Public displaying of Nude Art

[Jamo]

I was wondering what everyone thought about public display of nude art to children. Do you see it as something that is inappropriate? This would include sculpture, drawings and photography. What are the boundries here? I would also like to point to some of Jeff koons work or maybe even Robert Maplethorp. There seems to me to be two competing opinions that first nude art is something that should be celebrated and not censored to younger audiences and then there is the other view point that it is lude and totally inappropriate. I would think that Jeff Koons is pushing it here with his sculpture. I'd like to hear what you guys think

http://www.xs4all.nl/~exadega/koons/madeinheaven.html

http://www.haliburtonecho.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=121013&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local

[Judy Robins]

Personally, I don't believe any type of censorship should apply to nude sculptures or any art for that matter, whether indoors or outdoors. Our society is soo hung up on naked bodies being bad, like they say, "everyone is naked under their clothes" !! The human body is extremely beautiful and has the best composition nature can supply. Judy Robins

[GaryR52]

Koon's photographs are definitely hard core porn and shouldn't be displayed publicly anywhere for anyone, especially children. I can't believe you're even asking such a thing, let alone posting these images here.

Gary

[GaryR52]

Personally, I don't believe any type of censorship should apply to nude sculptures or any art for that matter, whether indoors or outdoors. Our society is soo hung up on naked bodies being bad, like they say, "everyone is naked under their clothes" !! The human body is extremely beautiful and has the best composition nature can supply. Judy Robins

Judy, did you actually look at the images posted? This is not a simple display of the nude human form, this is the same content displayed on hard core porn sites.

Gary

[Judy Robins]

I don't believe in censorship of any kind. Sorry, freedom of speech means everything to me as an artist and if one lets censorship start there is no ending. Even if it seems repugnant, we must protect freedom of speech. Judy Robins

[oddist]

Erotica and fertility have been subject matter for art from day one...

How displayed, used, or viewed by the culture in which it was produced belongs to history.

Right now, Koons' work is part of our culture and our time in history. How we view it, or whether or not we allow it to be viewed, is representative of who we are.

We are part of history and only time can tell where Koons' work belongs--whether that be in public, private, or trash collections?

[GaryR52]

I don't believe in censorship of any kind. Sorry, freedom of speech means everything to me as an artist and if one lets censorship start there is no ending. Even if it seems repugnant, we must protect freedom of speech. Judy Robins

Ummm...Judy, there are already laws on the books that classify such images as pornography. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no community in the United States where you could legally show such images in a public venue without running afoul of existing laws.

Jamo, I would think anyone with a little common sense and some knowledge of pornography laws would know the difference between the acceptable display of nudes in fine art and the images Koons offers on his website. These images, in particular, the two at the very bottom of the page "Made in Heaven" are identical in every respect to the images found on internet porn sites. There is no difference at all, save for the fact that Koon's ex-wife is the subject.

Gary

[Blake]

I am pleased to see the rights of the artist so well defended. Yet I think that the opinion of the public is influenced by the culture of which they are a part.
In Europe there is one attitude, in Asia and North America there are others.

Every sculpture I create is nude and I admit that I hesitate to post things on this site as there is a heavy North American influence and it may upset some people, I don't feel that this is the reaction I want to evoke with my art. This is a self imposed form of censorship for if the site were European I would most likely show the piece.
I think that it is about respect and in this case I think that it is important to respect North American culture.

Having said that, I would agree with the comment in the article
when it comes to the display of the art, “the kids don't have a problem at all. The parents do.”
And don't we define a culture by what we teach our children.

Blake

[GaryR52]

"Yet I think that the opinion of the public is influenced by the culture of which they are a part.
In Europe there is one attitude, in Asia and North America there are others."

True, Blake. These are referred to as "community standards," and, even within the United States or within a single state, the community standards vary. I'm sure that in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco the standards are much different (dare I say lower?) than in most of the country. However, the internet is not, as yet, subject to any one community's standards, as it is impossible to apply the standards of one locale equally for all viewers. Hence, porn gets around the community standards laws when displayed online.

However, when it comes to public display in a physical location, especially if children are involved, the standard is usually a bit more restrictive, and with good reason. I think most people would agree that such images are not appropriate for children. You may disagree, but you'd be in a very small minority if you do and, I might add, it's a minority populated by every pedophile in the country. If that's the sort of company you wish to keep, well...

Gary

[Blake]

Gary
I think that you are speaking of Koons work, which I don't even want to discuss, I agree it is very close to porno and quite inappropriate by any community standard. I am speaking of Public Sculpture and life drawing classes and “art” in general as was indicated in the original thread.
Blake

[Jamo]

Gary you missed my point. My question is not wether I think it is acceptable to show hardorce porn to children . This is ridiculous and disturbing. What I was asking was that nudity is often found offensive to some individuals and what people thought about the display of the nude. People tend to get upset over the "public" display of nudity because it may burn the the eyes out of the pure & innocent clothed individuals. Most of our greatest artistic treasures are nude Donatello's/Michelangelo's David, Venus de Milos to name some of the iconic ones. To me it would be saddening and a failure to society as a whole not to display these publicly. However nowadays when a cotemporary artist has a nude publicly displayed it is a source of much controversy. I wanted to see what people's opinions were on this. Wether you like it or not erotica/nudity and art have been intertwined since the beggining. I pointed to Jeff Koons and Robert Maplethorp because these are "artists" that are internationally recognized for their work and they represent the most extreme sexual depiction of the human body. I don't think it is especially good work and I don't think it is appropriate for public display. my first post said "I would think Jeff Koons is pushing it here". I do not condone these images being publicly shown.This isn't a debate of hardcore porn free speech it is about art and nudity. That being said I think North American culture is too caught up with Nudity and needs to relax somewhat. We have completely twisted notions about what should be publicly allowable. Janet Jackson flashes a boob and its horrible yet we can watch someone being bludgeoned to death and its ok.
I would also like to point another distinction between nudity and nakedness. They are not the same. Nudity is a term often used with more postive conotations of humanism and naturality. However Nakedness has negative conotations as weakness defenseless and exposed. Historically depicted in scenes of conquering and defeated enemies. An example of nudity would be pierre auguste renoir's bathers. An example of nakedness is the warka vase or Palette of Narmer. Clothing has also been used to denote power and influence as well. Notice in the painting that the men are wearing the clothes. People often get these confused.

[sculptor]

I am pleased to see the rights of the artist so well defended. Yet I think that the opinion of the public is influenced by the culture of which they are a part.
...I think that it is important to respect North American culture.

..., I would agree ..., “the kids don't have a problem at all. The parents do.”
And don't we define a culture by what we teach our children.

Blake

First----Jamo while all are "fights" there are striking differences between a prize fight, bar fight, knife fight and a gun fight-------let us use a broad brush where apropos and a fine brush where detail matters
So too within "nude" we have nude, naked, and porn---you cited porn

Blake:
“the kids don't have a problem at all. The parents do.” and as the kids become acculturated they develop the prejudices of the parents----"the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons"-----unless we change...

I would like to see a change away from prudishness.....
Desensitize the cultural morays------successive approximations toward a goal or shock therapy.... (Total Emerson)... without the controlled setting of therapy is impossible.

My son Michael is in the peace corps in a small Indian village east of the Andes in Ecuador.
Single room houses and big families, the kids grow up with sex and aren't traumatized but rather accept sex as a normal part of life. Flip side----their culture has strict male and female rolls-----e.g: men gather the corn, women husk and shell it.

Multiculturalism as an intellectual pursuit is one thing, when it shifts to an emotional level we tend to assign the "good and bad" dichotomy.

While I despair that much "modern art" seems intended for shock value (piss christ) and bespeaks an artist hung up in the juvenile rebellious stage with no concept of the value of the culture, I accept that this may be a part of change--though fear that the shock value makes the "old folks" hold on ever more tenaciously to their cultural prejudices.

Whither hence?

rod

[sculptor]

... I think North American culture is too caught up with Nudity and needs to relax somewhat. We have completely twisted notions about what should be publicly allowable. Janet Jackson flashes a boob and its horrible yet we can watch someone being bludgeoned to death and its ok.
I would also like to point another distinction between nudity and nakedness. They are not the same. Nudity is a term often used with more postive conotations of humanism and naturality. However Nakedness has negative conotations ....

Oops:
you posted this while I was wandering

yes, I agree

and a local artist/sculptor does his "nude" sculpture without heads hands or feet----he said that the face makes a nude naked and doesn't sell well.

rod

[Blake]

In the case of Jeff Koons, Robert Maplethorp and piss Christ the desired effect of their work is to shock and thereby attract controversy and media attention. This is not art it is marketing.
(Although one could argue that marketing is the art of today.)

I think that change in North America will be difficult without therapy as suggested by sculptor. Having said that, what we as artists need to do is administer that therapy, ever so slowly, for unfortunately the two extremes; porn and prude appear to have control.

In Europe we don't suffer these extremes, I have both genders represented in public parks in France and have never had a comment let alone controversy. (pity I could use the marketing)

Nude sculpture done with taste and sensitivity will be acceptable to the majority of the public, it is the radicals that you need to convince and censorship is not an option.

P.S. Randall definitely the goat

[GaryR52]

Gary
I think that you are speaking of Koons work, which I don't even want to discuss, I agree it is very close to porno and quite inappropriate by any community standard. I am speaking of Public Sculpture and life drawing classes and “art” in general as was indicated in the original thread.
Blake

Right, Blake, I am talking specifically about Koon's pornographic photos. Sorry, I thought that was what we were discussing.

Gary

[GaryR52]

Sorry, Jamo. I re-read your post later and realized that you were not defending Koons' porno images. It is not the nudity I am objecting to, by the way. I have no problem with that. It is the blatant creation of imagery that is straight out of a pornographic website that I object to. Koons is trying to suggest that a picture of a woman with a penis in her mouth and cum on her face (sorry for the graphic description, but that's what it shows) is "fine art," as deserving of gallery space as Ansel Adams' "Moonrise: Hernandez New Mexico." But, what are we to expect from the same guy who tries to fob off vacuum cleaners as sculpture? Koons is a deliberate provocateur, in the tradition of Duchamp, but he goes way beyond Duchamp's attempts to challenge the establishment's ideas about what constitutes art. Koons doesn't stop there. He has to shock and demoralize by placing the most objectionable imagery he can get away with in full view of anyone who happens into any gallery where it may be displayed. To reiterate, this is not an issue of mere nudity and anyone who attempts to downplay the blatant pornographic nature of Koons' images is probably deliberately pretending there is nothing alarming about it and therefore, aides and abets Koons in his attempts to chisel away at what little remains of public decency. If you subscribe to what he's doing, I'd ask you what's next, "kiddie" porn on display at MOMA?

As for images of violence, I agree with you. It is perverse that our culture condones violence to a greater degree than human sexuality. I won't attempt to rationalize that, as there is no rational reason for it. The effect of exposing children to either, especially before they are intellectually, emotionally and physically mature enough to assimilate such information without harm to their development is dangerous and I wish we were as concerned about the effects of violence in TV and movies, as well as video games, as we are about the effects of exposure of children to pornography.

Gary

[bluedogshuz]

Art should raise the human spirit, Koons work is depressing and dehumanizing.
There is some great Erotic art on the web,very intresting and exciting, this other stuff is crap in my opinion and VERY DEGRADING. I hope children don't have to see it. Sexuality and the human body is very beautiful. There is a way to display this beauty even to children but this example is not it.

[setmenu]

but somehow I never really thought of photos in terms of being "art", photos to me are something you take with a mechanical device called a camera, you have the scene you want to capture, set the focus, push the button and there's the image.

I don't even know where to start in response to that statement,it's just so plainly wrong! :eek:



.

[ironman]

Hi, First off, a little story.
When my oldest daughter was about 3-4 yrs old she walked in on me as I was getting out of the shower. She looked, pointed to my penis and asked, "what's that?", I replied "that's my penis" to which she said "oh" and walked out the door. end of story.
I have no problem with the public display of nudity in art (or in general, actually) but what we're talking about is the public display of various sex acts, which to me is different.
Now I don't wish to censor Koons (who I can't stand) or Mapplethorpe (who is a great photographer and someone I went to H.S. with) but I really don't think some of that imagery is appropriate for young children.
And it's probably ME, and the kids wouldn't think twice about it.
By the time they're 12 yrs. old (if not before) they'll probably know about it anyway.
In Europe, people come to the beach all dressed up, strip right out in the open, not hiding anything and then put their bathing suits on. That to me is a healthy approach to nudity, no one pays attention to it.
Well, I could go on about this but I gotta go run around in my front yard naked!
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[bluedogshuz]

I prefer the back yard! My daughter when she was 7 saw a marble torso I had done, her comment was: boobs! She then placed her head on the top of the piece arms extended and said take a picture! Still have that picture. You know kids are kids. Some kids like to look at the masters so they can check out nudity. Theres a difference between that and vulgarity and I think we all know that...

