Skip to content

Brigham Young University Rehangs Gay Art Project

December 11, 2008

It has been a good week for forcing people to do the right thing.  First the sit-in at Republic Windows proved a success, and now this.

The Mormon Church hates bad publicity, and what followed the censoring of an art exhibit recently at Brigham Young University brought tons of tough negative words about the deed.

Including here on my blog.  The number of blogs nationwide that took off after BYU was stunning.  And it worked.

Today comes news that Brigham Young University will rehang the gay art project that was nothing more than a series of two faces of  BYU students side by side.  One was gay, the other a friend and supporter from BYU.  But who was who?  See the quandary that this provoked within BYU? 

Yeah, me neither.

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.”

%d bloggers like this: