But (there’s always a “but” in such testy cases), when I juxtapose this one twisted symbolic gesture against the disregard—and I would argue contempt—being shown by so-called “moderate” practitioners of Islam who insist on building their mosque almost on top of the ashes of 9/11 victims against the wishes of so many Americans, I can understand the frustration that creates a Jones and his ilk. And the fact is, as Mayor Bloomberg offered up, if there is freedom of speech for the fanatical Muslim goose, it must also be for the crackpot Christian gander.

Still, as a matter of common decency I hope this guy tables forever his plans—and there are no copycats. And as a practical matter, I agree with General Petraeus in that the last thing our men and women in the field need is another faux propaganda storm putting them in greater harm’s way… although I do believe that fear of retaliation should not be a reason to quell free speech but rather to fight harder for it. (Easy for me to say as I am not humping a pack in Kandahar I freely admit!)

However, something did occur to me this weekend. Jones is going about this all wrong. If he really wants to burn the Islamic holy book, I know a way that he could do it while at the same time have every left wing pundit and mainstream news outlet not decry his act but rather defend and even celebrate it. He should burn it on the steps of the Museum Of Modern Art up here in New York. And instead of calling it a protest, or a statement, he should just call his Quran torching “art.” In the interest of consistency, artistic integrity and fairness, maybe he can even do it in the building, right on the same spot where in 1989 the infamous “Piss Christ” photo was proudly exhibited. You remember that? The piece of “art” that showed a crucifix submerged in urine? As artist Andres Serrano explained his artistic vision in an open letter to the National Endowment for the Arts:

The photograph, and the title itself, are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism’s obsession with “the body and blood of Christ.” It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Christianity draws it strength.

That seemed just fine and dandy to the free speech warriors and beret crowd back in the day. In fact, Serrano’s inspired piece won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition which was partially funded by that same NEA—your tax dollars at work. So then I submit Jones should just take Serrano’s explanation, re-arrange a few words, and present his action to the creative world this way:

The act of immolation itself is ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my sermons. My religious upbringing informs this act which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with Allah. My use of such symbolic tools as gasoline and match in this context is parallel to Islam’s obsession with pyrotechnics and flaming destruction. It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Islam draws it strength.

There see? All better now. Sounds like we have ourselves next year’s NEA art contest winner too! At least Jones will have transformed himself from a provocateur into an “artist.” Someone all far lefties can gravitate towards. (Hey and as a bonus, maybe Larry David can pee on it to extinguish the flames like he did a picture of Jesus on an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. What a hoot!)

Of course, if MOMA declines the new exhibit, Jones could try the Brooklyn Museum which in 1999 exhibited Chris Olifi’s “artwork” that featured the Virgin Mary splattered in elephant dung. Back then the New York Times rushed to the defense of the display:

To be sure, many citizens of conscience find parts of the Brooklyn exhibition repugnant, and it is understandable that many Roman Catholics would find Chris Ofili’s image of the Virgin Mary offensive.” But, it continued, “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.

As an artist myself I grudgingly see the Times’ point here. So then it would appear, given this take on what constitutes “art,” that what we have in the Quran burning is but the latest chapter in the long, chaotic, glorious march of artistic freedom in defiance of out-moded conventions, intellectually stifling religious dogma, and societal mores. Oh my! What’s a committed lefty to do? One can almost hear the whining robotic cries of “Error…Error…Error….Does not compute!” from the First Amendment crowd who until now so craftily hid behind the cover of the Constitution so they could insult the faithful while calling their crass provocations “art” with a straight face.

But, why the confusion? Gee, I thought these were the guys who love to wax poetic about the joys of free speech, piously affirming to each other over their third latte: “We may not agree with what he says, but will defend to the death his right to say it!” So clearly then, by donning a black turtle-neck and moving the Quran burning venue from the parking lot of an obscure Florida church to the center of the modern art world, the Reverend Jones can count on some powerful liberal allies to shield him from the inevitable “fatwa” which the courageous Ofili and Serrano need never fear from Christians who have long ago learned to take sucker punches to their faith from the intelligentsia in stride.

Don’t hold your breath. These guys only have the mettle to push their “craft” in the faces of those who will not slit their throats. It all depends on whose profit is being gored, and, more to the point, the propensity for violence of those offended. Christians, by the very nature of following Christ’s admonition to embrace thine enemy will always be easy prey for assault and insult… be it in the name of Muhammad or modern “art.”

I reject Jones because he is showing the very contempt for another religion that repels me when I see it heaped upon my own in the name of self-promotion and the loosest possible definitions of “free speech” or “art.” The liberals will reject him too, but for a much baser reason… their double-standard is rooted in staying out of harm’s way. Period. The rest is just self-righteous smoke. It certainly prompts one to ask in this latest episode, who are the real cowards in this whole ludicrous non-event?