[sculptor]

The public---the common (wo)man really seem to love "Public displaying of Nude Art"

If ISIS is any indicator, over 99% of her viewers applaud the effort and enjoy the views.

longer version at the Take the Art To the People (http://www.geocities.com/mandali/TAKEtheARTtothePEOPLE.html)
project's on-line site

lets all do more like this

rod
sculptor (http://home.mindspring.com/~mandali/index.html)

[Merlion]

This public display of nude art at the empty 4th plinth of Trafalgar Square at the heart of London will really test the reaction of the public.

It is a beautiful work of art, a large marble statue based on the body cast of a disabled pregnant woman. It also has a touching story behind her determination to live her life as a photographer artist, and bring up the child despite her severe disability.

This below is a well written article from the Guardian about the statue, with a nice photo taken at the stone carver's workshop. http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1568650,00.html

Here below is her astornishing story told by herself, http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1561046,00.html

[Jamo]

what would happen if some archeologist found the arms to the venus de milos? would we put them back on? It's grown into such an iconical image that how could you think of it in any other way?

[sculptor]

re:
"...would happen if some archeologist found the arms to the venus de milos..."

different times different mores

if someone found the missing scrotum and penis from MichaelAngelo's Baccus would they reattach them?

Cellini made a few Ducats refinishing a found greek marble and called it prometheus----complete with oversized chicken looking longingly at the canary in the lad's hand...even the best had recourse to schlock(sp?)

Give me some bronze and a forge and I'll repair some of Rodin's crap?

missing parts of the Laocoon group reapeared and the previous "repairs" were discarded

we're beyond neo-classical so something new----neo renaissance?

(wo)man is the measure of all things

if beauty is only skin deep, why make a figurative sculpture solid?

and hundreds of other silly questions and coments are readily available
just trip the right circuits

I think of Quinn as a taxidermist, not a sculptor.(One who shapes, molds, or fashions especially with artistry or precision...carve, cast, chisel, cut, engrave, fashion, hew, model)......can you just phone it in and be the "sculptor"? Can't the Guardian Unlimited afford a dictionary? If I were as loose with my tools as they are with our language, perhaps my sculptures of women would look like Stalin?

whither hence?

oh, if memory serves the venus of milo was discovered in the back of a truck headed for a lime kiln--a little haggling, and a classic was reborn---one mans trash is another mans treasure......

rod

[Merlion]

It is clear that opinions on this statue on the London Trafalgar Square 4th Plinth will be divisive.

Some people will like it very much, while others will loathe it. I am with the former group.

[fritchie]

I'm afraid I have to wade in on the side of "It's a great waste of marble."

[anne (bxl)]

Anyway, one thing I noticed about Koons, is his email address is .nl- the Netherlands, and that country is one place where literally everything goes, (with the exception of child porn) it's where most of the porn comes from.

first thing, I live next to the Netherlands, and this image is relatively wrong : rules and laws are quite permissive in the Netherlands, this is right, but never try to go around a law or to climb a rule, you'll be fired...

second point a question : is any work done by an artist a piece of art?

[ironman]

Hi Anne, OOH, that could be a tough question and open up a can of worms and it should probably be a thread of it's own.
That said,
Is any work done by an artist a piece of art??
My answer is YES, as long as it's INTENT is to be a work of art.
It doesn't matter whether it's fit for children to see, it doesn't matter if we like it or not, and it may very well be an absolutely God awful piece of junk in everybody's mind BUT, if the artists intent is that it is a work of art, then it's a work of art!
We may judge it's quality, it's lack of what WE consider art to be, but we can't judge whether or not it's a piece of art, that's a given.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[sculptor]

... is any work done by an artist a piece of art?

Hi Anne
I'll weigh in with NO

simply put.....if an artist weeds my garden, what's left behind is a weeded garden and a pile of weeds.

Now, on to defining "artist" I think the term is far to widely applied.
We should reserve that word for those who have acheived the best within their chosen dicipline.

A few years ago, I was leading a sculpting workshop at a local highschool, and one of the students, while reassuring a fellow student, said, " ...everyone is an artist."
My, perhaps unkind, retort was, " sure everyone is an artist, just like everyone is a brain surgeon, and everyone is a nuclear physicist, but a few years of study, and some dedicated effort and practice might be worth the effort."

"art" without craft is immature doodle nonsense and undeserving of the term "art"

So too, for those who would be considered "artists" some dedicated hard work and honest effort to learn and improve following on a reasonable ammount of talent should be assumed the minimum expectation.

If we do not hold our peers to a higher standard, we diminish the value of the those whose lives reflect the struggle and dedication and efforts to develope the skill necessary to acheive the glory and beauty of our aesthetic potential.

Those who would claim the title ARTIST without putting in the dedication and hard work are usurpers, and should be taken about as seriously as someone claiming to be the emperor of the known universe.

rod
sculptor (http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=1118)

[Jamo]

Art patrons should be able to file malpractice lawsuits against crappy art

[GaryR52]

Be careful what you wish for, Jamo. ;)

Gary

[Merlion]

"art" without craft is immature doodle nonsense and undeserving of the term "art"

But what can be done about this?

If art galleries are able to sell paint doodles by monkeys, elephants, and nude girls rolling on canvas, who can stop them?

[ironman]

Love it, Jamo, you made my afternoon, and I think that GaryR52 must be a lawyer in his other life.
Thanks for the chuckle,
Jeff

[underachiever]

All art could be or was viewed as disturbing or pornographic at one point or another. But I guess we should put clothes of David and burn Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. After all, think of the children!

*rolls eyes*

I would think it's the duty of the parent, not the artist and museums to educate the child on the difference between porn and art.

Art patrons should be able to file malpractice lawsuits against crappy art

LOL I love it!!!

Yeah, if that ever came to pass, I would love to see your reaction when a patron decides your work is crappy for some silly reason and sues you. :/

Art is subjective. -.- What's crap now could be brilliant 10 years ago or 10 years later.

[arcdawg]

There is a big differance between ART and PORN......that koons guy is a low level smut peddler scumbag that has pushed that line way too far ! I am a very open minded person when it comes to art but to see those pictures deemed as artwork is B.S. but in the U.S. we have the right to look or not to look......

but to defend that scumbag........? nope not me !

D-

[setmenu]

There is a big differance between ART and PORN......that koons guy is a low level smut peddler scumbag that has pushed that line way too far ! I am a very open minded person when it comes to art but to see those pictures deemed as artwork is B.S. but in the U.S. we have the right to look or not to look......

but to defend that scumbag........? nope not me !

D-

You say there is a big difference between art and porn, but defining
the dividing line is another matter.
You may think the line has been crossed others may not.
Who decides?

The images shown are just well images of behavior that people have
repeated for millenia.
Hardly novel, I would agree.

Peoples responses to such images are always interesting though...



.

[arcdawg]

all I was saying is that *I* dont like it but I guess that it could still be classified as art....the problem is that there is WAY too much of a grey area now a days....

it really gets down to morals and believes.....not many people have either of the two anymore....

just my two cents -

dawg

[underachiever]

You aren't addressing how works released in the past were originally dismissed as porn or adult or disturbing are considered masterpieces now. Refer to the initial reactions to Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe and Piccaso's Le Just because you suffer from a closed mind doesn't cause the art to lose it's value. Frankly, I'm surprised to read an american nearly suggest censorship on an art oriented board.

Still, it can't be denied that Koon's exploiting the reaction from people like you (arcdawg) for publicity and attention. Nudity in art is not new. Intercourse is not new. People have had sex ever since people were having sex and it's not exactly an exciting new idea to document the process. So what makes art like Koon's special? People shrieking because they've watched too much porn and see similiarities. People who've never had sex before. Overly religious people who think the act of sex is somehow wrong despite it's a natural bodily function. People with kids, who are so bad at parenting their kids can't the difference between good and bad and they need something/someone to blame. And of course, the anal retentive.

The outcry forces those who normally wouldn't give a damn to see people like Koons in a new light. He's no longer a boring artist who's just doing something older then cave paintings, he's being brave and original.

...

Blah, you can blame no one but the people who gave artists like Koon the chance to provoke them into giving him fame.

[arcdawg]

well I was waiting for a response like ^ I do understand that its classified as art.....but should have just been submitted to playboy or another skin mag. You are right about nudity and sex being MAJOR players in art history, and maybe in 100 years that *koons* guy will be looked as a contempory picaso.....( I really hope not)

I enjoy art that pushes the envolpe but just to push the envolpe to get to be called an artist is cheating in my book !

this isnt an arugment on prude vs pervert.....its all about personal taste and it has nothing to do about where I live....thank you very much !

Dawg

[sculptor]

screwball discussion

how about:

puplic displaying of rusty art--(if I see another pile of rusting welded boxes i'll barf)

public displaying of tension cable art-----the first one held some interest--the 49th one seems trite

public displaying of red art------I mean really, who in their right mind would paint a sculpture red?

.........etc ad nausium ad infinitum

narrowing the grey zone--cultural taste matters
ithifalic statues were common in rome

seriously, you cannot compare koons' porn to ISIS (http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=1043)
or the veteran of the persian wars (http://www.galleryculture.com/images/art_2_282_85500x500.jpg)
or the mermaid (http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=1118)

i've found that the vast majority of "the public" like and appreciate "nude art"

I think that there is actually an infinite number of ways of sculpting people
5 billion of us now and rarely do you find 2 alike
and each with myriad moods and positions and attitudes
gotta be 25 billion approaches left unexplored

'course, I'm a classicist 100%
a longhair who likes longhair music and I don't mean acid rock...though I do have a fondness for celtic (read bagpipes and drums) music and detroit rock-n-roll of the late 60s

rod
sculptor (http://home.mindspring.com/~mandali/index.html)

[arcdawg]

Rod,

seems to me that there are a lot of people out there that would classify themselves as people that HAVE to protect the first admendment.....and this is where a grey area has been devolped......be it in any media, music (judis preist) photography (koons) and well the list goes on and on..... but these are the same people that would piss and moan if it was in their backyards....

sorry folks you cant have your cake and eat it too !

btw Rod, I do think that your work is simply amazing and I would have no problem letting my kids see it in a muesum....

Dawg-

[Merlion]

Here is a very interesting news story on public display of nude art from the Philippines.

Statue causes stir in Davao

"EVERY-one's naked in the eyes of God--but a replica of Michelangelo's naked statue of David, which was built near a motel here has been causing uproar for several weeks already.

"First it was a debate between morality and a work of art, reminiscent of the century when Italian sculptor Michelangelo Buonarotti first came up with his masterpiece in Florence, Italy.

"Councilor Angela Librado-Trinidad said she could not have raised a howl if the statue was built somewhere else, not near a motel.

"She said this would send a wrong signal to the public, and teach wrong values to the children.

"Later, officials changed the issue to the legality of the statue saying it was built on land owned by the city government.

"After weeks of threatening to demolish the structure, however, officials are now saying they are open to a compromise, probably putting a pair of pants on the statue, or underwear, or the classic fig leaf.

"Vice Mayor Luis Bonguyan said in jest he was disappointed by the statue's size, which is rather small, referring to the private parts that generated the strongest public reactions here.

"Gazing at David's statue from the shade where his taxicab is parked, Romeo Salazar, a driver, said he could not see anything wrong with it.

"It just looks like my own body," he said, without a trace of malice on his face. [snip]"

More details in http://news.inq7.net/regions/index.php?index=1&story_id=57346

[Merlion]

Ha, ha! Here is another piece of news about controversy over public nude art in a shop window. This is in San Francisco, and the artwork is a beautifully done male nude torso sculpture. There is even a video on it.

Controversy Over Naked Statue In Castro
Owner Covers Sculpture's Torso

"A statue of a naked man in San Francisco's Castro district is causing controversy.

"Some parents have complained the anatomically-correct sculpture is too explicit to be kept in a store window - even in the sexually-liberated Castro. Police threatened to cite the statue's owner and confiscate the $3,800 piece of art.

"The owner covered a key portion of it, but still can't believe anyone complained.

"Robert Hedric, 'Phantom SF' owner: "I was shocked and to some point, devastated. It was quite mind boggling, because I thought to myself, am I in San Francisco? Am I in the Castro, or not?" [snip]"

Details in http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3653209

[Merlion]

Ha, ha! Here is another piece of news about controversy over public nude art in a shop window. This is in San Francisco, and the artwork is a beautifully done male nude torso sculpture. There is even a video on it.

Boy, oh Boy. There is a further news report about this nude sculpture in a shop window in Castro, San Francisco. The shop owner decided to remove the modesty loin cloth thus revealing everything.

