Update on that painting

pictureJust a quick update, because I’ve been busy, and haven’t had the chance to catch up.

That painting – you know, the one Duncan Hunter removed because his tender labia got chafed at the controversial subject matter – was removed, because it apparently violated the rules of the contest it was judged to have won.

All the drama and the tug-of-war to garner the attention of the media was just so much bullshit.

“The Congressional Art Competition is an opportunity to celebrate the creativity of students in every corner of our country — and visitors from around the world see their talents on display when they walk through the halls of our Capitol,” Reichert said in a statement. “However, with any competition there are rules, and these rules exist for a reason. This painting hung in clear defiance to those rules and was a slap in the face to the countless men and women who put their lives on the line everyday on behalf of our safety and freedom.”

Ryan told the congressman that the Architect of the Capitol made the determination, Reichert’s office said.

The rules of the art competition state: “Exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed,” according to the statement from Reichert.

There was some controversy on this very blog about whether Hunter behaved vaguely Reich-like when he removed the painting, because it was offensive. I agree the painting was repugnant, but as our guest writer Dave Hardin wrote, “The wall on which that picture hangs does not belong to Hunter, and neither did the picture. That wall belongs to us – all of us – and that picture belongs to a 17 year old high school student. That wall and what hangs on it is protected by Marines who served this nation long before Duncan Hunter could read or write.”

Hunter had no right to remove the winner of an art competition from the public walls, no matter how offensive he found it.

But it appears his drama was unnecessary anyway. All he had to do was ask the Architect of the Capitol to examine rules of the contest, and make a determination about whether the painting legitimately won.

It hadn’t.

But instead, Hunter decided to use his government authority to remove something he found offensive from a public venue.

Survey says: DOUCHE!


12 responses

  1. Speaking to the Architect to remove it by verifying the rules would not have generated press for the representative in question.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Mind you, the usual suspects will no doubt scream “censorship” for its removal at all–even though such removal is in accordance with the rules for the contest in the first place.

    Rules, after all, are only for the little people (or people who don’t follow the proper narrative).

    Liked by 3 people

  3. The Streisand Effect is strong with this story…..

    The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]

    copy and paste from Wiki, but….just sayin’

    Liked by 1 person

  4. On display was the liberal tripe being taught in our schools these days.


  5. I would argue that Hunter’s action was not intended to garner publicity except to bring attention that the Capitol is the wrong venue for interpretive art.

    To them who decry Hunter’s action, I ask what their response to say, the flag of Mexico flown above the flag of the USA highly visible to passerby although on private property within the USA.

    My immediate reaction to the offensive painting or the inappropriately flown flag would be to take it down. Sure, there is a more appropriate action but let the chips fall where they may.

    The larger point, one which has flagrantly violated and incited the public conscience ever more as the years roll by, is how much offensive crap shall we tolerate? ‘People have the right’ if even to be offensive. So, wanting to subdue the leftists because of their ideology and comporting behaviors, is that right or wrong? The more they can ‘get away with’, the more bold they become.

    It may be said I am overreacting or exaggerating but as our Constitutional Republic is wholly intended only for a virtuous people, the issue becomes shall we allow anything to pass or shall we act to preserve the Republic?


    1. How did this “art work” win to begin with? Were the judges members of BLM?


    2. My immediate reaction to the offensive painting or the inappropriately flown flag would be to take it down.

      the issue becomes shall we allow anything to pass or shall we act to preserve the Republic?

      We shouldn’t allow just anything to pass.

      In particular, we shouldn’t allow your proposed action to pass. You, sir, would be a trespasser in the first instance (you stated the inappropriately flown flag is on private property), and are subject to arrest. YOU, not the idiot flying the flag.

      Why do people think “muh flag” justifies violence, trespass and property crime? Get the fuck over yourselves.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. “but as our Constitutional Republic is wholly intended only for a virtuous people”

      Huh? Says WHO? Where?

      “the issue becomes shall we allow anything to pass or shall we act to preserve the Republic?”

      You seem to think that ‘trample other people’s Rights’ = ‘preserve the Republic’. History says that ‘logic’ is not just WRONG, but utterly fucktarded.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I see this a lot. People fetishizing the flag.

        The flag is a symbol of America, the nation founded on the rule of law and respect for rights. By insisting on fighting, literally “for the flag,” not the country it stands for, it’s disconnected from what it symbolizes. Many of these people end up actually taking a big steaming dump on what the flag stands for because they’ve made a fetish of the flag.


  6. So, just a rhetorical question: Where was the outrage at the “Douche” who hung it there in the first place —- without checking with the Architect.


    1. There was outrage. Hence the whole Hunter removing the painting to begin with. There was no problem with the winner of the contest having their work hung there, so there was no need to check with the Architect. The problem was apparently the actual CONTENT, which violated the rules of the competition.


%d bloggers like this: