'Fire In My Belly', Banned From Smithsonian, Now Playing At The New Museum (EXPLICIT VIDEO)

After House GOP Leader John Boehner forced the Smithsonian to remove an excerpt of artist David Wojnarowicz's video "A Fire in My Belly", other museums around the country are stepping forward to post the video. The New Museum in New York is now showing the film in its lobby, as is the CB1 Gallery in Los Angeles.

From The New Museum's website:

"The film, A Fire in My Belly, A Work in Progress (1986-87) is a poetic meditation on man, life, death, faith, and suffering made in part as a response to the AIDS-related death of his close friend, artist Peter Hujar"

Represensative Boehner and fellow Congressman Eric Cantor attacked the piece as "an outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season."

Lisa Phillips, director of the New Museum, explained that the Museum has a history of defending freedom of expression. "We cannot afford to take hard won civil liberties for granted and need to remain vigilant and protect artistic freedom."

WATCH for yourself:

Comments

[keithmason]

09:05 AM on 01/20/2011

That is just rough, at best you get depressed watching that. I couldn't see it through to the end.. pretentious and boring were the words that come to mind. How is it meant to be engaging?

If Fred Phelps put forward work for the Smithsonian there'd be a massive outcry, it'd probably look quite similar to this too. The differences would be superficial, the one certain is that it'd be equally offensive.

[MLRluvsHP]

03:17 PM on 12/15/2010

I am offended by John Boehner. My tax dollars go to many things he is doing that I do not support (unlike the privately funded NPG show Hide/Seek, which was not paid for with my taxes). Please remove him from public view. Sound familiar, sound absurd, sound troubling? Indeed.

[jrocks94]

06:18 AM on 12/14/2010

John Boehner has begun his repressive "reign" as Speaker of the House of Representa­tives! I'm sorry, but it is no coincidenc­e, as far as I am concerned, that during these contentiou­s, repressive and exclusiona­ry times of "the haves" preying upon "the have nots" -- that there are so many Catholics in public office. John Boehner is one of them and I am deeply concerned that national public policy is to be swayed by exclusive, hierarchical, image-base­d opinions, rather than the national interests separated from religious beliefs and groups.

I am not fooled by Boehner's appearance Sunday Dec. 12, 2010 on 60 Minutes where he performed his crying routine. I just wonder how long the American public is going to put up with the relentless attacks on our public and private freedoms by those who lack the capacity to act for the greater public good and put aside their personal beliefs, biases and bigotries. Can't wait for the next election period when there is a possibilit­y that rationalit­y and bi-partisa­n leadership will appear in politics in America -- especially in Washington­, D.C.! One can only hope!

[DesertRatzoRizzo]

02:59 PM on 12/13/2010

When it comes to being hateful, David Wojnarowicz's "Fire in My Belly" can't hold a candle to the 2,000 years of institutionalized murder, mischief, mayhem, genocides, pogroms, holocausts, inquisitions, expulsions, crusades and other acts of stupidity and hatred perpetrated by Christians in support of their precious savior. Get over it, already.

[StevenKeirstead]

04:05 PM on 12/11/2010

“If I could attach our blood vessels so we could become each other I would. If I could attach our blood vessels in order to anchor you to the earth to this present time I would. If I could open up your body and slip inside your skin and look out your eyes and forever have my lips fused with yours I would. It makes me weep to feel the history of your flesh beneath my hands in a time of so much loss. It makes me weep to feel the movement of your flesh beneath my palms as you twist and turn over to one side to create a series of gestures to reach up around my neck to draw me nearer. All these memories will be lost in time like tears in the rain.” -David Wojnarowicz

[Frank Bourne]

01:30 AM on 12/12/2010

There's nothing about Wojnarowiczs' life that any sound person would want to emulate. He's simply not inspiring. His "art" reflects that. Mocking Christianity is ho hum. Boring even.

[StevenKeirstead]

09:44 AM on 12/12/2010

I don’t give much weight to the opinion of someone who condemns a man’s entire life on the basis of one piece of art they don’t like, who hides behind the name and image of a long dead Victorian war hero. An anonymous opinion pronounced as fact is not fact.

