Gay art: The Catholic League responds to commentary on 'anti-gay bullying'

The Catholic League dropped a line the other day to complain -- again -- about something I wrote in connection with the Smithsonian Institution's hasty and ill-informed decision to censor an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. As with the league's first e-mail in December, this one also makes a claim that is not supported by the facts.

Here's what I wrote that generated the latest complaint:

"The Smithsonian's dilemma was ginned up by a single source: the Catholic League, which New York Times columnist Frank Rich has aptly described as 'a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.' Wojnarowicz's video partly laments widespread official apathy early in the AIDS epidemic and uses a crucifix as a specific symbol of general Christian indifference. The Catholic League called it anti-Christian, but the symbol is in fact more correctly described as anti-Catholic League and its ilk. Here's why: William Donohue, the $400,000-a-year head of the organization, and L. Brent Bozell III, who is on the league's advisory board, are ardent anti-gay activists."

Here in its entirety is the e-mail I received this week from Donohue:

 

"Instead of relying on Frank Rich, you should do your own investigation. We are listed in the Official Catholic Directory, which demonstrates our nexus with the Church. Also, I had no idea that the vile video was part of a gay exhibition until after I called it hate speech. In any event, we won and you lost. Get over it. You are sounding like a narcissistic brat."

And finally, here is an excerpt of Donohue's first news release on the exhibition, issued Nov. 30 by his "right wing publicity mill" (you can find the Catholic League's release in its entirety here):

"The Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery is currently hosting an exhibit, 'Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,' that features a video that shows large ants eating away at Jesus on a crucifix. The exhibit is replete with homoerotic images.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

According to Penny Starr of CNSnews.com, David C. Ward, co-curator of the National Portrait Gallery, says the video, 'A Fire in My Belly,' is one of the 'masterpieces' of this exhibit. We call it hate speech."

In short, an exhibition Donohue's news release says is "replete with homoerotic images" -- it's not, as you can see in the museum's video walk-through -- is then characterized as featuring "hate speech." Donohue's denial now --  that he didn't know the exhibition concerned gay subject matter when he spoke out -- doesn't jibe. Even the factually challenged Penny Starr column Donohue refers to clearly identifies the show's gay subject matter.

The false claim, however, does underscore the deceptive nature of the inflammatory complaint the Smithsonian has had to deal with. Anti-gay bullying, even if the disapproval of homosexuality derives from a religious doctrine, drove the attack. The exhibition is the first in the nation's capital to examine homosexual identity in 19th- and 20th-century American art, and it has the establishment blessing of the popular Smithsonian Institution. As I noted at the time the controversy first erupted, that's the real reason anti-gay activists are so upset.

-- Christopher Knight

@twitter.com/KnightLAT

 Photo: Marsden Hartley, "Painting No. 47, Berlin," 1914-15; Credit: National Portrait Gallery

Comments

[david blocker]

The bearers of false witness will burn in the dungeons of hell.

[Steve M.]

I'll be the first to admit, William Donohue can be a tad excitable. Allow me to provide "the Jewish perspective."

Not only was the so-called "art" in bad taste, I find it to be a form of "hate speech." Mr. Donohue has been more restrained than he usually is. I happen to have seen the exhibit at the Smithsonian and this is a place for art, not for making a or a series of political statements.

People with families (this means children), come through the Smithsonian galleries to see art work, not hate speech. I can guarantee that is there was a painting persecuting a couple of gay men, that every We-Ho gay would travel back to DC to protest.

Now do you people grasp the picture?

[Ken Camp]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue should have been institutionalized years ago. He has crossed the line into total delusional fantasy world. And he is one hell of a liar. What an accomplishment in the name of religion!

Ken Camp, Los Angeles

[Carrot Cake Man]

Mr. Frazell, you're entitled to shut off as much art from your own view as gives you pleasure, but you have no business telling even one other American we may not see we want to see or tell us "what is art." The United States Constitution makes our right clear, despite your hate speech directed at LGBT Americans.

[homer]

There is a lot of money to be made spewing hate. Would be interesting to know who is funding Bill Donohue and his fancy computer.

[joe]

i am glad this article is written. it just shows how far backwards we are all going.

[Katie Murphy]

It may not be directly tied to the catholic church, but it is driven by the horrible homophobia of the church hierarchy, especially by the Pope who grew up in Nazi Germany...................

In 2009, the Pope UNexcommunicated a bishop williamson. He is an Anglican Bishop kicked out of the the church of england for denying the holocaust.

In his 2008 Xmas message Pope Benedict talked about gays and the ecology of the human body. His subliminal message was "gays are dirt and filth"

He also said "trans people will cause the end of the human race." No wonder some are brutally murdered.

The church has yet to excommunicate a man born in 1888 in very Catholic Austria, Baptised into the catholic church at birth. That man documented how his hatred of the Jews grew from his society.

And the church that talks about "protecting life" has yet to EXcommunicate the worst murderer in history. Adolph Hitler.

Possibly because it was the church that gave the world the hatred of the Jews because many wouldn't convert, even on pain of death during the middle ages.

A hatred Hitler leveraged to gain power in germany.

[sjxile]

For what it's worth, the "Official Catholic Directory" is a publication of the National Catholic Register - it's a for-profit publication and enterprise, and not officially part of the Catholic Church.

Whether Donohue even knows that, though, is questionable. After all, it says it's "official", so it must be, right?

[thark]

You know...

If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on the Bible alone, it would be the holiest of amendments ONLY if it adheres to the following stipulations provided therein, but go totally ignored by today’s phony “protectors... of... marriage”:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

(the above was taken from www.godweb.org/biblemarriage.htm)

So much for theological doctrine as a basis for rational law-making, huh...

Just sayin'

[Andy Campbell]

@Steve M and others...

Let me also provide "a Jewish Perspective." What's the old joke? Two Jews... three opinions? Jews, in particular, have had a vested interest in redressing social wrongs in the recent historical past - it's something we grapple with even today - to suggest that one Jewish perspective exists here is ridiculous. So let me add mine.

As a Jew I found the video to be incisive in regards to the torment many queer women and men, in particular, felt towards a very particular kind of religious persecution during the onset of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It's not for nothing that the footage of the crucifix (which most seem to be fixated on) is followed up with images of the artist sewing his mouth shut (a pretty clear refernce to the act of silencing) and trying to sew a cut loaf of bread together (mending a cut/wound/loss).

Properly historicized the video serves as an object lesson as to how a certain segment of our population felt during a certain time - just like a Norman Rockwell painting signals a set of values for a certain group of people in a certain time. Which is more valuable? Neither. But both deserve to be shown.

On your point regarding children: you pretend that children will just happen upon the Wojnarowicz video - instead of being guided through by their parents, or turned away. Each exhibition has an entry point - with an explanatory wall label. It's up to parents to negotiate their boundaries with their children. Because some parents find the idea of evolution repugnant, should the National History Museum take down their evolution displays? Hardly. It is up to parents to monitor the content their children come in contact to.

For myself, if my child were to come into contact with something I found to be inappropriate, we would then have an honest discussion about what they saw and why it might be inappropriate. You'd be surprised how kids can engage in these sorts of conversations with openness and candor. Ultimately, though, you are responsible for your child.

The Smithsonian is an institution that represents the diversity of the human experience in America - and, the as-of-yet, ONLY exhibition on the history of the intersection of homosexuality and the arts is not even pale lip service to the contributions of that group of folks.

Queers, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Asian-Americans all have a place here. Representing their viewpoints isn't always commensurate with everyone else's viewpoint. But isn't part of living together learning to empathize with others... or at least understand their historical positions. I think so.

The great wrong here is that the debate centers only around a contemporary read of the video, without properly historicizing it. Mr. Knight does well on this front - and he is courageous to do so.

While I empathize with your perspective, Steve M., I can't say I agree... all art is political. Even that Norman Rockwell is, it just happens that that political statement is by-in-large in agreement with those who are in the positions of greater privilege in this world, white - male - Christian folks. I know many queers, as I'm among them, who feel that Rockwell's painted sentiments of a moral America during a time when McCarthyism reigned is deceptive, and I know many art historians who think the work is aestetically unappealing or schlocky. Is it wrong, hateful or dirty - obscene - on either count? No. Should it be taken out of the NPG? No. Likewise the Wojnarowicz.

[Donald Frazell]

CK is catering to his constituencey, preaching to the choir if you will, hardly brave. As a family with Euro, African, Catholic, Anglican, Muslim and lesbian members in all fields of life, I can say this video is not creative art, but public relations. The polite term for propaganda devised by Freuds nephew and niece. It may be useful, and have some truth involved, but isnt art.

Thats fine and it may have its value from a historical viewpoint, early in that decade the Reagan adminstrtion and churches did ignore AIDS as something that did not concern them, so condemning many as outsiders. However, by the end of the decade they had seen what was going on, $2 bilion spent in Reagans final year and doubling. Would more earlier have helped? maybe, maybe not. throwing money at things doesnt always help, but can make those with the disease feel better. It is not curable, it is a virus that slightly mutates, no viruses are at this point.

It is valuable as a historical document, outside of the church my son was baptized at in 1990, only the First AME here in LA had vociferiously come out educating and supplying condums and clean needles, as the stigma of AIDS had been gays AND intravenous drug users. The disease has spread, now half the new victims are women from down low males, mostly black and latino, was at a seminar at King/Drew about it in the fall. Come out of the closet, be gay or not, no more Toms on Boondocks, or Tyler Perry's.

And Carrot Top, since when has verifiable data been hate speech? Not much truth from either side in this socalled "debate' as much as usual in the "art scene". All drawing sides and pontificating even more than the enemies you see and even create to feel better about yourselves. Many churches are involved in AIDS now. Most except FAME were late on the bus. But this kind of name calling and fingerpointing isnt helping, its self therapy.

Unless you were sexually abused by a church member, there is no call for it. This one group above is not the entire Roman Catholic church. And you cant excommunicate the dead, though Mormons do baptise them. Hitlers withered soul is in Gods hands now. Judgment will come to us all, if only on our deathbed.

Creative arts role in culture is to find the essence of humanity, uniting not dividing. All who go against and splinter humanity go against God. For God is but a description, not a name, something beyond us, something to strive for, something that gives meaning and purpose. To claim to know Gods mind is the ultimate blasphemy, god is beyond all human understanding, but is the quest to grow and become more. Living, as is true creative art. This aint it.

Go Steelers!
Save the spiritual and uniting Watts Tower(Nuestro Pueblo) destroy the splintering and selfish Ivories, true towers of mindless babbling.

[Joe Murray, Rainbow Sash Movement]

Yet Archbishop Dolan has praised William Donohue as a defender of the faith. Clearly the issue surrounding the exhibit is one of art and not theology.

Yes, I agree there are extremes on both sides, but the Catholic League is way out there. What does this say not only about the exhibit at the Smithsonian, but Archbishop Dolan current President of US Conference of Catholic Bishops the darling of the media.

[mbeebe]

Go Christopher. The Catholic League is not only deeply scary this guy is unbelievably RUDE and a crass liar. Very creepy.