-
Conscripts in a Ponzi Scheme
June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
-
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
-
Dracon for President?
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
-
Mitch Daniels and the CPAC Moment
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
-
The New America Firsters
February 7, 2011 | 43 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
Operation Mainstreaming
What’s next on the Smithsonian’s agenda?
Following the exhibition currently on display at the taxpayer-funded National Portrait Gallery (“Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture”), the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. is planning several additional exhibitions, including one in March on art and literature celebrating adultery, infidelity, and illegitimacy in America and one later in the year that will compare and contrast adult/pubescent male relationships in the United States and in ancient Greece. The exhibitions are part of a ten-month-long exploration of “Cultural Anomalies in Modern American Life” — referred to by insiders as “Operation Mainstreaming.”
Of course “Hide/Seek”–type exhibitions are hardly news. In 1989 an exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs toured the country for several months before running into a buzz saw of opposition just before arriving at Washington’s Corcoran Gallery of Art.
Speaking for the Smithsonian Institution, Mr. Wall Plaque indicated that its museums must make way for controversial subjects. Plaque stated flatly that we must be “committed to showing how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice, so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity.”
“Hide/Seek,” the first of these exhibitions to be mounted, opened last October 30. According to Blake Gopnik, art critic for the Washington Post, the “Hide/Seek” show “surveys how same-sex love has been portrayed in art, from Walt Whitman’s hints to open declarations in the era of AIDS and Robert Mapplethorpe’s bullwhips. Amazingly, this is the first major museum show to tackle the topic.”
Less amazingly, it received much unwanted publicity just before Christmas. The first group to object was the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which objected to a video containing an eleven-second clip of ants crawling over a crucifix. “Why should the federal government underwrite an institution that uses money to bash [Christianity], when it is unconstitutional for the federal government to underwrite the promotion of it?” the League asked. The segment was removed, but Martin Sullivan, the director of the National Portrait Gallery, got his licks in later in a National Public Radio interview by referring, if obliquely, to the League as among “the loudest and nastiest voices.”
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, which provided $100,000 in funding for “Hide/Seek,” threatened to withdraw all future funding from the National Portrait Gallery if the eleven-second clip were not restored, which, to date, it has not been.
After the Catholic League’s protest, others objected to the exhibition on the grounds that its attempt to mainstream homosexuality was inappropriate for an institution supported by the taxpayers.
Following the publicity over “Hide/Seek” and the public’s learning of the two exhibitions scheduled for later this year (“Sex without Rules” and “Men and Boys: From Here to Antiquity”), other groups started gearing up to take on the Smithsonian. A Smithsonian official defended the exhibitions, saying: “America is a land where minorities can make it into the mainstream. We believe in, and we believe in believing in, inclusiveness. Achieving social dignity is part of the promise of equality.”
The numbers are interesting. While only a small percentage of Americans are homosexuals (many put the number at around 2 percent), about 22 percent of American married men and 15 percent of married women are thought to have committed adultery.
“It’s not just a numbers game,” the official said. “It’s about intellectual freedom, and sharing its fruits with the wider public. ‘Hide/Seek’ is about same-sex desire. ‘Sex without Rules’ will be about a common form of illicit desire. ‘Men and Boys,’ about a less common form. If you can have the first show, why can’t you have the others? They all tackle themes outside of the cultural mainstream.”
That cultural mainstream, especially regarding marriage (long considered vital to Western civilization) has been significantly diverted in the last few decades. Recent Census Bureau data show that in 2009, for the first time, the proportion of people between the ages of 25 and 34 who have never been married exceeded those who were married. And the long-term slide in marriage rates has pushed the proportion of married adults of all ages down to 52 percent, the lowest count since records have been kept. The change in marriage habits has been most pronounced among those who lack a college education. Also, the country’s overall illegitimacy rate is now 38 percent; the black illegitimacy rate, 72 percent.
The question for Smithsonian officials is: Should they be a force driving those cultural changes? Should they use their semi-governmental positions and expend their reputational capital (and taxpayer funds) to confer—or, more accurately, try to confer—”mainstream” status on behavior that most Americans think is aberrant and on notions of history that are decidedly on the fringes?
Ah, but when they hear the word culture they reach for their briefcases, and for them the discussion is over.
* * * * *
Note to reader: Only the Hide/Seek exhibition referred in this piece is genuine. The others are fictitious, as are some of the quotes from “Smithsonian officials” (Martin Sullivan’s quote and the quote from the plaque on the wall of the “Hide/Seek” exhibition are genuine). When I showed the piece to several Washington friends, they were all fooled by my spoof. Even though “Sex without Rules” and “Men and Boys: From Here to Antiquity” are outrageous, my friends believed my account, and you may have too, because those exhibitions are — or would be — of a piece with the “Hide/Seek” exhibition actually on view. You are ready, and right, to believe anything about the Smithsonian because you have concluded, correctly in my view, that it has gone over to the other side in the culture war. That’s the point of this piece.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Oliver
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/17/operation-mainstreaming
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Unger| 1.17.11 @ 7:38AM
Very dirty trick. Please make your points without lying.
