Arts Desk

A Fire in Her Belly: Penny Starr, the Conservative Activist Who Punked the Smithsonian

A number of heroes and villains have emerged in the controversy following the Smithsonian Institution’s decision to remove a video work by David Wojnarowicz on display at the National Portrait Gallery. Victoria Reis, director of scrappy D.C. nonprofit Transformer, quickly showed A Fire in My Belly after it was taken down last week. On the other side of the coin, Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough is seen as the shadowy hand who pulled Wojnarowicz over National Portrait Gallery director Martin Sullivan’s objections.

Yet the role of Penny Starr remains hazy. A reporter and conservative advocate, she deserves much credit for both instigating the censorship—and ensuring that the artwork is seen by many, many more people than it otherwise would have.

A Fire in My Belly is in truth a fairly minor artwork by Wojnarowicz. It’s not even the most prominent piece by the artist on display in “Hide/Seek,” the National Portrait Gallery show. Crucially, however, it displayed a few moments’ worth of a crucifix being treated in a nonreverential manner, which was enough for Starr to do her work.

Starr is employed by the Media Research Center, a group that should not be confused with, well, a media research center. Nestled in a small business park in Old Town Alexandria, the organization was founded by conservative talking head Brent Bozell in 1987.

The Media Research Center pursues conservative advocacy through a number of outlets whose ostensible goals are not activist in nature. One of those is, home to the Cybercast News Service—formerly the Conservative News Service—a Web-based newsroom of about a dozen reporters, aggregators, and content producers.

Starr, who did not respond to a request to be interviewed for this story, is one of them. As a reporter for, she lambasted the Richmond Visitors Bureau this September for a campaign to “attract homosexuals to Virginia’s capital.” This summer, she condemned the Library of Congress for an exhibit on Bob Hope that included a film clip of Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert interviewing D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton instead of simply focusing on Hope’s participation in the United Service Organization.

Starr is not merely a reporter for the Media Research Center. She represents the senior citizen’s perspective on a panel for a webcast feature called “The Girls”—think a conservative The View. Starr’s writing is frequently crossposted on Newsbusters, a website devoted to “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias.”

She’s also a sort of congressional outreach figure. According to an e-mail obtained by Talking Points Memo blogger Brian Beutler, Starr wrote to House and Senate leaders from both parties asking for feedback on her National Portrait Gallery story.

“The federally funded National Portrait Gallery, which is part of the Smithsonian, is running an exhibition through the Christmas season that features an ant-covered Jesus and what the Smithsonian itself calls ‘homoerotic’ art,” wrote Starr in her e-mail. “Should this exhibition continue or be cancelled?”

Starr’s push-polling e-mail offered a carrot to those who are sympathetic to her agenda as well as a stick to those who might prefer not to respond. “My deadline for a response is 1 p.m. and we are posting a story at 1:30 p.m. that will contain the leaders’ response or lack thereof.”

Predictably, flacks for House Speaker–designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader–designate Eric Cantor (R-Va.) were quick to provide Starr with talking points. This is hardly organic outrage from Republican House leadership. A Boehner spokesman later acknowledged the congressman had not seen the exhibit.

“Officials at the National Portrait Gallery on Tuesday removed a work of video art depicting Christ with ants crawling over him after complaints from a Catholic organization and members of Congress,” reported The Washington Post’s Jacqueline Trescott. In a lede typical of mainstream media reports on the controversy, it fails to reveal the central role of the Media Research Center in manufacturing the outrage.

Not only did a Media Research Center reporter pitch the outrage to leaders in Congress, but Bozell sits on the board of advisors of the Catholic League.

Indeed, the Catholic League has perfected a script developed by the Parents Television Council, which Bozell founded in 1995. The Parents Television Council exists largely to mob authorities with indecency complaints—a Web-based schoolmarm flash mob. In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission reported that the vast majority of complaints it received about indecency stemmed from the Parents Television Council.

So Bozell’s team cherrypicked the offense, manufactured the outrage, and then directed the response. The response was huge: Sullivan said the National Portrait Gallery had never heard such an outcry. But he also acknowledged it was likely that none of the plaintiffs had in fact seen and been scandalized by the artwork in person.

The Smithsonian not only bit on the outrage, but it also accepted that the outrage was organic. “One of the exhibition’s 105 works—a short segment in a four-minute video created as a complex metaphor for AIDS—was perceived by some to be anti-Christian,” said a brief statement released by the Smithsonian on Monday. “It generated a strong response from the public.”

But the last laugh may be on Starr and Bozell. Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly is now guaranteed a place alongside Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography. Those artworks and those artists’ reputations have not suffered as a result of conservative demagoguery.

Arts organizations beyond Transformer are making sure the work will be seen. New York gallery PPOW, which represents Wojnarowicz’s estate (the artist died from AIDS-related illness in 1992), has offered to provide the video to any organization that wishes to take the gallery up on it.

The New Museum in New York has installed the video in its lobby, the first major institution to do so. The Indianapolis Museum of Art will hang a poster Wojnarowicz designed—prophetically, an anti-bullying message—as part of a solidarity campaign spearheaded by the ARTINFO blogger Tyler Green. London’s Courtauld Institute of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago are hosting panels and screenings.

