So much for the “we don’t censor art” crowd

Posted: October 6, 2010 in internet/free speech, oddities
Tags: , , , ,

There was a big ta doo about a piece of “art” in Colorado that depicts Christ giving someone a BJ:

Many turned out in support of the piece and the Museum/Gallery. Some supporters of the art wore white patches on their chests that read: “Censored?”.

Well we aren’t going to take down this, this is ART, we aren’t going to be intimidated by those intolerant Christians

Nearby in the city of Denver, where residents are known for their liberal leanings, residents were more receptive to the artwork.

Denver resident Carol Ware called the piece “provocative and thought-provoking.” She added, however, that she would not want the artwork in her own living room.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times weighed in on the debate, celebrating Chagoya’s controversial techniques and labeling him a respected artist. Of the provocative works of art he has created are pieces attacking President George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and former California Governor Pete Wilson.

The obvious question has been asked

Field asked if Chagoya’s artwork would be accepted if it depicted the prophet Mohammed in the same poses. “There have been examples in the past of anti-Mohammed artwork. The Muslim community has been outraged-and rightly so-but there’s also been different actions taken against the artists.”

Funny you should mention that via Rhymes With Right:

Of course, there is a way to get this exhibit shut down immediately, the artwork destroyed, and the artist killed. Point out that the following is a part of the same work of art.

The image he is referring to is Mohammed kneeling before transvestite pigs, and lo and behold what has suddenly happened?

They seem to have scrubbed the site

Now here is the question. They did not scrub the site until someone pointed out the Mohammad image. I wonder what the art gallery has to say about that. Maybe I’ll give them a call later today.

Update: Don Surber has updated his post

Well via Memeorandum Newshounds is on the case:

Whenever the persecuted Christian right gets their pure white panties in a bunch about how evil libruls are disrespectful to Christianity, they frequently claim that these same libruls show deference to Islam when it comes to depicting images of Mohammed. The phrase, taken from a book, that “anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice” is bandied about by right wing Christians and Catholics. The absurdity of this position is demonstrated by the reality that the right wing, aided and abetted by Fox “News,” promotes prejudice against a number of groups deemed anathema – particularly atheists (atheist bus signs, “war on God”) and Islam. In addition to absurdity, there is also a double standard. When the evil, librul ACLU challenges a possible violation of the “Establishment Clause,” Jesus’ BFF’s claim that their First Amendment rights are being violated – yet, when artwork, that Christians don’t like, is presented, they’re all for censorship. And that’s when the comment about how liberals are more tolerant of Islam comes into play, as demonstrated by good Catholic Brian Kilmeade who, along with his Christian “friend’ Gretchen Carlson, is concerned about some artwork that their fellow good Christians are vaclempt about. It’s not a surprise that the morning Christian culture club would be “on” this issue as, earlier this year, they attacked a gallery owner over “sacrilegious” art in which a nun (not, as Gretchen Carlson said, the Virgin Mary) was depicted holding a pink rifle. There’s more irony in that this is the same krewe that supports Christian crosses on public land and bible verses on rifles. Go figure.

The big irony is of course they have a link to the site, which has now pulled the “art” since the Mohammad part of the cartoon is getting publicity. Read the self righteous comments I’ve left one of my own, not approved yet:

I note the same artwork also displays Mohammad kneeling before transvestite pigs, so I am assuming all the commentators on this tread and the writer are all cool with this too.

That being the case I presume I can send the link to American Muslim groups since we know how tolerant of dissent they are.

I’ll let you know if it goes up and if the comment thread is scrubbed.

Left a message at Shark’s ink the site that scrubbed the print once the Mohammad connection came up, I’ll let you know what they say.

Update 2: They are much too busy to allow my comments at Newshounds

Update 3 Shark Ink has not returned calls. I called the Loveland Museum and spoke to a very nice young lady who briefly informed me there is no additional security because of the drawing of Mohammad. The people taking calls are flat out and the employees are pretty occupied. I left a callback number but was told due to the situation they couldn’t guarantee it would be returned.

Comments
  1. […] So much for the “we don’t censor art” crowd […]

  2. Laika's Last Woof says:

    Heh, all that hypocrisy waiting like a loaded gun for the censors to pull the trigger and scrub Muhammad … and the clueless liberals took the bait!

    The artist was very brave for including Muhammad in his religious criticisms. His former “defenders” who were all fire-and-brimstone about “hypocritical righties” and “Faux News” who have now fled the scene and left him twisting in the wind have proven that it is they who are the hypocrites.

    The artist’s only friends now will be us folks on the Right, a situation I’m sure he finds appalling, but we’re good friends to have whether he likes it or not.

  3. pst314 says:

    Another way to get the art censored/destroyed: Display a painting of the late Chicago mayor Harold Washington dressed in women’s underwear. That happened back in the 80’s, and a gang of Chicago aldermen invaded the School of the Art Institute and stole the painting. There was much hand-wringing by local liberals about how they loved freedom of speech but one shouldn’t offend black people by making fun of their icons.

  4. Chris Lackey says:

    All it takes is one:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16274427

    Speaking of hypocrisy, I wonder how many of the protestors of this artwork came out to protest the actual molestation of kids by the Catholic Church.

  5. […] Via my arch enemy friend Chris Lackey. […]

  6. Chris Lackey says:

    I did not mean to comment on the church, I was commenting on the protestors.

    But, as to your point about it not being sins of the church, I would argue that it absolutely is, as priests were protected and moved at some of the highest levels in the organization for decades. This is a sign of rampant corruption. Your apologetics are sycophantic. It’s too bad excuses have to be made to defend the church against the most heinous behavior imaginable.

    And not enough has been done. Many on the right seem to want to hold Islam accountable for not excommunicating terrorists, yet the Catholic Church did not disrobe these priests, while they excommunicate women who tried to become priests. They haven’t even excommunicated the Nazis involved in the slaughter of millions of jews. Seems like a screwed up system.