I doubt David Wojnarowicz lived the life he wanted to. He was abandoned by his parents as a child, had to eek a living as a prostitute before he became an artist, and then was unlucky enough to get AIDS and die after losing his lover and many friends to the disease. Despite these serious disadvantages he did make art. Some of it is good some of it is not (which is true of all photographers). As a photographer myself, I think he made some very strong images: the buffalo heard going over the cliff, the self portrait simulating lips sewn shut illustrating ACT UP’s motto "Silence =Death”, and several of his male nudes and portraits.

And I think his religiously-themed art criticized Christianity; it doesn’t mock it. Artists like Francisco Goya have mocked the Catholic Church blatantly, but no one is demanding Goya’s work be taken off the walls of museums because it offends people.

[felliott]

10:31 PM on 12/12/2010

Wojnarowic­z's "Fire in My Belly" is art in a Catholic tradition. In the 14th century, Catholic artists depicted Jesus on the Crucifix with the black plague. The ants on the Crucifix symbolize the lesions associated with AIDS. This film is about uniting the suffering of AIDS victims (for victims they were in the 1980's when AIDS was all but universally fatal) to the suffering of Christ. In doing so, Wojnarowic­z is following in the footsteps of dozens of Catholic saints. Every image in the video is devoted to depicting this idea.

Christians who are uncomfortable with this video after actually seeing it, are really uncomfortable with the idea that Christ shared in the humanity of all- even gays and AIDS "victims."

[analogkid1]

09:40 AM on 12/11/2010

Lets face facts. The only difference between calling this "ART" and calling it a "sick, twisted amateur video" depends on who the creator of the work is. If it's an already "known" modern artist, it's art. If some random, average guy put this video together it wouldn't be considered art at all....not even remotely.

[StevenKeirstead]

04:12 PM on 12/11/2010

It’s more interesting than 99.999% of what’s on TV, as was most of David Wojnarowicz’s art. His still photography is much better though.

[felliott]

10:33 PM on 12/12/2010

Yeah, you do need to know how to read to understand art that's part of a two thousand year old religious history.

[missmanners]

09:44 PM on 12/10/2010

I might be able to understand the removal if we were forced to see it. But since no one had to look at it if they didn't want to it seems unnecessary.

I feel the Iraq War was "an outrageous use of taxpayer money".

[City of Evil]

03:36 PM on 12/08/2010

And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of supporting art. Good art will inevitably offend someone. All this does is give the political BS slingers some meaningless sh¡t to talk about instead of doing their jobs.

[BlackYowe]

02:42 PM on 12/08/2010

As a liberal Christian and a full time artist all I can say is this so called art is more hate than art.

[HunterDeth]

05:05 PM on 12/08/2010

Hate is a religion which condemns you for your sexual identity, and whose leaders, in their ignorance, call for an end to the use of condoms- one of the only methods of protection against HIV/AIDS. This piece was made for a gay artist who died from AIDS- and does what art should by questioning our social norms and stigmas. It's fighting the stigmas perpetuated by your church, and the 'hate' that it breeds!!

Hate is a intense dislike towards something, which is not displayed at all in this film. The film doesn't even set forth solid opinions regarding "like/dislike love/hate" etc. etc., and is generally abstract, leaving the viewer to set their own opinion rather than stating it for them. This is the difference between "hate" and "art", or at least good art.

Maybe your 'liberal Christian' art that you produce full time is elegant and simplistic in its message: real straight-to-the-point one-liners with positive messages that are in line with the ideals of the viewer. Then congratulations, your still lifes, landscapes, graphic design or whatever are beautiful and everyone is happy. You've stripped art of its intrinsic value as social/political commentary, and somehow can still declare yourself to be 'liberal' even though you can't bring yourself to question the status quo.

[BlackYowe]

11:21 PM on 12/08/2010

You know nothing about me. It's quite amazing how self righteous you are, its humorous.

[keithmason]

08:57 AM on 01/20/2011

Wow, sounds like someone decided to get their own bit of hate on!

[felliott]

10:35 PM on 12/12/2010

You're not liberal or Christian. HTH.

