- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
- U.N. rights chief: Flight MH17 downing possible war crime
- Attack on park in Gaza war kills 10, mostly children
- Calif. protesters to block Israel-owned ships at Port of Oakland
- Obama to give Africa $38M, but tells young leaders: Stop ‘making excuses’ for economy
KNIGHT: The radical art of deliberate offense
Decency haters work overtime at Christmastime
Question of the Day
In “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky advises leftist organizers to antagonize opponents. “The real action is in the enemy’s reaction,” he writes in his 1971 classic strategy manual. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
The latest Alinsky-like assault involves a perennial tactic: putting sacrilegious or indecent imagery on display at taxpayer expense and then screaming “censorship” when people predictably object.
The National Portrait Gallery became the latest battleground this week when it featured a four-minute excerpt from “A Fire in My Belly,” a 1987 work by the late David Wojnarowicz, famous for his hate-filled diatribes against Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. After the Catholic League and other groups complained, the museum withdrew the display.
Images included a crucified Christ with ants crawling over Him, and “homoerotic” and anatomically graphic images of naked men. You know, the stuff that sends certain folks at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) into ecstatic reveries.
The next Alinsky-style tactic was to assail the Catholic League for reacting to the well-placed kick in the gut.
Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik, who rhapsodizes about art as long as it’s devilishly perverse, came out with derringers blazing on the front page of the Style section in a screed headlined “Museums shouldn’t bow to censorship of any kind.”
He used every trick in the book, so let’s deconstruct:
1. Portray the offensive work as harmless or even “traditional”:
“The irony is that Wojnarowicz’s reading of his piece puts it smack in the middle of the great tradition of using images of Christ to speak about the suffering of all mankind.”
Sure it does. Wojnarowicz once described the late Cardinal John O’Connor as “this fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas” and “this creep in black skirts.”
Mr. Gopnik: “There is a long, respectable history of showing hideously grisly images of Jesus.”
Yes, but not in the cause of elevating sin to a subsidized “right.”
2. Raise the idea that standards would destroy great art:
“[C]ommon standards of decency … don’t exist, and shouldn’t in a pluralistic society.”
Really? That means smut merchants would set the tone for everyone, in every locale.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
Get Breaking Alerts
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- D.C. police chief orders officers not to arrest legal gun owners carrying weapons in public
- Tennessee Gov. Haslam slams White House for secret dump of illegals in his state
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- DeSean Jackson working on offensive cohesiveness with Redskins teammates
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- D.C. seeks stay in order striking down ban on handguns in public