Christians Enraged by Art with Gay, Religious Images

Published

on

Minor White (American, 1908–1976). Tom Murphy, 1948. Gelatin silver print, 4 5/8 x 3 5/8 in. (11.7 x 9.2 cm). The Minor White Archive, Princeton University Art Museum. Bequest of Minor White, MWA 48-136. © Trustees of Princeton University Photo courtesy Tacoma Art Museum

On November 18, HIDE/SEEK: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture will open to the public at the Brooklyn Museum (BM). After it closes on February 12, the exhibition will travel to the Tacoma Art Museum (TAM) where it can be viewed from March 17 through June 10, 2012.

It wasn’t until the controversy surrounding it went viral more than a month after it opened, that I first heard about HIDE/SEEK , then showing at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG). I considered traveling to Washington, D.C. to see it, but the holidays were coming; a blizzard was predicted for D.C. and I was familiar with the work of many of the artists. When I owned a gallery, I had even shown some of the same pictures being exhibited at the NPG. And I had experienced the same issues as Jonathan Katz and co-curator David Ward when they were assembling the show.

Like them, I had been refused loans of art, often by closeted gay curators who were afraid of drawing attention to themselves. In fact my gallery, In a Plain Brown Wrapper, which I opened in Chicago less than a decade after Stonewall, had been visited by police in 1980 and threatened with closure when I held the first Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition outside of New York and San Francisco.

This was not the first time that an exhibition that included LGBT or religious imagery had been censored and undoubtedly not the last. So thinking I had been there, done that, I decided to stay home with my partner in more temperate Seattle.

But I changed my mind over a post-Christmas brunch with our neighbors down the street. Pamm had given Pam a copy of the splendid catalogue, a stunning coffee-table size book which included images I had never seen before. Wow! After flipping through its pages, really just a quick perusal, I was ready
to pack my bag. And I’m really glad I decided to make the trip.

It was only after I had booked my flight that I learned my stay coincided with an organized protest by Art Positive at the annual meeting of The Smithsonian’s Board of Directors.

 

Stuart Wilber and Lt. Dan Choi. Photo by Shannon Cuttle

In case you missed the uproar, I’ll explain. A four minute excerpt from the film A Fire in My Belly by David Wojnarowicz was on display when this landmark show first opened on October 30, 2010. It was removed December 1.

As Holland Cotter reported, NYT, 12-10-2010 this was not the first time Wojnarowicz’s work had created a stir. “In 1989, Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, mailed a pamphlet reproducing details from collages by the New York artist David Wojnarowicz (1954-1992) to every member of Congress, to various news media outlets and to religious leaders across the country. Mr. Wildmon, a Methodist minister, had prepared the pamphlet himself; he considered the images pornographic or blasphemous. He had copied them from the catalog for an exhibition partly supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the real object of his protest. Wojnarowicz (pronounced voy-nah-ROH-vitch), furious at having his work selectively edited, sued Mr. Wildmon for misrepresenting his art and won the case.”

 

A Fire In My Belly (still), 1986-87. Super 8mm film, black and white and color. Silent. Courtesy of The Estate of David Wojnarowicz and P.P.O.W Gallery, New York and The Fales Library and Special Collections/New York University

Twenty-one years later history repeated itself. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, one of the icons of the Religious Right, took offence at an excerpt from A Fire in My Belly which included an image of ants crawling over a crucifix and Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor suggested the entire exhibit be canceled and threatened the federal funding of the Gallery unless the Smithsonian pulled the Wojnarowicz piece. Feeling pressured, G. Wayne Clough, the director of the gallery unilaterally removed the video excerpt of the film, a commentary on AIDS and spirituality.

The Smithsonian was petitioned to restore the video to the exhibit  and the film was projected on the side of the building, but it wasn’t until Mike Blasenstein and Michael Dax Iacovone brought the film back into the NPG that the story of its removal and copies of the video went viral; the ensuing kerfuffle prompted institutions worldwide to protest the censorship and show the video.

Blasenstein strapped an iPad around his neck and stood in the gallery with the video playing on the screen. He offered flyers about the Smithsonian’s censorship to visitors. In less than 10 minutes security guards removed him from the exhibit and he and Iacovone, who filmed the encounter, were barred for life from returning to any of the Smithsonian museums. Prohibited from displaying the film inside, Blasenstein and Iacovone parked a trailer around the corner, called it the Museum of Censored Art and showed the film for the duration of the exhibition.

