If you want to make a name for yourself in the modern art scene, take Christ or some other Christian symbol and desecrate it. Cover it in feces, urine, or in this case ants. Do something vile and offensive to it and glory shall be yours! Mind you, it has to be a Christian symbol though, because using a Buddha or a Koran would run you afoul of the PC police and that would spell the swift end to your artistic career. The former is genius, the latter is bigotry. But desecrate a Christian symbol? Who needs talent when you can be transgressive instead! Accolades and fame (if not fortune) will be yours! Most of this shock art is just that– a desperate and transparent grab at notoriety. Offensive? Sure it is. But shocking? In this day and age? Thomas Kinkade is more of a rebel than any of these schlock mongers of the Left who want nothing more than to conform to the demands of their insular set. And he’s a hell of a lot more talented. Anti-Christian art today is dime a dozen and old hat. Honestly, I was hardly even motivated to blog this one. But Brent Bozell at News Busters raises a fresh question worth asking. If Christianity is not allowed in government buildings, why then is anti-Christian art permitted, and on the tax payer’s dime to boot! You see, Leftie wants his constitutional cake and to eat it too, but we’re not going to let him have it. If religion violates “separation of Church and state” of the Establishment Clause, then so does anti-religion.
Shock Art and ‘Social Dignity’
The curator elites at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery were happily abusing the trust of the American taxpayer, with radical gay activists pushing a gay agenda, replete with the religiously bigoted, sadomasochistic and homoerotic fare, all under the auspices of “art.” Then something happened. The public complained. Now these radicals are shocked – shocked! – that the “censors” are out to destroy their “artistic freedom.”
It’s like a bad rendition of “Groundhog Day.” How many times must we relive this foolishness?
The sponsors tell us that “Hide/Seek” is “the first major exhibition to examine the influence of gay and lesbian artists in creating modern American portraiture,” and how these gay and lesbian artists have made “essential contributions to both the art of portraiture and to the creation of modern American culture.”
But that isn’t enough. Theirs is a political message as part of a political agenda. To quote from their program, they want to strike a blow for “the struggle for justice, so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity.”
“Social dignity?” I suspect those are not the first words most Americans would use to describe a video that was part of the exhibit that featured images of ants crawling over Jesus Christ on a crucifix. It is simply imperative that any “art” display by gays insult, in the deepest way possible, the sensibilities of Christians.It’s mind-boggling that the same people who so quickly screech at the first sign of a religion near a government building don’t get the point that it should be equally wrong to have a sign of anti-religion in a government building. And don’t they see the richest irony of them all? There is that which they find offensive – a creche with the Baby Jesus on government property, and that which they celebrate and defend as “art” – a sacrilegious defamation of Jesus Christ, crucified. If it’s wrong to promote the Christian religion with tax dollars, isn’t it many times worse to trash the Christian religion with tax dollars?Like the public broadcasters, the public gallery operators hunger to rise above the dreary, pedestrian tastes of those rubes in middle America who revere Jesus and aren’t captivated by the “creative resistance” of the gay artistic vanguard. They demand “equality” and “inclusion” for the gay lobby, but there is no inclusion for the rest of us when it comes to what art they will declare advances the cause of “justice.” Curators ought to be wise enough to know there are limits of government-funded art.
So the curator announced finally that he was pulling the video of ants walking over the crucifix. But he offered no apology. In fact, he insisted that contrary to allegations, this “art” was not “meant to offend.” That’s simply dishonest. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of a potato chip knows this was precisely what they intended. This to them is the Christmas spirit.