Merchant exposes statue's penis

Santa Claus is coming early for lovers of artwork with engorged penises. As of today (Thursday, December 8), a Castro merchant plans to disrobe a teak statue and allow passersby to once again view a now world famous 8-inch penis on the chiseled, naked kneeling man in his store window.

In October, police officers responding to complaints informed the storeowner that he had to cover up the penis on the Balinese statue – which functions as a tabletop holder – because it was pornographic and violated city codes. The merchant complied by draping a blue loincloth over the statue's genitals but felt his rights had been violated. [snip]

Full report with bare all photo here (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=410). I post this as is, and would not comment nor debate on whether this taken as a whole is good art.

[sculptor]

Thanx Merlion

the artists seems to've worked to an ithiphallic ideal with sculpted abbs, oversized biceps/triceps and a generally overmuscled upper body.

in a supplicants pose.....perhaps a prayer to the goddess for an enthusiastic mate?

tabletop holder-----as in place a round glass top atop his head and elbows?

guess......28"-34" tall?

the price seems very reasonable

....."balinese statue" ...
fercrissakes I'd prefer that they actually mentioned the artist's name
just once
a little respect for a talented craftsman/artist

rod

[arcdawg]

I like that *rusted box* comment....I can believe the prices of some of those pieces.....I gotta jump abord that gravy train -

d-

[Merlion]

Back to this interesting topic. Here is another recent event, also in the US. And the unhappiness concerns a bare all sculpture of Adam placed at the front entrance of an art center.

Angry artist withdraws nude sculpture from St. Charles show

A sculpture known as "The Creation of Adam" has been pulled out of the Foundry Art Centre in St. Charles by St. Louis artist Philip Hitchcock because of what he calls "vigilante censorship" and the "systematic defacement" of his work.

Hitchcock said he should have known something was up when he called the center to ask how things were going and was told by a worker "they were having a wedding at the center and 'I had to cover up his private parts.' [snip, the text, not his private parts]

His sculpture, including a detailed depiction of Adam's not-so-private part, had been placed at the front of the Foundry Art Centre and "when you walked in the door it was in your face," said Joyce Rosen, executive director of the center.

Shortly after Hitchcock put Adam on display "someone draped a tablecloth" over his genitals, Rosen said. She took that off, and then someone else put some sort of synthetic flower on the sculpture.

As we all know, artists can be a bit temperamental about their work. [snip]

Click here (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/98E0588CAF892BE7862571560017B187?OpenDocument) for the full news article.

I note a different issue. Here the artist seems to have based his apparently life-size sculpture of Adam heavily on Michaelangelo's painting of Adam, and displays it publically. What do you think of what he has done ?

[sculptor]

censorship
somewhat like the author of the piece, i fucking hate censorship

lemme tell you a little story
long ago and far away, while in the army, i used to write an article for the camp newspaper-secret camp running a top secret com-site-the military intell goons censored my articles---their approach was to delete the iffy items then jam whatever was left together and send if off to get published---I read like an illiterate lunatic--sentence fragments with multiple subjects and/or verbs and no object-----so i started a new article called "Kite Flying in Mariland---------I would go and sit on a hill overlooking the post which was in a valley surrounded by mountains, and describe what I saw and where the kite was flying----a few issues later, some of my comrades began to detect a pattern, that no matter where i was, the kite always flew over the m.i. hooch
and though the earstwhile censors never cought it, my peers understood the message quite clearly-------military intelligence, and censorship suck

it ain't a real dick, it's just a fugging statue ferchrisesake
I simply do not understand why some morons claim to find figurative sculpture offensive but suspect that it has something to do with masturbatory guilt.

whither hence?

[ilona]

por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.

Michelangelo's 'David' was probably not created to cause sexual arousal. My opinion, and I have read "The Agony and the Ecstasy" by Irving Stone, is that although he may have desired and exalted the male form, his work transcends mere visual stimulation. Otherwise he wouldn't have bothered making the back of the calf, or the angle of the neck, as perfect as the penis of his 'David'.

In fact, the genitals on most of his sculptures are probably the least realistic aspects of them. It's almost as if he stuck them there as an afterthought, because...well he wouldn't be a man without them.

the gray area so far discussed is this: If a painting is done that shows two people engaged in sexual intercourse, is it pornography? Well, I guess that depends on whether or not the person looking at it is sexually aroused by it.

;)

[MountainSong]

I’ve always enjoyed nudity, have nude work in several genres and am attracted to it in others homes, galleries and museums. I cried upon seeing Michael Angelo’s David in person, and am repeatedly deeply moved by Marc Quinn’s statues of Allison (there’s a fantastic photo layout in B&W out there of her too) The human body remains one of the most interesting and dynamic subjects.

However everything on Koons page was unpleasant on some level aesthetically to me, from the stilted, posed “acting” positions and mockup overly sentimental backgrounds and clothing, to the sappy dogs and those commercial flowers. It appears driven by marketing, self aggrandizing and sensationalism…but pornography is a good enough excuse to not show the children. *chuckles*

[justme]

I just checked out the Koons pics. I love nude sculptures, same as most of us. But if Koon's isn't pornography, then what in the world is?
In the name of censorship or not, do we really sedate our brains so much that we can't tell the difference between art and porn? I think we know.
j

[GWayne]

I don't care how anyone tries to explain, rationalize, or defend Koon's photographs as "art" because in the end they are just poorly done porn pictures, plain and simple.

GWayne

http://www.georgewayne.com

[ilona]

Ok, I just looked at the Koons pics for the first time.

Anyone care to guess what it is that bothers ME about these works?

:eek:

[Landseer]

I agree, I consider the Koons photos to be little more than artified porn, what else would you consider works with titles like these;

" Blow Job - Ice, 1991"
" Ilona's Asshole, 1991"

[ilona]

Attempting for the moment to forget about the names used in these pieces...

I suggest that Koons is trying to push the boundary of our definition of porn with this work. I think he is asking us to debate "what is porn?"

This is no different than what many other artists have done throughout history. It is merely making us re-examine our society and our definitions of what is or is not art, porn, etc.

I am not condoning the work, in fact I find it rather distasteful myself (not least of which because of the use of my name!) but I do think that artists can play a valuable role in society by forcing people to ask and answer these types of questions, and to debate such issues.

[Landseer]

You might be reading too much into "intent" with the statement; "I think he is asking us to debate "what is porn?"

I looked over the other photos, it looks more like a Macy's sale site than an art site, he has the porn photos up alongside sculptures of puppies, a hedge, an ordinary ice cooler, a tray of glasses, a bucket...

[HappySculpting]

Sex is everywhere in advertisements, in the movies. The way little girls are dressing these days, trying to look sexy when they're 7 yrs. old, etc. is all a product of today's society. Young children may have a foggy idea of what sex is all about but for them to see such images(Koons), would it not encourage them to do what's in the images and are they ready at such a young age for that? What kind of effect would images like that have on their future sex life?

Koon's images are of depicting sexual acts and none of those images really should be repugnant in themselves as they are things that are normally done on a daily basis by men and women. But these things are private things done between two people, (married preferred), and, in my opinion, should never be viewed by others. Can't there be any decency in society any more? Do we really need to encourage more promiscuity than we have already? Can't the human sex act be beautiful and a mystery for the young untill they are ready to experience it? This I believe will help their future sex life as their will be an excitement to it instead of, "oh, I've seen that a million times".

Having said that..... I'm another one who puts my vote in for the beauty of the naked human body displayed in it's various positions in life; whether it be lounging on the top of the car (Rod's wonderful sculpture ;) ) or a nude resting on rock on the seashore, etc. Even erotic art can be tasteful when it leaves some mystery to the genital area and simply shows two embracing. But to show the graphic sexual act is not appropriate for public viewing at all and a degrading of the sex act itself which should be a beautiful private thing between a man and woman.

~Tamara~

[Landseer]

What kind of effect would images like that have on their future sex life?
There probably isnt a kid around who hasn't stumbled on dad's girlie magazine collection, if the kid is young the reaction might be "What are those people DOING?" a little older might be more like; "Eww gross I'd never do THAT!!"
We forget that in the past history nude statues and more were seen by everyone. This marble carving from Herculanium dates to 100 BC, it was discovered long ago and the King and subsequently others- ordered it locked away and hidden, this was when most all of the nude statues had their genitals broken off, smashed or otherwise obliterated, in some cases statues were ordered RE-buried, this one wasn't amazing enough.

I love the theme, it's a gorgeous, sensitive, moving carving and if I ever found a reduced copy in bronze I'd buy one.
So far I have never found any other photos taken from different angles.

There was so much erotic art there that it would be surprising by even today's standards, who was damaged by it? if kids were exposed to it right from the start (as they are in France etc where nude sunbathing is legal) the breasts and genitals cease to be these dirty horrible things that have to be shielded from view. Somehow someone figured that breasts are ok to view legally in public as long as the NIPPLE is covered, and the underside as well is covered from view.

As far as female genitals, for the most part what would you see on a nude sunbather than HAIR? the SAME hair found in the armpits.

I have seen an article in the paper about a woman whose 16 year old daughter opened the mail one day and ran screaming and hysterical to mom in the other room, can you guess what she found? a soft porn catalog that showed NUDE MEN!
She was hysterical and upset over a nude catalogue, that tells me society has gone nuts.

[HappySculpting]

Hey Landseer- Glad to see you can post here again. :) I guess they took you off restrictions! :D

Regarding nudity and genitals: The beauty of the human form is a work of art and art displaying such is a good place to teach children the differences between men and women. But teaching them sex by showing it as depicted graphically in art (Koon's) is not necessary and I feel, damaging to them.

That bestiality shot is disgusting! Not shocking, however, because it's been going on for centuries. But the lowest state a man can find himself in, doing it with a beast. Talk about desperate! (Actually, I think that's some sort of man/goat or something, but still.... Yuck!)

[Landseer]

Regarding nudity and genitals: The beauty of the human form is a work of art and art displaying such is a good place to teach children the differences between men and women. But teaching them sex by showing it as depicted graphically in art (Koon's) is not necessary and I feel, damaging to them.
I'm afraid I don't feel the same on that, I don't find the human body/form at all interesting, erotic or artistic, in many ways it's hilarious looking to me. I find much more visual interest and artistic form in animals, especially in their natural settings-deer in the woods, Big Horn Sheep on the rocky ledges, or an equestrian sculpture in a dressage move, or with a fully decked out conquistor.
I guess I fail to see how Koon's photos, as X rated as they may look can be "damaging", I think the "children" of today are certainly more advanced and grow up as well as mature sexually much faster than those of 100 years ago. A 14 year old today is way different than the naive immature 14 year old of 1880. With the plethora of hard core material all over the net, softer but very suggestive material in ads for everything from pants to TV sets modelled by buxom girls in skin tight leotards, tv shows, commercials, posters, movies. With that plethora is mind I do agree that it all becomes so commonplace and rather ordinary, but I wouldn't say "damaging" with regards to emotional scarring.



Talk about desperate! (Actually, I think that's some sort of man/goat or something, but still.... Yuck!) I'm afraid I disagree on this too, dislike or like the subject of the carving or not, it was made as art and it is artistic, one of the finest marble carvings of that era I believe I have seen. Technically it's execution is marvelous, the open spaces and cavities, undercutting and full round work is exquisite- more so when you consider this is 2,100 years old. While the one foreleg appears to have been broken and repaired as evidenced by the horizontal crack, the work is in astoundingly excellent condition. Whomever did the carving on this was extremely good, and I'm sure this sculpture has a story to tell of why it was created and for whom, but the story is lost.

Unfortunately, because of reactions as you have, this is why this fine piece of art was hidden away- first in the King's castle, and then later in a museum's locked store room where you had to make an appointment to see it as it was not on display. I guess I am disapointed in this reaction but not surprised given the other comments in your post with emphasis on "MAN-WOMAN" ("married preferred")

The man figure is the mythical "Pan" a half goat half man from your Greek mythology- Leda and the Swan, Europa and the bull, centaurs etc. The mythologic figures all had at least some basis in the facts/acts or fears of the day. Yes, quite old, as long as there have been peeople and animals on the planet, normally I'd say go do some research and learn about this on wikipedia.org/zoophilia or wikipedia.org/mythologywith an open mind, but from from your response I doubt it would do much good to read, "desperate" and "Low" are totally inaccurate either applied to the marble carving or a significant percentage of those involved with this.
Part of your view may come from the commonly taught idea that animals are somehow "lower" "inferior", "dirty" and here solely for people to use as cheap labor, to make cash off of or kill just because we can, some of us view them differently and more spiritually, and I certainly don't consider them in any negative light.

Just look at the work as a marble carving of two figures and pay no mind to the subject and maybe you can appreciate the work as a sculpture, and one that must have taken it's carver many laborious days of hand carving with fairly primitive tools.