Last April when I learned the Brooklyn and Tacoma Art Museums were exploring the feasibility of re-mounting Hide/Seek, I asked Lisa McKeown, the Communications Coordinator, at the Tacoma Art Museum if any objections had been made to mounting the exhibition. She responded, “Just to clarify… There hasn’t been an organized movement that we’ve had to deal with (yet) as far as people objecting to bringing the exhibition to Tacoma. We have received some letters, emails, and phone calls from individuals who do not want us to bring the exhibition, for various reasons. On the flip side… we have had many more letters and emails in support of our bringing the exhibition here.”

And in May, when I began a letter-writing campaign to lend the two museums additional support for mounting the exhibition, Charles Desmarais, then Deputy Director for Art at the Brooklyn Museum responded that unlike the NPG or TAM, “we have received nothing but support and encouragement.”

Not anymore! An article in yesterday’s New York Daily News was headlined, “Another unholy controversy at Brooklyn museum: Video of ants skittering over crucified Jesus is enraging Christians.”

Erin Durkin, Mark Morales and Katie Nelson wrote, “An avant-garde video of ants skittering over the crucified Jesus is enraging Christians who say an upcoming Brooklyn Museum art exhibit is sacrilegious. ‘Ants were crawling on the image of the crucified Christ,’ said Msgr. Kieran Harrington, a spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, which sent a letter asking for the video to get yanked from the exhibit. ‘Certainly we don’t think this would be tolerated if this was the image of the Prophet Muhammed [sic] or any other religious symbol.’ ‘What is the point?’’ said Pastor A. R. Bernard, who leads Brooklyn’s Christian Cultural Center. ‘I think this is the piece in the Hide/seek collection they really need to hide.’

It’s far from the first time the art museum has stirred the pot: The museum drew ire from then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1999 for an exhibit featuring a painting of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and images of female genitalia.

Giuliani tried to cut the museums funding because of the painting, part of a provocative exhibit called Sensation.  Giuliani and Catholic advocates also slammed the museum for featuring [Renee Cox’s “] Yo Mamas Last Supper” which depicts Christ as a nude woman in 2001. “A Fire in My Belly” is creating a similar stir. But Brooklyn Museum Director Arnold Lehman defended the entire exhibit. ‘For a city that prides itself on diversity and creativity, there couldn’t be a better exhibition,’ Lehman told the Daily News.”

There are more than a hundred good reasons to travel to Brooklyn this winter or to Tacoma
this spring; viewing the 10 second segment of
 a 4 minute excerpt from the 30 minute A Fire in My
Belly is only one of them.

The website of the Brooklyn Museum, puts the exhibition in perspective. “Hide/Seek is the first major museum exhibition to focus on themes of gender and sexuality in modern American portraiture bringing together “more than one hundred works in a wide range of media, including paintings, photographs, works on paper, film, and installation art. The exhibition charts the underdocumented role that sexual identity has played in the making of modern art, and highlights the contributions of gay and lesbian artists to American art. Beginning in the late nineteenth century with Thomas Eakins’ Realist paintings, HIDE/SEEK traces the often coded narrative of sexual desire in art produced throughout the early modern period and up to the present. The exhibition features pieces by canonical figures in American art—including George Bellows, Marsden Hartley, Alice Neel, and
Berenice Abbott—along with works that openly assert gay and lesbian subjects in modern and contemporary art, by artists such as Jess Collins and Tee Corinne.”

 

 

Berenice Abbott, 'Janet Flanner,' 1927 Photo courtesy Tacoma Art Museum

“In addition to revealing connections between sexual identity and formal developments in modern art, HIDE/SEEK presents artists’ responses to the Stonewall Riots of 1969, the AIDS epidemic, and postmodern themes of identity, highlighted with major pieces by artists such as AA Bronson, Félix González-Torres, and Annie Leibovitz.”

Yes, there are more than a hundred good reasons to go to Brooklyn between November 18 and February 12. And if you manage to get there before January 29 you can also catch the exhibition, Youth and Beauty: Art of the American Twenties  which includes this splendid painting of gay icon, Paul Cadmus.

 

Luigi Lucioni (American, 1900–1988). Paul Cadmus, 1928. Oil on canvas, 16 x 12 1/8 in. (40.6 x 30.8 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Dick S. Ramsay Fund, 2007.28 Photo courtesy Brooklyn Museum

Another not-to-be-missed exhibition, Seeing Gertrude Stein: Five Stories is presently at the NPG, through January 22, 2012. It was originally shown at San Francisco’s Contemporary Jewish Museum where ironically a lesbian couple was asked to leave the exhibition because they were holding hands.