Conservatives for Truth| 1.17.11 @ 10:44AM
Agree.
Oliver has maligned the Smithsonian with his distortions and outright lies that many readers will accept as truth. Many readers will skim the piece and will skip over the italicized note to reader.
A shameful trick, Mr. Oliver, that diminishes the veracity of this magazine and makes everything in AmSpec suspect.
oolong| 1.17.11 @ 10:46AM
What?
I thought everybody already knows that the opinions expressed in AmSpec are, if not outright lies, then close to it.
Toto| 1.17.11 @ 10:51AM
Ha ha.
You said it, Oolong. Lies and distortions abound here.
The "ants crawling over a crucifix" were hallucinations, and were in no way blasphemous. The show is innocuous.
Just down the street is UrbanOutfitters, a hugely-popular hip store with drinking glasses in the window that say "Fuck" and "Bitch" and Fuck You" for all the kids to read as they clutch mommy and daddy's hand while out sightseeing.
Next time, Oliver, move down the street aways if you want to be outraged.
Lulu| 1.17.11 @ 10:54AM
Lies! Damned lies!
Lies that will be repeated as the truth.
"Well I read it in American Spectator," they will say.
Anthony| 1.17.11 @ 2:25PM
Oh my, the leftist trolls are out in full force today. Actually, they do have a point. Those leftists who might skim the piece,eager to fire away at TAS, could possibly miss the spoof.
They have been trained rather poorly, afterall, their leaders have staff writte 2,000 page bills that they don't bother to read, and they tell us the bill has to be passed to learn what's in it, so why should we expect the leftist trolls who visit TAS to fully read a 1/2 page article with only 13 paragraphs and a disclaimer at the end to see what the entire article contains.
stmichrick| 1.17.11 @ 5:59PM
oolong
How ill-informed you are. The Spectator effectively refutes your point of view; I guess that's why you are here to harass.
My TAX dollars do not support the lowlife Urban Outfitters business. (I hope).
Appleby| 1.17.11 @ 7:55AM
Booger does it better and more succinctly.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 8:05AM
If by lying, we mean something like, "the intentional communication of false or incomplete information so as to cause another to act in accordance with a false understanding," then it is hard to see how this piece qualifies. The author did, after all, end it with a paragraph specifically identifying its fictional aspects. Regardless of the merits of its execution or its argument, the charge of lying and the "dirty trick" characterization are apparently baseless.
Bob K.| 1.17.11 @ 8:18AM
The paragraph is in italics too. Hard to miss.
And Booger's maunderings are lampoon. This article is not.
Lulu| 1.17.11 @ 10:59AM
The charge of lying is not baseless, Paul.
As a poster above said, "Many readers will skim the piece and skip over the italicized note to reader."
Soon the rumors will spread that the Smithsonian is planning an erotic exhibit that celebrates sex between boys and men.
This is precisely what will happen! In fact, this is Oliver's goal.
R. Parker| 1.17.11 @ 11:02AM
I agree, Lulu.
This piece will trigger rumors that will harm the Smithsonian, and this was Oliver's nefarious purpose.
Shame on you, Oliver, and shame on American Spectator.
45% Merde| 1.17.11 @ 11:08AM
Cut the crap.
We don't need posts that deliberately distort the truth, do we?
Mr. Oliver has blundered badly here. American Spectator needs to make it very clear to readers that Oliver has lied in this piece. He has planted controversial ideas that will be repeated as truth.
Ever heard of people skimming a post? They will skim and take the piece as factual.
Rich Fisher| 1.17.11 @ 2:33PM
But, folks, this is what the Left does on a daily basis, and I have yet to see their notification in Italics or any other form that they are lying. The Left deals in the currency of "ignorance" of the massess so why should they be offended when people are too ignorant or too lazy to read the entire article? Hoisted by their own petard!
Redstateboy| 1.17.11 @ 8:57AM
In these economic times boardering on disaster.. the Liber-uls at the Smithsonian hand us another reason to... defund and systematically dismantle this Ungodly Federal Government. To the overall satisfaction of the majority of the American People.
Anthony| 1.17.11 @ 9:41AM
Apparently, and for some time now, the hard left has once again managed to overwhelm the directorship of another great American institution, this one being the the Smithsonian.
Yes, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that all of this "spoof" will become reality at some point in time in the near future.
