When we heard that Brigham Young University, the pretend college Mormons attend where they can "discover themselves" under the safe and watchful eye of the Church of Latter Day Saints, had taken down a student's gay-related art project without notice over the weekend, our shock meter barely registered. After all, you want students to "discover themselves", but only so long as that discovery leads to the decision to spend two years as a missionary before settling down with a wife and fifteen kids in Ogden. Pictures of gays in the photo gallery seems like an obvious 'no-no'.
But today, consider the shock meter set to 'arched eyebrow'. Today the Deseret News reports that BYU spokesman Michael Smart says the whole thing was a big mix-up:
"When the action became apparent after the weekend, college administrators reviewed the decision," Smart said. "Because the project does not violate BYU's honor code, the project was rehung Tuesday afternoon."
BYU admits gay students who sign the school's honor code, which prohibits sex outside of marriage.
"One's stated same-sex gender attraction is not an honor code issue," Smart said. "Homosexual behavior is a violation of the honor code."
The project, by student Michael Wiltbank, a senior from Eagar, Ariz. takes a self-identified gay student and pairs them with a supportive friend or family member, but doesn't label who is who. That's it. No Mapplethorpe nudity, no missionaries being sodomized, just portraits of two folks, side by side.
The only one who could possibly be offended by it is photographer Julie Moos, who did the same thing with house cleaners and the people who employ them in her series "Domestics" and also with high school students in the self-explanatory series "Friends and Enemies."
Wiltbank responded to the fracas on his website yesterday, writing:
"I thank the leadership of BYU's College of Fine Arts and Communications for their willingness to reconsider and then reverse the initial decision to remove the artwork. The whole point of my project and the exhibit was to promote dialogue and discussion and, I hoped, increased understanding among those who might otherwise feel their differences were too great to overcome. I think the administration's action has been a good example of that increased understanding. I hope that all students, faculty, staff and guests who can now view the project again will follow that example and will also be prompted to the same kind of respectful consideration, tolerance and willingness to reconsider personal perspectives."
The Ridiculous Catholic Manifesto Pledging to Ignore Gay Marriage + Abortion Laws (27)
· Kevin F. says: “Why are churches allowed to lie?” When you consider the reality, that... »
· AxelDC says: Why are churches allowed to lie? Isn’t that a violation of the 10 Commandments?... »
Adam Lambert: Out Magazine Can Eat Shit + Die (165)
· David Ehrenstein says: NPH in “Out” is a perfect example of what the mag does all the... »
· Ethan says: ROMEO: “HE HATES US, BITCH.” You are so very wrong and you are spreading... »
· LR says: Reminds me of Neil Patrick Harris in OUT- “My job is jester, not... »
“Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?” (34)
· 1EqualityUSA says: ” Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and... »
· 1EqualityUSA says: Rainfish–If Jefferson were alive today, he might have relaxed a bit,... »
If We Out D.C.’s Gay Catholic Priests, Will the Church Stop Railing Against Marriage? (26)
· 1EqualityUSA says: Dear Judy DelMar, I suppose the answer is the same as to why NOM-skull Gallagher... »
Stalking Lance Bass’ Friends On Adam4Adam (35)
· Brian says: I think Queerty to have done this is very reckless and irresponsible. As a professional... »
Oprah’s Tear-Filled Goodbye to Viewers (A Year Early) (8)
· AxelDC says: You told Harpo to beat me! »
love the vaseline lens. white diamonds, anyone?
Those Mormon boys are adorable! Can I marry all of them?
""Homosexual behavior is a violation of the honor code."
BYU can take its honor code and shove it. What, do they have stockades on the quad for rule breakers?
You should have used the shot of the guy with intense eyes. Would have had more hits.
This is nothing new with "male gaze". Andy Warhol did this and Mapplethorpe did this. It is still controversial today. Interesting.
According to the story, the artwork was taken down because of a "administration miscommunication." If this is true and the work was quickly placed back up again censorship never took place. Mistakes happen, so don't get frustrated and see things that aren't really there. Isn't that the point of your artwork anyways?