 

Pablo Picasso, Portrait of Gertrude Stein, 1906, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

From the day they met, September 8, 1907, Stein and Toklas lived as an openly Lesbian couple. Seeing Gertrude Stein: Five Stories features more than 25 artifacts and 100 works by artists from across Europe and the U.S., detailing Stein’s life and work as an artist, collector and distinctive style-maker.  The NPG website informs us that the exhibition “shares an in-depth portrait of Stein that knits together her many identities: literary celebrity; life-long partner of Alice B. Toklas; arts networker whose famous friendships included some of the most prominent artists of her time (Picasso, Matisse, Braque, Hemingway); Jewish-American expatriate; and muse to artists of several generations. Stein is considered by many to be an inventor of Modernism whose reach across the arts was extraordinary. She wrote novels, poems, essays, literary and art theory, opera libretti, ballets, memoirs and children’s books and was also an arts networker, bringing creative people together in legendary salons and gatherings in her homes. Her originality as a thinker, along with her interdisciplinary approach to projects in dance, music and theater, continue to inspire artists today.”

Despite today’s political climate with its resurgence of intolerance and incivility; the directors and curators in Brooklyn and Tacoma have defied attempts at censorship and instead defended freedom of expression. At a time when funding for the arts is problematical at best they have risked the disapprobation of patrons, donors and politicians. These institutions deserve our support – the easiest and best way to demonstrate it is to simply go see these shows.

You won’t regret the time you take or the effort you make to journey to these museums. Each of these exhibitions offers the opportunity to understand the human experience from an historical LGBT perspective. The pictures are as moving and as relevant today as when they were first made.

And if you want to try your hand at a little subversive activism while you are enjoying the art, how about holding hands with a person of the same sex as you stroll through the museum?

Stuart Wilber. Photo by Mathew Ryan Williams

 

Stuart Wilber believes that living life openly as a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Allied person is the most powerful kind of activism. Shortly after meeting his partner in Chicago in 1977, he opened a gallery named In a Plain Brown Wrapper, where he exhibited cutting edge work by leading artists; art that dealt with sexuality and gender identification. In the late 1980’s when they moved to San Clemente, CA in Orange County, life as an openly gay couple became a political act. They moved to Seattle 16 years ago and married in Canada a few weeks after British Columbia legalized same-sex marriage. Although legally married in some countries, they are only considered domestic partners in Washington State.  Equality continues to elude him.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Susan Collins Doesn’t Regret Kavanaugh Vote After Roe Repeal: ‘Didn’t Impact Maine’

Published

on

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she does not regret her tie-breaking vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, even after the Supreme Court voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, ending the right to an abortion at the federal level. She said that the decision did not affect her state.

Speaking to reporter Randy Billings fo the Portland Press Herald, Collins said that she disagreed with the Roe decision, but pointed out that she also supported Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who all dissented from the decision.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine in that name actually expanded its law,” Collins said, according to WCSH-TV.

READ MORE: ‘She Knew What Brett Kavanaugh Was Going to Do’: Morning Joe Calls Out Susan Collins Over Abortion Ruling

In explaining her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she said “When I look at a justice, I look at their qualifications, their integrity, their background, their experience in reaching a decision.” During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, he dodged questions from senators on whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade calling it “settled law.”

“One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said at the time.

When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over a 2003 email he wrote where he said he was “not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level,” Kavanaugh said he was merely referring to the positions of such scholars.

“But the broader point was simply that I think it was overstating something about legal scholars. And I am always concerned with accuracy, and I thought that was not quite accurate description of legal, all legal scholars because it referred to ‘all,'” he said. “To your point, your broader point, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times… That makes Casey precedent on precedent. It has been relied on. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases such as Glucksberg and other cases. So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.”

Following the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe, Collins admitted that the decision was “completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing also hinged on accusations of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her while they were in high school, allegations Kavanaugh denies. During the hearings, sexual assault survivors met with Republican senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, urging them not to confirm, according to Time magazine.

Murkowski ultimately was the lone Republican vote against confirming Kavanaugh.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Josh Hawley Slams Baseball League for Punishing Players Over Anti-Pride Night Demonstration

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) accused Major League Baseball of a “pattern of discrimination” after the league punished three players for their protest during a recent Pride Night celebration.

Hawley released the letter Tuesday afternoon following MLB issuing three San Francisco Giants pitchers for writing references to the Bible on their hats, a special Pride Night variant of the standard Giants hat featuring a rainbow version of the team logo.

“I write with grave concern over your reported decision to issue a formal warning to three Major League Baseball (MLB) players for publicly expressing their Christian faith. This follows a high-profile undercover investigation that revealed at least one MLB team discriminated against a player based on his Catholic faith. You must answer for what appears to be a pattern of discrimination within MLB against baseball players who profess their Christian faith,” Hawley wrote.

READ MORE: Baseball Commissioner Says Pride Jerseys Make Some Players ‘Uncomfortable’

Hawley was not the only Republican politician to condemn the MLB. Vice President JD Vance tweeted “Trump won we don’t have to do this anymore,” alongside a retweet of Sports Illustrated’s coverage of the warning. Rep. Nancy Mace from South Carolina wrote “So it’s okay when they’re forced into wearing pride hats for social propaganda, but Bible verses are an issue?” Mace made a name for herself attacking the first transgender representative Sarah McBride (D-DE), and recently came in fifth in her district’s primary election.

Pitcher Landen Roupp wrote Gen 9:12-16 on his cap next to the rainbow logo. Two relief pitchers, JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker, wrote similar references to the same Bible verse on their hats. The verse refers to the rainbow symbolizing the covenant between God and all creatures that he would not flood the earth again, however many anti-LGBTQ Christians have used the verse to accuse the queer community of co-opting the rainbow symbol.

MLB says that the warning came not over the content or meaning of the messages, but instead was a violation of the league’s rules about uniform integrity.

“To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message,” the league said in a follow. “We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment,'” MLB said in a statement, according to the New York Times, adding that similar warnings had been issued to players who wrote the names of family members on uniforms.

Another relief pitcher, Sam Hentges, wore the standard version of the Giants hat. He did not receive any warning from MLB.

The Giants have a long history of supporting the LGBTQ community. It was the first team to wear rainbow versions of its logo during Pride games. It was also the first team to raise money for HIV/AIDS research in 1994.

The team apologized for the pitchers’ protest, sending a statement to the San Francisco Standard, that  it was “proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community.”

“Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued. We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations. We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that.  Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

White House Retweets McDonald’s Advertisement, Appears to Take Credit for Bringing Back Apple Pie

Published

on

Trump McDonalds

The White House used its X account to repost a McDonald’s advertisement alongside a photo of President Donald Trump with three bags of fast food.

On Tuesday, shortly after noon on the East Coast, the official White House X account retweeted a post from the fast food giant advertising that it was bringing back the fried apple pie next week. The White House attached the photo of Trump posing in the Oval Office with bags of food.

Making America Great Again for real,” it tweeted, alongside the eyes “looking” emoji, appearing as if the president was taking credit for the product’s return. 

While Trump has frequently shared his affinity for McDonald’s products, this is perhaps the closest the White House has come to an actual commercial endorsement for the brand. Recently he had McDonald’s food delivered to the White House by DoorDash as another photo opportunity, but it was officially to promote his “no tax on tips” policy, rather than the companies themselves.

READ MORE: McDonald’s Tweets to Donald Trump: ‘You Are Actually a Disgusting Excuse of a President’

Previous presidents have refrained from using the position to promote a product like this. Trump is an exception; while most of the time his product promotions have been for his own branded products like the Trump Bible, he has occasionally expanded his presidential endorsement to other products.

His daughter Ivanka posed with Goya black beans after the company’s CEO praised Trump in 2020. Trump himself then took a photo posted to Instagram of himself posing with various Goya products in the Oval Office.

Last year, Trump promoted Elon Musk’s car company Tesla by staging a photo op with a number of Teslas parked on the South Lawn of the White House. CNN’s Brianna Keller pointed out at the time that former President Joe Biden similarly had automobiles parked on the White House lawn for a photo op. In that case, however, it was as part of an “Electric Vehicle Summit,” and featured executives from multiple car manufacturers, rather than an endorsement of a single company.

Legally, those holding public office are barred from endorsing products, services or enterprise. Presidents prior to Trump were expected to divest themselves of their businesses; former president Jimmy Carter famously divested himself from his peanut farm upon taking office.

Carter put his farm into a blind trust, where the trustees have full discretion and beneficiaries have no control over the trust nor receive any reports. However, during his first term, Trump put his assets in a trust controlled by his sons and an additional executive, according to the Washington Post. After being elected to a second term, he has again put his assets in a similar arrangement, according to the Hill.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.