[NorquistNemesis]

02:01 PM on 12/08/2010

Typical. Government limiting freedom is acceptable when it's a Con calling the balls and strikes.

[sanderson13]

01:10 PM on 12/08/2010

No more public funding for art.

[missyfoosy]

09:40 AM on 12/08/2010

Art is meant to open your mind to see things differently. THIS IS ART. Art isn't just about pretty flower paintings or marble statues; all that safe, boring stuff you see in museums that represents art from a hundred years ago. It is meant to expand your field of thinking and perception as a human being living on this planet. If you cannot allow your mind do that, to really begin to understand what David Wojnarowic­z was trying to say, then just like TV, you should turn the channel and not look at it. By some of these ignorant comments below, some people should stick to the entertainment and political commentary instead and leave the art to those who want to question life and want to see REAL ART that does the same.

An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

[Sandman911]

11:16 AM on 12/08/2010

So, if a christian artist created a sculpture of a homosexual being sodomized, covered in AIDS sores with the inscription "Completely preventable" engraved on it, would THAT be considered "ART" as well ???? Or would it be considered offensive ????

[Danoh]

11:36 AM on 12/08/2010

Can't it just be considered art AND offensive to some people? Has there been any new art that wasn't offensive in its time? I'm not saying its right, only that its silly to complain. Offensiveness is intrinsic to the nature of emerging art. Its silly for anyone to act like that's a big surprise.

[missyfoosy]

01:48 PM on 12/08/2010

I think you should make that sculpture, explain why you made it, and see how people react. That's the wonderful thing about art, it can be anything about anything.

[FirstBiteBooks]

01:43 PM on 12/08/2010

It is interesting what constitutes an "art controversy." I find nothing offensive in this video. It was well-made and interesting.

Having said that, I don't think art is supposed to be didactical. Otherwise, one could be satisfied by just reading Socrates and not looking at art. :) Art is also for pleasure.

[Frank Bourne]

09:21 AM on 12/08/2010

David Wojnarowicz was a wannabe artist who got sick as a gay prostitute and died of AIDS so his "art" is expected. He was simply a pathetic man but Lisa Phillips of the Smithsonian should know better and should be immediately fired.

[Yasgur]

04:57 PM on 12/08/2010

Lisa Phillips is the director of the New Museum (of Contemporary Art), located in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The New Museum is not part of the Smithsonian museum complex.

[felliott]

10:56 PM on 12/12/2010

You're a bigoted p.o.s. who ought to be neutered before he has children to abuse.

[Frank Bourne]

08:52 AM on 12/13/2010

Fanned & Fav'd

[BlackYowe]

01:06 AM on 12/08/2010

Can you imagine the outrage if this was done to a star of David or a model of a mosque?

[NameUnknown]

07:08 AM on 12/08/2010

Aren't we lucky to live in a country where one can express their views without censorship! Well sometimes anyway.

[Sandman911]

11:52 AM on 12/13/2010

Unless your Christian of course. My son was sent home from school for wearing a hat with a cross on it.

[Frank Bourne]

09:26 AM on 12/08/2010

We'll never know because the director of the Smithsonian would not allow those types of exhibits to be displayed. Her absurd comment about "remain vigilant and protect artistic freedom" is laughable. She knows where the line is.

[TheMadKing]

12:44 AM on 12/08/2010

Dieter Sprockets did the ants video thing much more artistically :)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9p5ey_sprockets-germanys-most-disturbing_shortfilms

What a piece of crap! Any four-year-old could have done that, maybe even improve on it by using a magnifying glass on the ants! BTW Fire In My Belly didn't get censored from the Smithsonian, it got bounced off the public tit after concerted public outrage. The American people are not obligated to display performance crap art at taxpayer expense. FYI.

[standish]

06:11 AM on 12/08/2010

"it got bounced off the public tit..." This is just plain vulgar and gross.

[TheMadKing]

07:58 PM on 12/08/2010

Exactly, Standish. Just like this so-called "art." But I'm not on exhibit in the Smithsonian on the taxpayer dole. And like Georgie Patton said, "When I want it to stick, I give it to 'em loud and dirty." I see it stuck with you. Thanks! And Merry Christmas :)