[sculptor]

... (Actually, I think that's some sort of man/goat or something, but still.... Yuck!)

mangoat = Pan or one of the satyrs also known to have sex with women glad to see they swung both ways

for thousnds of years, singleroom architecture was the norm, and still is in some parts of the world (eg: where my son michael is at n the peace corps)
children there spoof the sex act of which they've been exposed to since birth.
It doesn't seem to warp their young minds-atleast not as warped as the young woman in landseer's posting-------which begs the question...which societal norm is the most damaging?

I suspect that children form their constructs of sex based on their parents reactions

that being said, i see koons work as 1% art and 99% hype and shock value
but then again, my viewpoint ain't exactly unbiased

Tamara, thanx for the compliment for ISIS I'll tell her you lik her when i'm repairing her surface for another couple years on the old truck

I just got an e-mail nibble from an HGTV producer-and must try to figgure out what to write in response to try'n hook this one------
advice appreciated
and/or--keep a good thought

rod

[ilona]

Hey, look... it's up to the PARENT to decide when their kids are ready to see such stuff. Not society. That's the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. I have two little girls, and no I wouldn't let them look at those pictures now. But when they are teenagers, and we can have a meaningful discussion about it....sure.

The best way to handle that would be to have a sign outside this room in a gallery warning parents before they lead impressionable children into the room.

[Landseer]

for thousnds of years, singleroom architecture was the norm,

children there spoof the sex act of which they've been exposed to since birth.
It doesn't seem to warp their young minds-atleast not as warped as the young woman in landseer's posting-------which begs the question...which societal norm is the most damaging?

I suspect that children form their constructs of sex based on their parents reactions

Exactly! the children pick up what the PARENTS display, if the parent goes into a frenzy of shock when confronted with a simple nude catalogue the kid picks up on that without question. Over in Switzerland women can be found in the parks bare breasted, no one gives it a second thought because it's so normal there, but here people go into hysterics and panic just as they did when that woman on TV had a "wardrobe malfunction" and her one breast was partially exposed for a fraction of a second.
People- usually right wing Christians/Jerry Fallwell/Pat Robertson/Billy Graham gurus were writing the FCC demanding fines and something be DONE about the terrible nudity that happened.


that being said, i see koons work as 1% art and 99% hype and shock value
but then again, my viewpoint ain't exactly unbiased Agreed- it is the shock value, maybe a large amount of showoff- "see what *I* have, this hot blond chick you dont?"

[Landseer]

The best way to handle that would be to have a sign outside this room in a gallery warning parents before they lead impressionable children into the room.I have no problem with a sign, one that says NOTICE: nude, graphic materials are on display which may be disturbing to minors.

I WOULD have a problem with one person complaining and having the exhibit removed as "offensive" to this one person (been done!)

[HappySculpting]

Hi Landseer,

I hope that I didn't offend or upset you in any way by what I said and actually, in the future, I think I won't share my feelings on controversial subjects because I want friends only on these sites and want to be encouraging to all. I don't like to argue or cut down anyone. I hope you didn't feel my reaction to the picture you posted was aimed towards you for posting it or something.

I do loooove animals so that's not what I meant about "low". I'm not going to reiterate what I meant because I pretty well said already that what the sculpture is depicting is very distasteful to me.

Hi Sculptor-

I wasn't for sure if you really understood how much I like Isis that was displayed atop of your truck. And I wasn't for sure if you were referring to me as having the "warped mind". I'm pretty sure that this'll be my last post on such subjects and I regret posting my feelings. :(

-Not happily Tamara

[ilona]

I agree, landseer. As an adult, let me decide for myself what is offensive and what is not.

I still maintain that that is at least part of Koons' objective with those pieces. (The dialogue over what is pornography, etc...)

By taking what would be seen by most people as pornography out of it's original context, where it is only viewed by those who seek it out, he is pushing it into the faces of the general public and saying "What is this to you?"

I don't really find it offensive personally (other than the use of my name being a bit perturbing!) but I am comfortable with viewing erotica.

In a gallery, with other people around, however, I might feel differently.

[Landseer]

Hi Landseer,

I hope that I didn't offend or upset you in any way by what I said and actually, in the future, I think I won't share my feelings on controversial subjects because I want friends only on these sites and want to be encouraging to all. I don't like to argue or cut down anyone. I hope you didn't feel my reaction to the picture you posted was aimed towards you for posting it or something.
I'm not sure what to feel on this now, I know you were not directing your negative comments at me- just the subject of the sculpture and the comment about "But the lowest state a man can find himself in," and I understood exactly what you meant that's the problem. I guess that's where I'm feeling oddly offended by that, enough that I'm not sure I really want to participate further in the forum you moderate- it's almost like an athiest discovering their friend is a priest who condemns athiests- makes for an awkward exchange of dialogue afterwards.

But while we all have our views and opinions on such matters, you should do some reading on that fairly neutral wikipedia site on the subject. At least before totally locking up your opinion on something like this which you cannot know very much about due to an emotional "yuk" block to the subject of the sculpture itself.



what the sculpture is depicting is very distasteful to me. Ok you are certainly entitled to that, but I feel the same about the Koons images and similar, obviously we are cut out of totally different molds- just goes to show that no one can please everyone all the time, be it an art gallery or artist- someone somewhere will be offended by something- even a portrait of someone's grandmother.


Hi Sculptor-

And I wasn't for sure if you were referring to me as having the "warped mind". I'm pretty sure that this'll be my last He was I think referring to my post about the mother of the teen girl who opened the mail and went hysterical at seeing a catalogue of nude men, mom actually filed a lawsuit by the way- that's how far the lunacy went. Normal people don't go into hysterics and file lawsuits, the teen obviously learned this reaction from MOM.

[HappySculpting]

it's almost like an athiest discovering their friend is a priest who condemns athiests

Hi Landseer- But I don't feel this way about you. I'm not condemning anyone who feels differently than I do about the graphic sex images. I'm not like a judgemental priest I can assure you. Sorry if I came off that way. I do carry the old fashioned Christian views, though, and that's me and my beliefs. But I'm not a nose in the air, condemn others person. I don't hold any bad feelings toward you for your more liberal views.

enough that I'm not sure I really want to participate further in the forum you moderate-

I was feeling similar feelings but see, this is all negative stuff. And why I don't want to get involved in controversial subjects. I came to this site for sculpting buddies and for morale support. I hope I can give this to you and others and be uplifting and not make anyone feel disrespected. We all have our different beliefs but one thing we have in common is sculpting. By looking to the things in common and have a general feeling of respect for one another and it'll be for the good of the site. We've got years of sculpting ahead of us and lots to rejoice about.

BTW-I'm not a moderator over there but do post quite a bit so I can see where you'd get that idea. :) Hope you visit over there and let us see your future works.

I'm glad that Rod wasn't referring to me in that comment cuz it made me cry.

[sculptor]

Tamara:
not to worry
Landseer was correct, I was refering to the lunatic litigous mom and daughter
(part of me thinks their supposed hysteria was a sham created exclusively for their lawsuit)

and
always feel free to share your feelings---no negativity here
they fill in the voids to communicate you as a complete person as well as a gifted and hardworking sculptor

all things are transient------but the respect of ones peers is perhaps the thing of most value for me.

rod

[Landseer]

Hi Landseer- But I don't feel this way about you. I'm not condemning anyone who feels differently than I do about the graphic sex images. I'm not like a judgemental priest I can assure you. Sorry if I came off that way. I do carry the old fashioned Christian views, though, and that's me and my beliefs. But I'm not a nose in the air, condemn others person. I don't hold any bad feelings toward you for your more liberal views.
Rehi, you'd likely think differently if you knew me better on a more personal level, plus I'm 100% an agnostic which doesn't make for good relations with those who aren't. Though a web site I run for a radio station I did appoint a minister as a moderator, still, the barrier, feelings and conflict is there regardless of how we can turn off such things during professinal interactions.


I was feeling similar feelings but see, this is all negative stuff. And why I don't want to get involved in controversial subjects. Religion, politics and sex are THE 3 biggest hot issues, and I've had to close and replace one folder where all that winds up- 3 times so far in the last year


I came to this site for sculpting buddies and for morale support. I hope I can give this to you and others and be uplifting and not make anyone feel disrespected. We all have our different beliefs but one thing we have in common is sculpting. By looking to the things in common and have a general feeling of respect for one another
Good points, I think this thread was good though, largely because it DOES show right here exactly how so simple a thing as a sculpture, drawing, photo etc provokes so widely different reactions, this is the same reaction the material gets in a gallery or public space. The same sort of thing happened at a University where a pair of bronze deer by DeIvoye was installed and then moved around back out of general view. Some loved it some hated it, if you didn't like the marble you won't like DeIvoye's bronze deer- the newspapers of all things even partly censored the images of it- that's where we are going these days- fig leaf for Michaelangelo's David and cropping photos of deer statues.

[HappySculpting]

Rehi, you'd likely think differently if you knew me better on a more personal level, plus I'm 100% an agnostic which doesn't make for good relations with those who aren't. Though a web site I run for a radio station I did appoint a minister as a moderator, still, the barrier, feelings and conflict is there regardless of how we can turn off such things during professinal interactions.

I know and care for numerous people who are agnostic. All that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. Why would I look down on you for that? I don't know if I knew you on a personal level how we'd fare... I guess hope for the best. :cool:


always feel free to share your feelings---no negativity here
they fill in the voids to communicate you as a complete person as well as a gifted and hardworking sculptor

Thanks for saying that and I'm so glad you weren't speaking of me in that earlier comment about the young girl. Wish I would have figured that on the spot. Anyway, Landseer helped me figure it out. Your compliments are so appreciated because as you said, to have "the respect of ones peers is the perhaps the most value." You're opinion and earlier compliments on my lady thread were among my very favorite.

I have so much to learn and these forums are so wonderful and have spurred me on in so many ways. I hope I can contribute in a positive way and help others here. I'll try and fill in a little info about myself from time to time but being careful not to offend. We certainly don't need negativity, after all we didn't come here for that. We're here for the comradry of us all being sculptors!

I just got an e-mail nibble from an HGTV producer-and must try to figgure out what to write in response to try'n hook this one------
advice appreciated
and/or--keep a good thought

rod

What's this about? There's a gal on the Wet Canvas,(she's the moderator), her title is "Lady Rando" and her name is Tamara Dozier. Anyway, she was featured on the show "Crafters of America" or something to that effect. I think it was on HGTV. She sculpts cute little fantasy creatures like gargoyles, etc. Not sure what you're deal is about but if it's similar you could maybe contact her to get the low down on how it went. Keep us posted on what happens. That sounds like a good exposure possibility.

[RCFA-Raven]

As a mother, I do senser some art from my son. Some art is very erotic or violent and I feel not appropiate for his age. I do not sensor him from all nude art. I think as a parent I should have the right what to sensor my child from. When he becomes an adult he can senser for himself.

(Of course there is much he is exposed to that I don't aprove of. Fortunitely, communication is good between us and I let him know where I stand on those issues.)

[Landseer]

As a mother, I do senser some art from my son. Some art is very erotic or violent and I feel not appropiate for his age. I do not sensor him from all nude art. I think as a parent I should have the right what to sensor my child from. When he becomes an adult he can senser for himself.

Ok, so you censor some of what he might see, but what is his age? closer to 5 or closer to 17? I believe a 5 year old's comprehension is way different than a 17 year old of course.

Back in the 50's the media in some form or other used to publish photos of auto accidents and the like, I have seen some magazines extolling the dangers of careless driving and showing a number of very graphic images of bodies and body parts at accident scenes. Of course the impact is less shocking when the photos are black and white, still...
Now they will not show such things even with a sheet covering, seems the body "form" laying under a sheet is now still too shocking for viewers.

Yet, curiously in the news recently are graphic details of that child abduction-murder case, right down to detailing in explicitly minute descriptions the exact plans the accused had for the body- step by step, and where the police found the body, the marks/injuries it had and so forth.
I would say a child reading in the media - CBS news of all places- about another child being abducted strangled and the plans of the accused to dismember, drain blood, cut up, bar-b-cue and eat the body, discard the bones and organs are far worse than 99% of the paintings, drawings and sculptures out there!

The news went on to describe the knives, skewers and other things in his posession and speculated on their uses.

That all goes WAY beyond simply reporting the news, a simple "tortured and murdered" was enough to get the concept of the case without knowing about bar-b-cue skewers and his sick plans.

[RCFA-Raven]

Ok, so you censor some of what he might see, but what is his age? closer to 5 or closer to 17? I believe a 5 year old's comprehension is way different than a 17 year old of course.

He is 14 now. Yes, I senser what I feel is appropiate for his age as we go along.

[ilona]

Landseer, I hear you and agree with you. What my kids can potentially see on the news is much more worrisome than any nudity in art could ever be.

Then again, I live in a state where we have a representative currently trying to make sex toys illegal. In 2003 SC had the highest incidence of domestic violence in the country, but our lawmakers are too busy trying to make vibrators illegal to worry about that sort of thing.