One place where it cannot be seen: D.C. Transformer’s protest screening has already ended, and no other D.C. organization has taken up the torch. (Two protesters did on Saturday, using an iPad to display the artwork inside the National Portrait Gallery, which led the Metropolitan Police Department to detain them and issue them notices banning them from the Smithsonian.) In Washington, it seems, conservative activists are the curators.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • Pingback: P90X Cardio X Workout | Synergy Alliance

  • Esquire

    Give us her address so we can write her "fan" mail!

  • Pingback: News Room :: Monster Mash: Metropolitan Museum of Art sued over Cezanne; Playboy artwork sells at auction

  • Mike Hawke

    God, these people are tiresome. I understand that the conservative polititians will jump on this sort of thing whenever it's brought to their attention, because it plays sooooo well to the rubes back home, but really, I couldn't give two shits about their opinion. Obviously, Penny and her ilk make quite a handsome living off of playing to people's ignorance and superstition though.

    And really, why is it that whenever you see video evidence of these conservative think tankers, they're almost always hideous, unfuckable trolls (male or female)?

  • Chris T

    @ Esquire here ya go...

    Media Research Center
    Attn: Penny Starr
    325 S. Patrick Street
    Alexandria, VA 22314

  • Jared

    The poetic justice of the resulting prominence of this work of art is gratifying.

  • Pingback: News Room :: Are you ready to rumble? The Smithsonian vs. WWE

  • Jeff C.

    This isn't art, it's smut masquerading as art. While you may all revel in the fact that the art has achieved certain "prominence" or fame, others will understand that in the end the producers of this type of smut will be judged according to their works. It is sad that society has degenerated to such a point that trash like this is considered "art". What's next, child pornography as a form of "art" promoting sexual freedom and equality for everyone? What would the battle cry be? "Adult love for children or OF children?"

  • Pingback: Friedman, Kristof and Rich « Marion in Savannah

  • Jeff R.

    @Jeff C., it's only "smut" if you have a filthy, disgusting, perverted view of the human body and your own fears.

  • Pingback: Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian | Maura McGurk

  • RJay

    @Jeff C.: If you're truly interested in rooting out pedophilia, why look for it for the puny art world? Your casting of stones would be better served if aimed at the very epicenter of institutionalized pedophilia -- that staid institution known as the church.

  • http://@jeffc bowtie

    the sole purpose of art is to comment on its own societal context. it's not always pretty because society isn't pretty. religious zeal plays a HUGE factor in the every day decisions made by members of this society, be it reasonable or ignorant. to take an icon of that major player and throw a twist into it to make people think about it is not smut. it is exactly what artists have done for generations.
    if it disgusts you, i suggest you take a closer look. if your visceral reaction is disgust, i think that the artist is doing a fantastic job.

  • Pingback: The results of homophobia being a misdemeanor in establishment Washington « Prop 8 Trial Tracker

  • Pingback: New York Times’, Frank Rich, Announces Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian! « MN Prager Discussion Group

  • Pingback: Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian « Scotties Toy Box

  • Pingback: Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian – Frank Rich | Slinking Toward Retirement

  • Pingback: Uncovering the Conservative Writer Who Fueled the National Portrait Gallery Controversy - UnBeige

  • Wah?

    Re: Mike Hawke "they're almost always hideous, unfuckable trolls (male or female)?" ... ah and your comments are not hateful???

  • Corrie C.

    Having seen the video myself before it was pulled, and being a Christian, I wasn't particularly offended at all. What an idiotic response. I'm quite disappointed that the Smithsonian caved so quickly like it did.

    That being said, I personally didn't find the video to be any form of great or even particularly good art anyways. Not that means it should be censored, just that I don't understand what it was doing there in the first place. It was dreadfully unengaging, very dull despite the message it's attempting to convey, and largely unmoving to me. It stirred no emotional response, not even to be offended. I'm surprised anyone even watched it long enough to even bother being offended.

    I am always amused by how censorship like this only increases viewership though. Irony at work.

  • Fort

    Some Republicans appear to be against art because the arts in general have a clear far left bias. If the tables were turned and conservative themes dominated art exhibits I have no doubt that some Democrat politicians would be up in arms. The real issue here is that this exhibit is funded by tax payers and the bigger picture is that public funded museums in general don't tend to be politically one-sided in what they display.

    I don't agree with censorship of art, but I also know that some artwork, especially artwork dealing with pro-life themes or other conservative social themes, does not stand a chance of being exhibits. In that sense, conservative themed art is censored before it is even considered which is far worse than what happened to this video in my opinion.

    I think it is time for conservative minded people, especially those who happen to be artists, to write their representatives and demand that if art museums and other public venues desire to continue receiving public funding the MUST exhibit a variety of viewpoints instead of the one-side far left agenda that has been allowed to dominate for so long.

    Currently within the professional art world it is acceptable for an artist to display Christ in feces, in urine, or worse. Christ has been depicted as homosexual, as a bdsm slave, and in other ways that rely on shock. However, if an artist displays the prophet of Islam as a murdering baby raper or covered in hogs blood while blowing George Bush it is considered hateful and unjust.

  • Pingback: Lefty ProPublica Group Escapes Media Skepticism of Ideological Journalism | Matrix Blog

  • Pingback: Monster Mash: Metropolitan Museum of Art sued over Cezanne; Playboy artwork sells at auction « Daily Art News