As Rush likes to remind his listeners, many scoffed and laughed at him when he told them the left had designs on their SUVs. Nothing is beyond these people, especially when it comes to the denigration of America and its people. We must pay for our sins!!!!
Furthermore, if Mapplethorpe was alive today and running for election against, say, Sarah Palin, he'd get the entire lefty vote, and Blake Gopnick of the Wa Po would bemoan and editoralize on the lack of serious candidates, that being of course, Sarah Palin.
Neanderthal| 1.17.11 @ 9:44AM
"Spoof " now. I give it two years, and we will be having this debate in earnest.
Anthony| 1.17.11 @ 6:01PM
Which was precisely Limbaugh's point.
PaulD| 1.17.11 @ 10:18AM
"Many a truth was spoken in jest."
Petronius| 1.17.11 @ 10:43AM
The Smithsonian used to be referred to as "the nations attic". It has become a propaganda outlet from museum gallery to the pages of the magazine. The subtext of the attic is supplanted by a colossal middle digit thrust into the eyes of middle American taxpayers. There are directors at the Smithsonian who, if given their heads full time, would use their offices to do precisely that. Here's hoping the new members of the House Appropriation Committee sends a love note to the Secretary of the Institution along with some pink slips for these bums. Not only do we not need them, but we can no longer afford them.
FJ Harris| 1.17.11 @ 12:04PM
Back off. Our 'Artists' are working at the cutting edge, grinding out the same trash for the last 110 years. The free mind 'liberal' is always either fighting Christianity or shooting Priests and Nuns and Ministers - Muslims they wisely leave alone.
J.P. Travis | 1.17.11 @ 1:57PM
If trickery makes the point, then it is justified as legitimate literary technique. You can't call it dishonesty when the writer himself points out the trick. The left is, in fact, doing its best to mainstream lifestyles which the vast majority of Americans find abhorrent, including the evil NAMBLA lifestyle. And critics of this piece are using the normal leftie tactic of damning the writer without disputing the writer's points. http://www.jpattitude.com/101228.php
Shogun| 1.17.11 @ 2:37PM
Yeah, "trickery makes the point" all right. The "trickery" is used to further demonize gays, a tactic the lowbrow AmSpec uses frequently.
AmSpec's gotta feed the hateful paranoia of the right-wing nuts--the overweight and undereducated right-wing nutters who make up the readership.
And have a rear nice day, nutters, but keep your hands out of the refrigerator, and before you leave yo house be sure to wipe the Cheeto dust off yo lips.
Miss Piggy| 1.17.11 @ 2:38PM
Well, I nevah!
C PIVIK| 1.17.11 @ 4:06PM
The right fringe knows how gullible their base is. An inconvenient truth, indeed.
Charles Martel| 1.18.11 @ 2:51AM
The reason the article is effective is that this is exactly the sort of behavior that we have come to expect from taxpayer-funded, elite-run institutions. We expect them never to give a damn about cultural norms, common decency, or the public purse.
When I read the disclaimer, I breathed a sigh of relief, grateful that the Smithsonian had not descended so far as actually to mount the described exhibitions -- yet. And that's the key word: "yet". As one commentator had it above, we're arguing about a spoof now, but in only a few years' time, the siege on our sensibilities will be very real. You can count on it.
+++
Midnight| 1.18.11 @ 4:45AM
But the Hide/Seek exhibition *is* real.
RCV| 1.18.11 @ 1:40PM
A truly despicable article.
Longdrycreek | 1.18.11 @ 3:12PM
Interesting and varied comments. Satire, based on past performance, is a worthy literary device.
Obviously, some objectors did not know the "facts" from the "fiction" in the article.
Their reaction is predictable, because there is not much playfulness in their minds or souls or life.
Rather truncated existence.
Disgusted with D. Oliver| 1.18.11 @ 9:24PM
Idiot. Spare us your masturbatory cultural fantasies.
Pelligrino| 1.19.11 @ 11:34PM
The spoof is just fine. And it works. It works because we are conditioned to know that our tax monies go to agencies like the National Endowment for the Arts despite great discomfort and disagreement in the citizenry.
None of these organizations need to continue the vigorous, ugly assault on real values.
Certainly not when NONE of us give our approval for the 'art' or exhibitions.
All of these things should now be able to stand on their own. No public (taxpayer) funding. None.
Including the Smithsonian. It is now a thoroughly established institution; let it thrive if it deserves to thrive.
No 'artificial' (taxpayer) help.
If these entities are worthwhile, private investors and those giving charitably will keep them afloat.
It is a crock to DEMAND of Americans their unwilling tax monies KNOWING that many (just based on living in Lincoln, Tulsa, Idaho Falls, Tupelo, Spokane, Tampa, Madison, or Knoxville) would never be able to attend or participate.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:33AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 2:33PM
The charge of lying is not baseless, Paul.