Go figure.

[anatomist1]

I studied about Koons briefly in an art class. What he is about is very abstract conceptual art, or complete crap, depending on your point of view. We didn't go into these porn images, but I am not surprised. You have to understand that this guy is a rhetoritician, and someone who hangs out with big money people in the fashion industry. He does not 'make' anything. He gives general instructions to others to actual make the work. What he does is think up sensationalistic concepts, make deals, and talk to the media.

I found the man and his projects extremely offensive on a level much deeper than having to do with sexual taboos. His sculptures deliberately contain exact copies of commercial images, stuff like the pink panther, precious moments-like figurines, etc... For those of you who haven't seen much porn, those pictures are basically standard poses and shots, and the woman's head wreath is virtually the trademark of an Italian porn star named something like Cicciolina - aside from some of the syrupy backgrounds they are EXACT copies.

That's his schtick. He presents you with exact copies of the most banal, commercial, or in this case pornographic images, then tries to convince you that this crap is somehow transcendent or different because he says so, and because he has the connections to get it presented in major galleries and art/fashion mags. Like someone else said, he's like Duchamp, except squared, and bumping up against contemporary norms and taboos. Koons is well respected by people who don't care about beauty or craftsmanship in art and instead see art as primarily a kind of contemporary dialogue of extravagant philosophies. To these people, Duchamp is a god who practically invented art as they know it.

Anyway, the whole array of arguments here is exactly what he was trying to provoke. Given the serious repressive and anti-intellectual streaks in american culture, it almost seems too easy. Just be aware that, in this whole debate, he sees himself as above and beyond it all: a puppet master, laughing at you whichever side you are on. If you don't like him for peddling smut, you've totally underestimated the problem.

[Landseer]

I studied about Koons briefly in an art class. What he is about is very abstract conceptual art, or complete crap, depending on your point of view. We didn't go into these porn images, but I am not surprised.Briefly but not brief enough ;)
I guess I don't have the definition of what "conceptual; art" IS, isn't all art "conceptual"?


He gives general instructions to others to actual make the work. I am reading the book about Saint Gaudens, it seems that in the 19th century artists hiring assistants to do or finish their work, enlarge etc too was the way it was. Saint Gaudens did this frequently, but it does seem like "cheating" if you are selling a work done by yourself and then hire someone else to do it FOR you.


I found the man and his projects extremely offensive on a level much deeper than having to do with sexual taboos. His sculptures deliberately contain exact copies of commercial images, stuff like the pink panther, precious moments-like figurines, etc... For those of you who haven't seen much porn, those pictures are basically standard poses and shots, The porn/sex doesn't bother me, seen plenty and variety, I just can't consider it ART in any form but you are right, pretty standard and pretty commercial.


That's his schtick. He presents you with exact copies of the most banal, commercial, or in this case pornographic images, then tries to convince you that this crap is somehow transcendent or different because he says so,

he's like Duchamp, except squared, You mean "R. Mutt" with the urinal "masterpiece "submitted admittedly as a joke or revenge? I've already submitted my comments on the urinal in another thread- it's plumbing, it's lazy man's art to go to the plumbing store, buy a fixture off the shelf, put your name on it and call it "art"...

Only thing great about it is it's now an antique, never used plumbing fixture which must be a rarity. How many of those urinals from way back them 1930 or whatever year it was- never got used or are sitting in the landfill right now after the building they were installed in was demolished or the bathrooms updated and all the old fixtures tossed?

Going back to the nudes/ public display, Saint Gaudens made a sheet copper sculpture of Diana the huntress 18 feet tall for the top of STanford White's Madison Square Garden building's tower.
Saint Gaudens did the sculpture nude which was a scandal of it's own, but he also did it as a labor of love- White covered all the materials and expenses. When the sculpture was installed about November 1891 many were upset about it being nude and asked if this was "proper" in a public place.

Be that as it may- a nude piece of sheet copper on a tower some 347 feet tall..., they discovered the scale was too big! so Saint Gaudens had to scale another copy down to 12 feet tall and the two were switched.
Diana the nude copper sculpture stayed on top of White's tower till the building was demolished around 1925. More than a sculpture she was on a bearing and was a functional weathervane.

Some photos and story of this sculpture;

http://www.jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Augustus_Saint-Gaudens/Diana_of_the_Tower.html

[GWayne]

To put Kooons into the same category as Duchamp is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari. Duchamp is mainly known for his envelope pushing art philosophies, but he also was a techincally sound painter, sculptor, and theatre set designer. Duchamp had legitimate ideas and artistic ability vs. Koons who is a "Con Artist" that lacks talent and has to rely on gimmicks and shock value in order to make a name for himself.

GWayne

http://www.georgewayne.com

[ilona]

I have to agree, GWayne. We had one of his "readymades" in our library in Art school and I loved looking at it. I love Joseph Cornell's work, too, to me they are similar in their assemblage style. They both take everyday objects and bring them to our attention in engaging relationships with each other and within their packaging. And "Bride stripped bare by her bachelors, even" is to me a brilliant painting, among many of his other works.

I may have to take this opportunity to delve into Koons' work more deeply and see if there is anything in his repertoire I appreciate. I can usually find something I like by almost any artist.

[Ries]

I am not a big Jeff Koons fan, but I have to point out he didnt "copy" porn shots of Ciccolina- HE MARRIED HER!.
Yes, he has copied other people's artwork, and gotten sued and lost the lawsuit.

But in the case of Ciccolina, he actually took his own pictures of her.
She has long since divorced him.

[anatomist1]

I'm not an art history expert by any means, but I was comparing the sort of historical paradigm Duchamp represents, not the two artists in detail. It seems to me that putting a urinal in that art show is very similar to what Koons is doing, and it is also taken as a sort of milestone in art history. Prior ideas about beauty, craftsmanship, and other elements more traditionally considered to be part of art went out the window at that point.

Not everyone thinks this way, but it seems to be the new dominant paradigm at many universities and big-time art scenes. Art changed into a public 'dialog' something more like a hybrid between ahistorical philosophy and a fashion scene. What matters is how you talk about it, how it relates to prior parts of the dialogue, and your reputation, not much to do with the pieces themselves.

I was constantly under assault by this mentality when I worked at the UW Madison art studios. I was constantly encouraged to forget about craftsmanship and sculpting skill and come up with art that changed in radical new directions. If I had listened to them, I barely would have even learned basic welding.

[ilona]

There is a certain group of people in the art world who follow this trend you refer to, anatomist. But there is a much larger group that doesn't, in my opinion.

I think that in art school the idea is to get students to think, and question, and push the edges of "what art is", and define it for themselves. To me, learning that skill is very important to an artist's development. It also helps the artist to discover their own process and direction.

[anatomist1]

I wouldn't know about how many are in which camp, but my impression is that the fashion scene/conceptual set is dominant in terms of the big time art magazines, best rated art schools, and most prestigious galleries in the biggest cities.

As far as what they are trying to do in school, it varies radically school by school. I had the misfortune of going to a school where almost no emphasis was placed on craftsmanship, except in the jewelery and furniture areas, and there was a huge emphasis placed on trying to blow people's minds with one's radicalness and facility with obscure theory. This really has almost no appeal to me.

I find most art-world rhetoric anything but mind-blowing, as I have a degree in the history of western philosophy. Most of what I see is a nonsensical jumble of borrowed language and ideas from philosophy history lacking any understanding of where they came from. I just don't see the academic and intellectual rigor necessary to pull that off. It seems like the reason so many get away with it is that their audience/community is populated almost exlusively with people who are ignorant of the other, much more rigorous, disciplines from which they sloppily borrow.

Partly in reaction to this, I've become largely anti-intellectual about art. I like to see craftsmanship, hard work, passion, and emotion - something that I can feel and experience without a lot of explanation and reference to contemporary art history.

[ilona]

I wouldn't know about how many are in which camp, but my impression is that the fashion scene/conceptual set is dominant in terms of the big time art magazines, best rated art schools, and most prestigious galleries in the biggest cities.

As far as what they are trying to do in school, it varies radically school by school. I had the misfortune of going to a school where almost no emphasis was placed on craftsmanship, except in the jewelery and furniture areas, and there was a huge emphasis placed on trying to blow people's minds with one's radicalness and facility with obscure theory. This really has almost no appeal to me.

I find most art-world rhetoric anything but mind-blowing, as I have a degree in the history of western philosophy. Most of what I see is a nonsensical jumble of borrowed language and ideas from philosophy history lacking any understanding of where they came from. I just don't see the academic and intellectual rigor necessary to pull that off. It seems like the reason so many get away with it is that their audience/community is populated almost exlusively with people who are ignorant of the other, much more rigorous, disciplines from which they sloppily borrow.

Partly in reaction to this, I've become largely anti-intellectual about art. I like to see craftsmanship, hard work, passion, and emotion - something that I can feel and experience without a lot of explanation and reference to contemporary art history.

I basically agree with you. I was fortunate enough to go to an Art school where both craftsmanship and intellectual thought process were equally encouraged.

When I was in school the debate seemed to often focus on functional versus non-functional art. Nowadays, I understand, this is not as important of a distinction in art conversations.

I am looking at the topic of this thread and wondering how we have strayed so far off...I apologize for my digression.

As for the fashion scene, however, I think that is a totally different animal and shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of the Art world.

[anatomist1]

I wasn't talking about Versace and runway models. I was saying a lot of art IS itself a fashion scene, insofar as the same dynamics are at work. I think the fact that Koons hangs with a lot of the clothes fashion people is not a coincidence. It doesn't have to do with any overt connection between the two worlds, but the fact that the two worlds are so similar.

[JasonGillespie]

It is strange that Koon's work carries so much baggage with it. I would think that in the usually all embracing, everything goes world we currently live in his ethics and artistic derivations would hardly raise an eyebrow, but it seems that some of you have problems with him. (That being said, I am no proponent of his work.)

But isn't he doing exactly what many other artists do in trying to convince people that they are creating something significantly different from the rest? How many rip offs of Rothko, Rauschenburg, Maplethorpe, or Warhol do you see? Three quarters or more of the artists out there are rip off artists. How often do you really see something unique? Here, in and around New York, the amount of psuedo-intellectual/conceptual artwork is nigh staggering. The interesting thing to note is that much of it is interchangeable...or could have been produced by the same people. A good portion of it is Abstract Expressionism rehashed for the umpteenth time. If I had a nickel.....

Personally, I think that the issue isn't displaying the nude in public. More precise would be to say that Koons work is really about naked figures. The distinction between the two being a point for discussion. We had a seminar our first semester here at the academy about just that topic.....naked or nude. Kenneth Clark wrote a good book, The Nude: A Study in Ideal form, that covers the traditionally accepted view of what constitues a nude. In the last century or so, however, the nude has been supplanted by the naked. Manet's Lunch on the Grass is a good example. The woman is naked...she should be clothed but is not. She has been sexualized. She is no Venus who is nude because it is her natural state. Courbet was doing the same thing with many of his so-called "nudes". They were really naked women and not far removed from the erotic postcards one could get in Paris at the time. It seems to be a matter of taste (or lack of it) now just as it was then. Some think any figure unclothed in any action is fine without understanding that nudity/nakedness are societal conventions and vary from culture to culture. In the west these conventions have dictated the use of the nude figure and have retstrained the use of the naked figure. Koons is trampling on social conventions and has made a name for himself doing it....much like Eric Fischl.....much like Joel Peter Witkin.....Much like Robert Mapplethorpe...and the list keeps growing. Nothing new, just shock art. Finding out what makes the public gasp and creating as much of it as possible. This type of art requires the least creative ability and is seeking to interface with the lowest common denominator in human nature.

Should we be putting naked sculptures in public spaces...no...not in a country that is trying to protect its children. In galleries where people wanting that type of thing can go see them?..... sure. A nude figure in public spaces is different however.....mainly because it isn't sexualized and wasn't created to offend or shock. That sort of image does not present the body in a degrading way.

[anatomist1]

I don't really buy this nude/naked distinction. In the supplied photos, the people are having sex, so they are 'supposed' to be unclothed. Porn in general that doesn't involve exhibitionist elements would be 'nude' by that criterion.

I have worse problems with the last bit. Many people engage in making and consuming porn, stripping, steaking, exhibitionism, burlesque shows, etc... without feeling themselves or anyone 'degraded'. I interpret your phrase 'protect its children' as 'indoctrinate its children into a moderately puritanical worldview'. I use the word moderate because many on the christian right make the same assertions with no exceptions for "nudity".

[ilona]

I still think it is up to parents to 'protect' their own children, as they see fit, and not up to society in general. Of course some sort of line needs to be drawn, but society needs to be careful not to swing to one extreme or the other, but rather aim for the center and let individual preferences dictate straying from that line.

[fritchie]

This is the sort of discussion that could go on forever, but Jason's recent reply has prompted me to make some additional comments. I would say that idealization or remoteness; coolness, so to speak, plays a central part in this nude/naked issue. Practiced artists know the difference and how to go one way or the other.

To be sure, photography changed the situation dramatically, and people such as Mapplethorpe and Koons probably considered that they were pushing to extend the definition. That is, they were (are) engaged in semantics - sharpening or redefining the meanings of these words. That, too, is something that can go on forever, with the process being more self-conscious these days.

[JasonGillespie]

anatomist1,
This is in regard to your most recent post on the public display of nude art. As to the nude/naked distinction....fritchie hit it right by saying it is clear to those that have a working knowledge of their craft. It isn't really whether or not one's clothes are off. It is about the state of naturalness or appropriateness that a figure has being nude as opposed to a figure being naked which creates a sense that somehow this isn't the figure's natural state. Suffice to say it isn't what you are thinking it is.

Concerning your statement about protecting children from imagery they do not need to see being an effort by society to 'indoctrinate its children into a moderately puritanical worldview'....well, I guess you could say something like that, but do you know how it sounds? We have laws protecting children from just such materials. It has nothing to do with your assertion and everything to do with the negative effects of children being exposed to explicit sexuality at too early an age. This can have long term emotional damage and create vulnerabilities in a child's mind that opens him/her up to sexual predators. If you go to a few child sexual abuse survivor websites you can see that survivors often point to just such imagery and premature sexualization of children as one of the problems. I know from my own experience as a survivor I certainly do. It really doesn't have to have anything to do with right, left or any particular group....instead it has to do with people that care about the quality of life children have growing up and beyond into adulthood as opposed to those who don't care.

[anatomist1]

Sorry, I just don't buy any of it. Sexual repression is far more inherently harmful than exposure to nudity and sex. 'Naturalness' or 'appropriateness' or 'nudity vs. nakedness' is just an attempt to rationalize your own level of repression as it has been drilled into you by our society and your own personal upbringing.

Your anecdote about sexual abuse survivors is nothing but a random anecdote of association that implies nothing about causation, or anything about these issues. Child abuse is very complex phenomenon, and to imply that it is somehow caused by kids seeing naked people or porno magazines is ridiculous. On the contrary. If I had the time and space, I would construct an argument that sexual repression is far more likely the cause of child abuse - people with a healthy unrepressed sexuality do not get off on hurting children.

What seems to be sorely lacking in this discussion is any awareness of anthropology. Human beings and their evolutionary ancestors had a much healthier and less repressive attitude about nudity and sex for millenia upon millenia before the invention of religions and societal taboos came along to make us feel guilt shame and fear about it.

Some people in the world still do today. As someone else mentioned, many poor cultures live with whole families crammed into one room and the children are exposed to sex from day one. In some parts of the world people live naked or almost naked all the time, and they see both people and animals having sex from infancy. You may think they are 'primitive' but you might want to look into their rates of rape, murder, and war compared to ours before you judge.

We all have our own idiosyncrasies when it comes to sex. Some of them are genetic, but most of them are a product of social conditioning. This conditioning has nothing to do with any kind of absolute moral truths or the inherent state of the universe. It's all made-up. Plenty of people and cultures have done and do it differently.

In general, I see the level of sexual repression in a society as almost a barometer of how messed up it is. Look at heavily Islamic countries where women are forced to wear shrouds so no one can see them and are stoned to death if accused of adultery, etc... That is a further extension of the kind of repression being defended here. I'll bet they justify it in terms of 'protecting' people and 'caring' too.

[JasonGillespie]

anatomist1,
I'm sorry that you just don't see the simple truth, but facts are facts and you can theorize all you want. Your poor grasp of the realitiy of the effects of sexualization on our country's children shows that. Unless you've been there I would venture that you just don't know what you are talking about. Rant all you want. Until you've had your whole life altered by it you have no clue.

The U.S. might culturally have hangs up about sex, but child prostitution/pornography happens in other countries far more often than it does here. Worse, child slavery is a growing criminal enterprise in many European, Asian, and African countries. It isn't just societal conditioning we are talking about. These other cultures have far more unrestrained sexuality in their culture than we do. Many of these cultures you speak of have grave problems with a subculture where children become objects for pleasure. You just refuse to see a large global problem. Not that that is unusual.

The links below are relating to child slavery and child prostitution..they were only 3 out of 158,000 Google results on child slavery and over a million about child prostitution.

www.time.com/time/asia/features/slavery/index.html
www.american.edu/TED/chocolate-slave.htm -
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/slaverysasia.htm

http://www.smart-art.at/strassenkinder/kia_pro-3-e.htm
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=00992799-d319-4bcc-a8b8-ffd8c3ce14e7&k=19587
http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=588106

Wake up.

Back to the original topic....I don't have a problem with nudity. I do have a problem with much of Koons work (and those like him) being displayed in a public venue. I don't think you see the distinction in your rush to judgement. Again, not that that is unusual.

[anatomist1]

I offered a fairly well-reasoned explanation of my views. In response, you have not directly addressed anything I said, and instead offered emotional histrionics, and exhortations like "you have no clue", "you refuse to see" and "Wake up!". I see nothing in your post that requires further response. Good day.

[JasonGillespie]

anatomist1,

I wanted to apologize for my own part in letting our postings on the topic of the "public display" degenerate somewhat. I can, however, unequivocally say that this is not about my repression of anything.

As I alluded earlier, just the sort of abuse I previously posted about has adversely affected my own life and my abuser did use pornographic material to open the door for subsequent abuse. (Perhaps it was my reference to this that prompted your comment about “emotional histrionics “?!) I also know others who have had the same experience. My assertions, however, were not emotional ones, rather they are based on experience and contemporary research backs them up. (Pornography is documented to be one of the most common ways abusers/pedophiles get their victims to become desensitized to what they want them to do.) I am not unaware that this may seem hard for one who has not experienced this firsthand to digest and retract my comments about your "cluelessness", and your need to "wake up". (While I think the latter may aptly describe what needs to happen, it is not the best way to state that thought.) I don't know your background, but I know my own and shouldn't expect you to be as well informed on this reality unless it is a part of your life as well. Your marginalizing of the effect of materials such as pornography and other explicit imagery as a tool for sexual predators is a result of this I imagine.

My response, if you read it, did address your statements. I reiterate, ….you assert that other cultures have healthier attitudes towards sex, but that fact is not borne out by the rampant child pornography and child prostitution in Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Child slavery as well is a symptom of the cultural malaise that allows the other two to occur.) That was my response to your premise. Historical anthropology aside, all you have to do to see this truth is to research it upon the web. What might have been is not the issue, and repression doesn't account for it either. (Although historically children have been sexualized since the beginning of recorded history to one degree or another) Much of the worst abuse of children takes place in countries that have lax attitudes about public nudity and open displays of a sexual nature. There is a world wide epidemic and it is because the healthier attitudes towards sex don't exist in the ways you suggest...not on a macro, multicultural level. In smaller, more specific contexts I know they do. In a global context, however, it is not a reality.

A mitigating factor to some of the earlier confusion maybe that I am not discussing mere nudity, but the explicit displays such as Koons work exemplifies. I agree that nudity, the unsexualized display of the body, isn't anything to get worked up about. As fritichie said, it is a distinction mature artists usually make because the choice to use one or the other sends different messages. Koons obviously is sending a different message than say Fredrick Hartt did with his use of nudity.

Regardless of our differences, I do not want to foster antipathy as a result of our disagreement. My apologies for any bad feelings that have resulted.

[Landseer]

anatomist1,

I wanted to apologize for my own part in letting our postings on the topic of the "public display" degenerate somewhat. I can, however,
I didn't see any serious deterioration, really.

As I alluded earlier, just the sort of abuse I previously posted about has adversely affected my own life and my abuser did use pornographic material to open the door for subsequent abuse.I am sorry to read that, it has happened to me as well starting age 8 with a priest at St Patricks in NYC exposing himself to me, but there's two ways to deal with this sort of thing- let it affect your entir elife, or learn to accept what you can't change, don't take the blame or fault for what happened, and move on.

(Pornography is documented to be one of the most common ways abusers/pedophiles get their victims to become desensitized to what they want them to do.) I am not unaware that this may seem hard for one who has not experienced this firsthand to digest and retract my comments Ok here is where I do have some trouble, I won't go into the hugely long article, references and commentary I posted about this sort of thing elsewhere in regards to "studies" and "surveys" and other such being used in part out of context for a political agenda to pass a stupid law in Washington State recently. The jist was, certain figures were blatantly cited as facts and taken out of context, when I did some research I discovered a totally DIFFERENT picture. This involved already incarcerated juvenile offenders, the majority between the ages of about 9 and 14 and in one facility, of about 130 individuals filling out anonymous self questionaires on their sexual histories.

The results were used not only out of context but in a totally subversive fashion to pass a law , it was astounding and outrageous.

Point is, when people cite statistics or statements such as "Pornography is documented to be one of the most common ways abusers/pedophiles get their victims to become desensitized" one has to be very careful and research the true source of this information and go verify for yourselves. I have run into MANY pedos as a kid and teen, NONE displayed any porn to me of any kind, and given the above Washington law and how information was misused I am skeptical when I read these statements.

I will go on record and say I don't like porn, I think it's idiotic, fake, a waste of money and time and people get obsessed with it- owning 50,000 images, 10,000 video tapes and so on is an obsession.



Your marginalizing of the effect of materials such as pornography and other explicit imagery as a tool for sexual predators is a result of this I imagine. I still believe this focus on that is misguided and inaccurate, if they didn't use porn it's something else, all the pedos I ran into as a kid were very friendly, smooth talkers- con artists.

edited in;


(Although historically children have been sexualized since the beginning of recorded history to one degree or another) Much of the worst abuse of children takes place in countries that have lax attitudes about public nudity and open displays of a sexual nature. There is a world wide epidemic and it is because the healthier attitudes towards sex don't exist in the ways you suggest...I think you are mixing two issues here for one thing, and another thing- these things have been going on since the dark ages, this is nothing new, it's just heard about more in the media and internet. The Greeks, Romans and other cultures all had very open sexuality and all that, in most third world countries where entire families live in ONE ROOM, the children are exposed to seeing adult relations from the start. It's not treated as "dirty" or "shameful" or to be hidden like it is here in the US. You can go overseas and see women in public parks etc topless, people are used to it because the culture is that way. The breasts cease to be either this mysterious growth or disgusting sex organ when they are normalized and not kept hidden like some shameful wart.


A mitigating factor to some of the earlier confusion maybe that I am not discussing mere nudity, but the explicit displays such as Koons work exemplifies. I agree that nudity, the unsexualized display of the body, isn't anything to get worked up about. As fritichie said, it is a distinction mature artists usually make because the choice to use one or the other sends different messages. Koons obviously is sending a different message than say Fredrick Hartt did with his use of nudity.
Koon's work is pornogrified, it's meant to titilate, Saint Gaudens nude Diana on top of White's tower was simply a naturally nude figure.
Personally I have no interest in nude bodies or other people that way, and I don't care for porn as I said, but Koon's photo work is just boring for me. I don't care if I see it on the web I just have zero interest in it and for me to view these pictures, well, I might as well be browsing images of the inside of the septic tank or a shipping crate.

[anatomist1]

I do not dispute that child abuse is bad, but I don't see it as a pivotal issue when it comes to issues about the legality or public acceptability of nudity or sexual imagery. It seems to me like this is primarily a law enforcement issue. To say that restricting (non-child) pornography or promoting sexual repression in any form is significant to addressing the problem seems batty to me. If this is your issue, focus on educating kids to stay away from predators and paying for more detectives and cops to go out and bust them.

As for the roots of the worldwide problem of sex slavery and child prostitution, I still think you are completely upside-down in your thinking on this. Fetishism of any kind is the result of repressed, unhealthy sexuality. Sexual predators and child-fetishists didn't get so twisted from seeing sex in movies, porno magazines, naked people on billboards, or because their parents allowed them to cavort naked with their friends when they were kids. They got that way due to some combination of genetic predisposition and having suffered abuse as children themselves. Do you really think that parents that let their kids see nudity and sex and consider it no big deal are more likely to raise predators than parents that treat sex like something filthy, shameful, secretive, and bad?

In a larger context, as far as correlating a country's liberalness with regards to nudity and sex with increases in child abuse, you'll have to show me the studies. I doubt it.

Even if it is true, it pales statistically in comparison to the correlation between such liberalness and the conditions for women. Sexual abusees are a small minority of any population, whereas women are roughly half. In cultures with extreme sexual repression, women are treated as sub-humans - practically livestock - whereas in sexually liberal countries, women are much closer to equal with men.