Dear Chairman Landesman:

With all this fuss on Big Hollywood.com, Big Government.com and elsewhere over the NEA’s government-funded forays into partisan political propaganda, I thought maybe we could help each other out. 

–

Right now, you probably want to support some art that addresses vital current issues from a right-wing perspective in order to demonstrate your impartiality (ha ha!), and I just want to cash in your organization’s evident willingness to spend good tax money on any kind of nonsense that can be passed-off as “art” (ca-ching!)   

Well, I am uniquely suited to provide you with just what you’re looking for!  As a college student, I got a “B” in my Visual Arts 1 class for dressing up a juniper bush in one of my Hawaiian shirts to draw attention to man’s essential oneness with nature while providing a stinging critique of America’s consumerist culture.  Sure, my black-clad, Bauhaus-loving classmates protested that I was a fraud who was more concerned with collecting four easy credits than internalizing our professor’s commie insights about how expressionism equals imperialism, but hey – aren’t all great artists rebels?   Or, at least, weren’t they before last January 20th?

Just kidding, dude!  Anyway, as your organization’s visual arts mission statement says:

Grants in the visual arts support projects undertaken by organizations that encourage individual artistic development, experimentation, and dialogue between artists and the public through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public programs.

Sounds awesome!  Now, I went to the NEA’s grant application site and there’s a long complicated process for getting grants that seems to involve me becoming a federal contractor.  Nothing like the government for taking something simple – like you writing me a fat check – and turning it into a bureaucratic death march!  Can’t wait until you folks take over health care! 

Anyhow, instead I think I’ll just cut to the chase and sketch out my proposed projects for you here.  You can fund the one – or ones! – that you like best:

1) My first proposed project is an interpretive dance piece to be performed on the streets of Greenwich Village titled “The Cry of the Employed.”

This innovative performance involves me using motion and song to tell the story of a beleaguered taxpayer forced to subsidize the ridiculous indulgences of pseudo-intellectual no-talents who try to pass off their pretentious junk as art.  Dressed in business suit and button-down shirt with a sensible tie, I will confront passing goateed hipsters and pierced bohos, acting out the story of a man who works hard only to have his money siphoned off support the antics of a bunch of pompous deadbeats.  My choreography will draw from the traditions of ballet, kabuki and Appalachian folk dance while incorporating maracas and jazz hands.  And yes, there will be krumping.

2) My second proposed project is a performance art piece that was going to be called Chocolate Thunder until I Googled it and found that this is the title of a very , very specialized series of erotic videos.  Instead, my piece will be called Suburban Fudge.  Out of an abundance of caution, I have not Googled this title.

In the tradition of pioneering NEA grant recipient Karen Finley, who famously covered herself in chocolate to demonstrate the corrosive effects of patriarchal hegemony, I plan to slather myself in rich, creamy Hershey’s to demonstrate the glory of corporate America.  This act will reaffirm my allegiance to Big Chocolate and underscore my belief that the best hope for American progress is a vigorous, lightly-regulated private sector.  Using my body, I will also form a Laffer Curve then engage in some dramatic readings from Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose.  And I will personally keep any profits from the performance, an act which itself is central to the integrity of the piece.

3) My third proposed project is an installation that takes Andres Serrano’s infamous Piss Christ, the crucifix in a jar of the artist’s urine, to the next level.  I call it Pee Health Care Reform Bill.

Now, the draft health care bill is well over 1000 pages long, so I’m not sure I can personally handle the, uh, logistics of this project.  This is where the NEA comes in.  I plan to use my grant to buy a keg of frosty Dos Equis Lager for me and my buddies.  After we drink it we can, well, get “creative” Serrano-style!  We’ll also need limes, and some snacks would be nice too.  I think I could get you a final product for, say, $25,000.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my email – though I have to say that as a conservative I am horrified by the fact that there’s an Internet domain out there with the name of “arts.gov” since the only proper involvement of the government in the arts is not to have any role at all.  Well, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that, right?

I sure hope you dig my personal vision enough to cut me a check – just don’t forget the second “h” in “Schlichter” on the payee line!  And remember, because I’m a heterosexual right-wing gun-owning veteran with a real job, you’ll be able to check several important diversity boxes for your organization for the first time in its illustrious history! 

I’m looking forward to seeing you at the premiere of Suburban Fudge, but don’t forget to bring a jacket – the first three rows will get wet! 

