:"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."The congressman's comment that made the museum fold like a bad poker hand?
“Absolutely we should look at their funds,” Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News.This is nothing new - I remember the attempts to de-fund the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s. Then it was portrayed as blue nosed yahoos vs. the brave Arts Community. That's how this will be portrayed, too.
“If they’ve got money to squander like this – of a crucifix being eaten by ants, of Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, men in chains, naked brothers kissing – then I think we should look at their budget.”
It won't work. After the response of the "brave Arts Community" to real attacks on art and artists (Theo van Gogh, the Mohammed Cartoons, etc.), the Arts Community has exposed itself as cowards and hypocrites. The hypocrite part is no big deal, but the coward part is. As a GOP congress looks to cut the size of the budget, this is a place they'll pick up votes.
The problem for the Left is that they no longer really have and claim to a higher moral ground. A Left that vigorously defends free expression would be a valuable thing. One that only defends some free expression will have to stand on the courage of it's narrow circle of supporters.
Good luck with that.
Hat tip: Ann Althouse.
Plus... any attempt they make to draw support from a population filled with people who are already sick of paying for stupid crap, will only further expose them for the societal ticks that they are.
ReplyDeletePick 'em off and burn 'em. I'm tired of being bled dry by people who look down their noses at me.
So the museum dood said, "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."
ReplyDeleteOK, since it's supposed to be all edgy and all, and have nothing to do with being anti-Christian, how about this: how about if you replace Jesus with Mohammad, and let him be the one covered in ants?