This is just the biggest criteria. The quality of life in more socially liberal countries is better across the board. Even if you can show that such liberalness correlates with a higher rate of child sexual abuse, I say it's worth it. It can be counterracted by proactive education and law enforcement. Censorship and repression are not the answer. If you really value extreme uptightness about sex and the 'safety' it confers to the population so highly, there are plenty of muslim-dominated countries to which you could immigrate...

[Landseer]

To say that restricting (non-child) pornography or promoting sexual repression in any form is significant to addressing the problem seems batty to me. If this is your issue, focus on educating kids to stay away from predators
I agree, this is the whole root of it- prevention and parents watching THEIR kids like they should be. The porn is a totally and insignificant side issue, it's like connecting smokers to pedophilia because a significant number of them smoke (lets say) and banning smoking to prevent this.


Fetishism of any kind is the result of repressed, unhealthy sexuality.I disagree with that totally, and suggest reading research works on the subject by R. Masters and others to learn more. This is a stereotype and one which is similar to the thinking that gay people molest children, when in fact the two are two seperate entities, tho like in all facets- there can be some degree of overlap of interests in some individuals.


They got that way due to some combination of genetic predisposition and having suffered abuse as children themselves.
I disagree with the latter portion of that, abuse is not always a factor and it certainly is not "the" cause, it can be part of the total equasion in SOME individuals, but abuse usually manifests itself in other ways- usually violence, often fatal, drug abuse, alcoholism and the jails are full of people with these problems who had rotten childhoods.
But having a rotten childhood is neither a guarantee the kid will turn out violent, nor is having a great childhood a guarantee the kid will become Bill Gates.


In a larger context, as far as correlating a country's liberalness with regards to nudity and sex with increases in child abuse, you'll have to show me the studies. I doubt it.
I'd like to see that as well.

[JasonGillespie]

Landseer,
I respect your comments in reference to the use or misuse of statistics as they are related to the topic at hand. My wife has a math degree and statistics is her area of focus so I know the ways they can be skewed. The information is out there however. There are too many empirical instances where this has been reported for it to be a worldwide conspiracy to mislead the public. One can only be so cynical. Skepticism is only useful until it blinds you to being able to tell the difference between the truth and a lie.

I'm really not interested in debating something most of the professionals I'm aware of accept as a given. Sure, pedophiles also use drugs and alcohol, anything they can. Usually it is a mix of whatever will get the child to trust him/her. Some just use talk/charm or their positions of authority. When they do use props, porn is one of the top ones nowadays. The world has changed since you were a kid...heck since I was a kid. The internet and technology have seen to that. Don't confuse today's tech savvy predator with pervs in the past that had only their wits or candy to sweet talk a child into doing what they wanted.

Here is a profile of a pedophile behavior by an expert that was complied to be used in a california sexual molestation case. It is a bit long, but read it and you will see that the modern pedophile is a different animal.


1. Child molesters or pedophiles receive sexual gratification and satisfaction from actual, physical contact with children and from fantasy involving use of pictures, other photographic or art mediums, and writings on or about sexual activity with children;
2. Child molesters or pedophiles collect sexually explicit materials consisting of photographs, magazines, motion pictures, video tapes, books, and slides which they use for their own sexual gratification and fantasy;
3. Child molesters or pedophiles use sexually explicit materials, including those listed above for lowering the inhibitions of children, sexually stimulating children and themselves, and for demonstrating the desired sexual acts, before, during and after sexual activity with children;
4. Child molesters or pedophiles rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials, especially when it is used in the seduction of their victims, and those materials are treated as prized possessions;
5. Child molesters or pedophiles often correspond or meet with one another to share information and identities of their victims as a means of gaining status, trust, acceptance, and psychological support;
6. Child molesters or pedophiles rarely destroy correspondence received from other people with similar interests unless they are specifically requested to do so;
7. The majority of child molesters or pedophiles prefer contact with children of one sex, as well as in a particular age or developmental range peculiar to each individual;
8. Child molesters or pedophiles engage in activity or gravitate to programs which will be of interest to the type of victims they desire to attract and will provide them with easy access to these children;
9. Child molesters or pedophiles obtain, collect, and maintain photographs of the children they are or have been involved with. These photos may depict children fully clothed, in various states of undress or totally nude, in various activities, not necessarily sexually explicit. These photos are rarely, if ever, disposed of and are revered with such devotion that they are often kept upon the person's person in wallets and such. If a picture of a child is taken by such a person depicting the child in the nude, there is a high probability the child was molested before, during, or after the photo taking session, because the act of posing is such a great stimuli for the individual;
10. Child molesters or pedophiles use such photos as described above as a means of reliving fantasies or actual encounters with the depicted children. They also utilize the photos as keepsakes and as a means of gaining acceptance, status, trust, and psychological support by exchanging, trading, or selling them to other people with similar interests. These photos are carried and kept by these people as a constant threat to the child of blackmail and exposure;
11. Child molesters or pedophiles cut pictures of children out of magazines, newspapers, books and other publications which they use as a means of fantasy relationship. These "cutouts" help to identify the age and sexual preference of the person under investigation;
12. Child molesters or pedophiles collect books, magazines, newspapers, and other writings on the subject of sexual activities with children. They maintain these as a way of understanding their own feelings towards children;
13. Child molesters or pedophiles who are afraid of discovery often maintain and run their own photographic production and reproduction equipment. This may be as simple as the use of "instant" photo equipment such as Polaroid makes, video equipment, or as complex as a completely outfitted photo lab;
14. Child molesters or pedophiles go to great lengths to conceal and protect from discovery, theft, and damage, their collections of illicit materials. This often includes the rental or use of safe deposit boxes or other storage facilities outside their immediate residence;
15. Child molesters or pedophiles often collect, read, copy or maintain names, addresses or phone numbers or lists of persons who have similar sexual interests. These may have been collected by personal contact or through advertisements in various publications. These contacts are maintained as a means of personal referral, exchange, and commercial profit. These names may be maintained in the original publication, in phone or note books, or merely on scraps of paper;
16. Child molesters or pedophiles often keep the names of the children they are involved with or with whom they have had sexual contact. They maintain these names in much the same manner as that described in the preceding paragraph and for much the same reasons;
17. Child molesters or pedophiles use sexual aides such as dildos fashioned after a man's penis of various sizes and shapes in addition to other sexual aides in the seduction of their victims. They often utilize these as a means of exciting their victims and of arousing the curiosity of the children;
18. Child molesters or pedophiles maintain diaries of their sexual encounters with children. These accounts of their sexual experiences are used as a means of reliving the encounter when the offender has no children to molest. Such diaries might consist of a notebook, scraps of paper, or a formal diary; depending upon the resources available to the offender, they may be contained on audio tape or computer entries in a "home computer";
19. Child molesters or pedophiles collect and maintain books, magazines, articles, and other various writings on the subject of sexual activity. These books and materials may be on the topics of human sexuality, sexual education, or consist of sex manuals discussing or showing various sexual acts, positions, or sexual activities. These books and materials are used as a means of seduction of the victim by arousing curiosity, demonstration of propriety of the acts desired, explaining or demonstrating what the offender desires to be done, and as a means of sexual arousal on the part of the offender - particularly when naked children are shown or depicted in the materials;
20. Child molesters or pedophiles often use drugs as a means of inducement to get a child to a particular location such as the offender's home. Alcohol is also used in this fashion. Both drugs and alcohol are used as a means of seduction reducing the child's inhibitions and for sexual excitement;
21. Child molesters or pedophiles often collect and maintain artifacts, statues, paintings or other media which depict children or young persons in nude poses or sexual acts. These are kept or "left" in places where the victims can find or "discover" them;
22. Child molesters or pedophiles obtain and keep things of interest to their victims. These may consist of magazines, books, and toys for the age level of the victims they desire to attract and may be as complicated as video games, toy train sets, and computers;
23. Child molesters or pedophiles often keep mementos of their relationships with specific children as a means of remembrance. These may consist of underwear or other garments or things which are unique to the relationship they had with the child;
24. Child molesters or pedophiles have relationships with more than one child;
25. Child molesters or pedophiles use planned attempts, repeated attempts, and high risk attempts, including in the presence of third parties, at molestation of children;
26. Child molesters' or pedophiles' homes or workplaces are a magnet for neighborhood or friends' children;
27. Child molesters or pedophiles invite children to use hot tubs or pools;
28. Child molesters or pedophiles don't sustain good sexual relationships with their peer group;
29. Child molesters or pedophiles have an identifiable gender and age target;
30. Child molesters or pedophiles can better identify with children than their own peer group;
31. Child molesters or pedophiles hold parties or social functions to bring parents to seemingly legitimate functions in order to secure access to children;
32. Child molesters or pedophiles attempt to seduce children with attention, affection, and providing them with gifts;
33. Child molesters or pedophiles use seduction techniques, competition, peer pressure, child and group psychology, motivation techniques, threats, and blackmail;
34. Child molesters or pedophiles have hobbies and interests which appeal to children;
35. Child molesters or pedophiles use material items to appeal to children such as computers, video games, athletic equipment, swimming pools, hot tubs, or toys;
36. Child molesters or pedophiles use tickling and horseplay to lower reluctance of children to be touched;
37. Child molesters or pedophiles show sexually explicit materials to children to lower their inhibitions;
38. Child molesters or pedophiles collect both adult and child pornography for fantasy and sexual arousal;
39. Child molesters or pedophiles consider their pornography collection one of the most important things in their life;
40. Child molesters or pedophiles spend a lot of time with their collection;
41. Child molesters or pedophiles rarely discard their collection.


That being said, my original point was about the danger of sexualizing children through exposure to explicit imagery, Koons, nudity vs naked, etc....I did not intend for it to swerve quite this far in this direction.

[Landseer]

Landseer,
I respect your comments in reference to the use or misuse of statistics as they are related to the topic at hand. My wife has a math degree and statistics is her area of focus so I know the ways they can be skewed.
Thanks, then you know how statistics can be skewed and misleading, that was one of my points- information being used improperly and out of context, and then people cite these as broad facts to paint a very broad picture that covers everyone and everything.


The information is out there however. There are too many empirical instances where this has been reported for it to be a worldwide conspiracy to mislead the public.
I did not say NO pedophiles use this material and that it's a lie, I don't see it as any more than a minor side issue, these guys WILL do this to children with or without the visuals. Some of the more violent ones will simply kidnap- that happened here with the late Jessica Gage kidnapped by a friend of the family they knew.


When they do use props, porn is one of the top ones nowadays. The world has changed since you were a kid...heck since I was a kid. The internet and technology have seen to that. Don't confuse today's tech savvy predator

"When they do use.." pretty well says it- that a percentage use it, another percentage DOESN'T, (I don't know the percentages, does it matter what the actual figure is?) both will do the act with or without it which was another point I made. Eliminating all nudes and porn will not stop the act and to think in any way it would is not reality.

I am not 75 or 80 with a childhood left 3/4 of a century behind me in the days when there were trolly cars and 5 cent sandwiches!
The 1970's and 1980's is the time frame of what I had in mind, and I don't think these people have changed all that much in so short a period of time.
We have the internet now which makes access easier and wider but before the net public parks, schools, playgrounds, Cub scout events, sporting events etc etc were quite well populated with these people. I certainly ran into many in the park, and by school in a book store, the library, on an airplane, walking down the street, sitting on a bench in front of a nursing home and so on.

I would believe however that the porn would be of more use to the male trying to convince a FEMALE child, but most 13-14-15 year old boys probably wouldn't need much beyond the talking/friendship scenario.

Of the 45 lines of article you posted, most of the statements are redundent of one another or offer the same ideas, however, line 11 shows proof that the visual material doesn't even HAVE to be nude, and can consist of such normal everyday inoculous items as your local K-Mart catalogues and sales circulars- I have read of that in the news. So If the X rated material is not handy, a K-Mart catalogue would be a suitable substitute;

11. Child molesters or pedophiles cut pictures of children out of magazines, newspapers, books and other publications which they use as a means of fantasy relationship.

I'm not sure we as a society can just lock up children from public view, prevent all pictures from ever being taken of them, or seal them in bubble-wrap. Where does it end? ban statues, paintings, revealing clothes- those short bathing suits have to go as they show the kid's legs, no more kids in K-Mart catalogues, no more young girls in mini skirts or strapless blouses, no more perfume, eye shadow, or especially MAKEUP! etc etc.
People can sexualize and eroticize ANYTHING, objects as well. It's still up to the parents to take charge and do their job with their own kids- not me, not you, not the Government, not the FCC, media or other censorship.

As Iona pointed out, she monitors and controls what her child sees according to his age, I suspect she keeps close physical watch on him as well.
If a parent finds a porn image on the kids computer etc., instead of reacting like a histerical nincompoop and creating a scene which leads the kid to think bodies are grotesque and sex is filthy- THAT is the time to sit the kid down and explain things, explain WHY the material is degrading and harmful to women, how shady companies rake in millions of dollars from idiots who pay for this over priced garbage and so on.