Best,

Kurt A. Schlichter
Future Performance Artist

The latest NEA controversy broken here at Big Hollywood by Patrick Courrielche has become a fascinating Rorschach test within the theatre community.  The response has been disappointing yet predictable from the left-leaning proponents of the NEA and this administration.

Robert Mapplethorpe

To fully expose the inconsistencies and intellectually dishonest positions they have taken in their knee-jerk defense of everything Obama, we first need a little background for the Big Hollywood readers who might not remember all of the details in the recent history of controversies with regard to NEA funding in the theatre community.

NEA Primer: Now I don’t pretend to suggest that the following breakdown of the NEA struggles dating back to 1990 is a definitive or even thorough explanation of the recent history of left vs. right combat over the NEA.  I encourage all of my readers to research and read about this issue.  And, I especially want them to read the perspective of liberals/progressives/leftists who were in the middle of the struggle on the other side.  It is informative and enlightening to read how they really feel about the subject.

That being said, the following synopsis of the NEA fights from twenty years ago is meant to be a short-hand account of the debate from the perspective of the right… from “Stage Right,” if you will:

The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government  for the purpose of funding  artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society.

Not coincidentally, many of the most influential non-profit theatres in America date their creation back to years between 1966 and 1979.  The new influx of federal grants as well as many state and local granting agencies that followed the Fed’s lead helped in the creation of these new theatre groups

In the early 1990’s, after 25 years of relatively unfettered growth and autonomous operation it was discovered that recent grants were given to individual artists whose artistic output included projects that are objectively seen as offensive, if not profane.  These projects include the infamous “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic self-portrait showing a bullwhip shoved in his anus.  The famous “NEA Four,” a group of performance artists including Karen Finley, were denied an NEA grant despite the fact that they had been approved by a peer panel.   Finley’s performance art involved her smearing feces-symbolic chocolate on her nude body while singing.

Conservatives (not just Republicans) led by Senator Jesse Helms objected to a government agency funding artists who were creating these objectionable pieces of art and they attempted to call into question the NEA’s granting criteria.  Liberals cried foul and suggested that any governmental interference or oversight with regard to the content of the art created by NEA grantees is tantamount to an infringement on the first amendment.

Most conservatives heard this argument and wholeheartedly agreed.  Their solution:  Get the government out of the business of financing artistic endeavors all together.  The rationale was that if the government can’t have any input into the art that they are financing then they should not be financing it.  Otherwise, the American taxpayer can’t be guaranteed that they are actual getting what they pay for.  You see, if an agency is created to fund an artist to create work that will enrich the cultural fabric of our nation, and then the actual art does not enrich but actually degrades the fabric of our culture and offends a vast majority of our citizens, then the money is not being used in the way it was intended.  When congress dispenses federal funds, it is their responsibility to ensure that the funds are used for the purposes they were intended.  Otherwise, if the congress can’t question the proper use of the funds, then we have created an agency that is immune from any kind of governmental oversight and therefore should not continue to exist.

That reasonable and logical argument was met with howls from the left screaming about the right wanting to cut off funding to all of those theatres… those employers of writers, actors, directors and techies all living off of their non-profit theatre jobs.  It was at this point that a huge shift occurred in the theatre community, painting very stark lines between conservatives and liberals.  Up to this point, as a conservative, I was tolerated and sometimes even engaged in friendly debate at my workplace or at cocktail parties.  Not anymore.  Conservatives became the enemy.  They wanted to take food off of the table of my co-workers by cutting off funding for the arts.  And if I argued on their behalf, I was the enemy too.

Eventually, a compromise was reached.  The NEA would no longer fund individual artists but would continue funding institutions.  The institutions, in turn, would use the grants for administrative purposes, so they were not necessarily tied to a specific product that could be seen as objectionable.  Even after the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, no realistic attempt was made to shut down the NEA.  (In 1996, with President Clinton in the White House and a GOP congress, the NEA budget was slashed to just under $100 million from its high of $160 million.  It grew back to $140 million under President George W. Bush (that Nazi) and it is now up to $155 million for FY 2009).

But, the lines had been drawn by the left as a result of this episode.  If you were a conservative you had to fall into one of two camps:

1. You were a censor infringing on the rights of artists and trying to control their speech.  You were worse than the Popes who dared to dictate what Michelangelo could paint at the Vatican with church funds.  The Hubris!  You freaking fascist!
2. You were a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who saw no use for the arts in our society.  Only wanted the Federal government to fund bombs and the military industrial complex but only wanted art to exist in the context of a free market and therefore you were actively trying to shut down all of the non-profit theatres that were only surviving due to the NEA grants they were receiving.

(OK, I might be exaggerating, but the caricatures are not far from the truth.)