|News & Articles|
Art vs. Blasphemy and Perversion
The Smithsonian Institute recently removed a video showing an ant-covered Jesus on the cross in an “art” exhibit promoting a homosexual lifestyle, or, as the exhibit puts it, “Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.”
While we may be grateful for the removal of this particular piece of hate speech, we wonder why the people running the Smithsonian believe that references to homosexuality qualify as art?
God has a Hebrew word in Leviticus 18:1-30 for what homosexuality actually represents, and the meaning of that word is clear. The word “tow’ebah” in Hebrew, which The Lord uses to describe adultery, incest, homosexuality, and child sacrifice in that chapter, means “evil,” “loathsome” and “disgusting.”
Thus, promoting homosexuality, as this exhibit is reportedly designed to do, can never qualify as art, much less great art.
Art should never promote evil. That’s because true beauty, like true love, both of which ultimately come from God, cannot really promote an evil thing. And, anyone who says they can has a bizarre theory of art that doesn’t make any rational sense.
Regrettably, however, too many of the world’s professional art historians, teachers and “critics” have a limited art education full of Romantic, secular, socialist, atheist, and Anti-Christian canards and myth conceptions.
Happily, you won’t find such limits in MOVIEGUIDE®’s reviews, which are written from a Christian, biblical perspective that takes into account not just the ultimate artistic value of a work but also its craftsmanship, production quality and entertainment value.
Thus, not all movies are art, much less great art, and not all entertainment is great art, but all movies have a level of craftsmanship, production quality and entertainment value that can be judged separately from their aesthetic, and even moral and theological, beauty and truth.
Therefore, the Smithsonian exhibit on “same-sex portraits and intimacy,” with or without the blasphemous video, is clearly not art or great art, though it may indeed have a relatively high degree of craftsmanship, production quality and even entertainment value.
That still doesn’t mean the public should be paying for it.
- Source: Washington Post, 12/01/10.