THAT is the time to explain the difference between degrading cesspool porn, Koon's photos, and an image of something like Michaelangel's David or Saint Gauden's Diana.

[JasonGillespie]

Landseer,
It seems you get my point...mostly. I wasn't saying that every pedophile uses porn, just that it is one of their main materials when they do choose to use lures.
I said, "Pornography is documented to be one of the most common ways abusers/pedophiles get their victims to become desensitized to what they want them to do." It says what it says...it doesn't say everyone of them use it all the time.

Concerning the above, I disagree with your statement that, I don't see it as any more than a minor side issue
Did you happen to note the importance that the profile said many pedophiles place on their collection of pornography? Child molesters or pedophiles consider their pornography collection one of the most important things in their life; It isn't as minor as you make it out to be...it factors very heavily into their fantasy life and real life. But enough of that....

By the way, I didn't mean to make it seem that you were an old codger. Twenty or thirty years has made a huge difference in the resources available to the predators out there. Now they have the world wide web and back then we had Pac Man and Asteroids.:)



People can sexualize and eroticize ANYTHING, objects as well. It's still up to the parents to take charge and do their job with their own kids- not me, not you, not the Government, not the FCC, media or other censorship.
I agree with the first part, but believe the government/society/all of "us" have a responsibility to make our country a place where children are safe...even if they don't have good parental figures to watch over them.....especially since we know that many parents don't give a flip what their kids get into. Do we just shrug our shoulders and and say, "guess those kids have to figure it out for themselves?" Whatever happened to people looking out for each other? Is our national selfishness at such a high level that we just say, "I got my own under control and that is all that matters?"
I'm sorry but I think it is good to care about and watch out for people other than myself and my immediate family...and watching what is put into the public arena is a part of that. Not that that will keep Koons and the like from continuing to try and make money through controversy. The public has a right to not to be subjected to purient material masquerading under the guise of art. Koons rights end where my, your and everyone elses begin. (In case anyone is unsure...by purient I don't mean nudity in general....just sexually explicit.)


This is an aside...... what is this artistic fixation with censorship? It is one of the most monolithic of concepts. You can almost hear some artists start choking the moment you mention something that even sounds like it could be (gasp)...censorship. "Don't say we can't do that...we can do anything...we're artists." I only ask because it comes up a lot in posts in this community. It is one of the biggest kneejerk reactions...even at the NYAA it comes up. Perhaps this is a thread unto itself. I don't know......as an adult, it doesn't bother me when someone tells me I have certain parameters that I must work within...I realize that getting my way is not the only thing that matters. Censorship isn't always a bad thing...sometimes it can be a good thing. Sometimes we need to be protected. I'm not talking big brother, but not everything is good for us. The ego says "I want my way and no one is going to tell me what to do"...I guess. Or is it fear? Any thoughts anyone?....it is indirectly related to this thread....I think.

[anatomist1]

"what is this artistic fixation with censorship?"


Well, just off the top of my head, I'd say the fixation has to do with the fact that artists want to express themselves. Often it has to do with expressing an unpopular opinion, or challenging the status quo with regards to what kind of opinions can be expressed. I'm sorry if you find this bafffling or unimportant, but many of us think this is a vital part of public discourse. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this basic issue belies the fact that you ultimately don't really know what free speech is or why it is important.

Fascism always seems nice if the banner of your cause is flying out in front, and it is what you are pushing for. You continue to champion the cause of censorship and restrictions upon what people can see and do, yet expect not to be taken to task about it. It's absurd.

People bristle at the idea of censorship because they value free expression... even above your personal moralistic visions of how society should run. To me, the idea that people are sticklers about anything that could be construed as censorship is a healthy adaptation to a world in which people like you take it upon yourselves to decide what other people should see or what they see means to them.

I know it all comes from a place of concern, but you have really become the worst enemy of those you want to help. You stand so many basic issues on their head that you are trying to convince people that they don't understand their own experience, and are promoting ideas that would be welcomed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Free expression is not some kind of pesky nuisance that gets in the way of your personal vision of how society should be run, it's the basic input of people into their own lives. Get over yourself.

[JasonGillespie]

anatomist1,
I think you need to read more closely before you respond. What you think I am saying I am not. And I don't know where you got some of what you are replying to.
Fascism always seems nice if the banner of your cause is flying out in front, and it is what you are pushing for. You continue to champion the cause of censorship and restrictions upon what people can see and do, yet expect not to be taken to task about it. It's absurd.

The above remark is a good example...I said some censorship wasn't bad...I didn't say how much or about what, but all of the sudden you have me as a fascist?! I think that is the exact type of kneejerk reaction I am talking about. Tone down the rhetoric...especially when it isn't specifically addressing what I actually said.

I'm sorry if you find this bafffling or unimportant, but many of us think this is a vital part of public discourse. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this basic issue belies the fact that you ultimately don't really know what free speech is or why it is important.

Are you reading the same post I wrote? You are off the map with your interpretation of the question I asked. Calm down and realize I am not literally wondering why free speech is important. Did I say it was unimportant? Read for comprehension. I'll spell it out....many artists become overly aggressive, defensive, and intolerant when you mention any attempt, no matter how benign to have some sort of standard by which behavior, verbal or otherwise, can be measured as offensive or dangerous. Don't go off the deep end thinking that this means I have some sort of Orwellian agenda. I value free speech as much as anyone, but I don't value irresponsible people saying or doing detrimental things that are harmful to others.

Your last paragraph was so bizarre I can't even frame a response. Suffice it to say you assume too much, all of it is wrong and the most outrageous accusations were just offensive.


Really, what is the point of asking a legitimate question when the response isn't even directed at what was asked, but instead is directed at some imagined series of remarks? Read my question again closely and see if it makes any more sense. Don't read anything into it that I don't expressly state. If that is too hard just don't respond to my posts. I'll give you the same courtsey.

[sculptor]

...all of "us" have a responsibility to make our country a place where children are safe...
...I think it is good to care about and watch out for people ...
This is an aside...... what is this artistic fixation with censorship?
...Censorship isn't always a bad thing...sometimes it can be a good thing. Sometimes we need to be protected. I'm not talking big brother, but not everything is good for us. The ego says "I want my way and no one is going to tell me what to do"...I guess. Or is it fear? Any thoughts anyone?....it is indirectly related to this thread....I think.

I was a tad reticent to chime in here, as you goys seemed to be working out this difficult topic from an emotional as well as intellectual level...
but
here goes

When, as in the above post "Danish Cartoon" I say that "All censorship is inherently evil"
Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be that censorship-or any control on an erstwhile free society lends itself far too redily towards evil purposes.
Mo Tsu aside,
there are actually evil crooked dishonest people out there who will lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for what may seem a trivial advantage.
By allowing these beings a cover of censorship we encourage their evil and allow it to spread......
freedom isn't free, it carries lots of risks-I for one would rather have the risks and the freedoms than trust my intellect and wellbeing to some unknown secret machinations by unknown people with unknown purposes/agendas

as an example--growing up, i had the introduction to driving with very high(by todays standards), or no, speed limits-then along came "55" ..." for our safety" as cars were getting safer, and bias ply tires were giving way to road hugging radials, ......
all in the name of safety, with pseudo scientific statisticks to support the lies
hogwash and deception
looking back, we see that at the same time the use of an alias to get a plane ticket became a federal felony
bottom line--------the speed limits imposed for your safety were nothing more than a lame attempt of a corrupt government to restrain the free movement of people in a supposedly free society...
"give 'em an inch..."

When you encourage censorship to "protect someone" you allow the cover of intellectual darkness to those whom we should want "outed"

You simply cannot have freedom without freedom of expression----even if it means tolerating outlandish childish "Me, Me, Notice Me" behavours by earstwhile pseudo "artists" like Koons
Freedom of expression and protecting the children go hand in hand as part of adulthood...
when my boys were in preschool/daycare, I went to pick them up and needed to use the urinal-as I walked into the "little boys room" I noticed a staff member moving to follow me. He followed me into the room, stopping inside the doorway as i approached the very low urinal---as I finished, and turned to the business of greeting my children, he appologized for his actions. I stopped, and turned to him and with heartfelt gratitude shook his hand and thanked him for his vigilance in protecting the children under his care.
I would rather forego the freedom of privace for the act of protecting the children.

which brings us round to another aspect of censorship's interactions with other freedoms

The media censors are all bullgoose freaking loonies
for every (poorly disguised)act of sex on tv you will see 20-50 murders
THIS IS NUTS

what we really need to "Protect the Children" from is the sort of censorship imposed by these psychopathic, antisocial, propaganda lover's perverted concepts of right and wrong and their apparent love of murder and mayhem and a corrupt police state.

Once, when (for my taste) my children were using far too much profanity (fuck, shit, asshole,dickhead,asswipe,moron,...etc...) I chalenged them to write a 2 page essay using a curse word or phrase as every other word in the essay and offered a reward for the successfull completion of the task-----day and a 1/2 later--"thats two pages full, no double spacing or pictures allowed"---3 days later, the task was still in production, but we would sit and read and giggle and laugh at the really convuloted and contorted prose the restraints produced--this carried on for some few days more-memory fades, but I believe the task remained incomplete------
The point being, we took angry invictive, and turned it into a laughing stock

I dunno-maybe call it anti-censorship---implosion therapy, for a few blessed days weeks months(?) thereafter, when they (or their school-mates)reached the point of anger or frustration, (or just wanted to shock the adults) which would have released an overloud "shit-goddamn-fuck" etc.. explitive, the remembrance of the task would defuse the tension with a laugh
( a True pleasure for a parent)

For the same offence, my mother would wash out my mouth with soap
Pardon the ramble

where does protectionism interfere with freedom?
if we have accepted censorship-will we ever know?
You seem to think that you can have just a little censorship to keep folks safe from perversion-----
I do not beleive that that can exist without truely insane or evil people taking advantage of the useage.

ergo my request to see the modified cartoons
janet jacksons breast,
and any other censored material, especially when associated with sculpture or the written word (thanx fer pan and the goat)

Lets have a laugh about Koons childish actions and the stupidity and/or corruption of the "establishment" who buy into the claim ...ART...

Do what you love and are getting good at, and ignore the impulse to stop someone else from doing what they love.

Would you like it if someone censored "the duality of mans nature" because he is a disembodied head, or because his mouth is provocatively open-pruriently ready to give head to some homosexual?

An enteresting, and entertaining experiment, would be to gather all the censored material from a single censor (like the brain police on this site)and lump it all together(with appropos contextural dialogue) to see if we can figure out what they're really hiding or afraid of>>>>>
wowie zowie and it feels so fine
wowie zowie baby all of the time
i don't even care if you shave your legs
bum chick chick bum da dum-dn-na-da

once at a parental gathering, I said
"I don't know what the hell is wrong with kids these days"
( the lead in raised certain expectations from my audience)
"They don't seem to appreciate good music"
(more expectations)
"They don't even like the mothers of invention"

It seems that the initial breakout from restrictions tends to be a tad rad.
If the speed limits were entirely removed today, I'd avoid driving till the loonies got a taste of freedom -- careening wildly down the highway, seeking a like minded soul for an intermingling of their motorized metalic steeds

If the restrictions on our minds, mouths, and souls were all lifted today the gush of stupidity and brazen affrontry would "make a sailor blush"
Shortly thereafter,
I suspect that the singular(read SHOCK) value of (what I consider) non art (like the aforementioned pornografer) would crash like the tulip bulb market and thereafter become nothing more than a silly childish curiousity.

sorry bout the preaching
rod

[JasonGillespie]

Sculptor,

Your reply is a well reasoned one, but I am not comfortable with some of it. I think "most" censorship is evil. Except...I think that which is done to protect our children from exposure to things they shouldn't have to deal with until they become equipped to process it....is worth allowing. And...say censoring hate speech...anything that incites others to violence. Mein Kampf would be a good choice for censorship in my book. I do not advocate any sort of wholesale use of censorship by any means. But the sometimes rabid behavior of those who thoughtlessly cry for an absolute ban on any structure to their society troubles me.

I agree the tendency to misuse a trust of power and responsibility is all too great these days. (Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...right? But that is why we established the government we did.) Still.....I would venture that there are some trustworthy individuals that are able to work on behalf of the greater good. Our responsibility is find those people and elect them, appoint them, induct them...whatever. I am not one to believe that because our system presently is broken that we should just allow it to continue to fall apart...that the moral decay is terminal and therefore the patient should be allowed to die. That, however is me. And by morals I do not mean to say a certain way of believing...rather somewhat like the early Romans logically reasoned it to be...the pax/peace that is kept by insuring that our system of laws is based upon an understanding of right and wrong as it pertains to the individuals right's. But we should remember our right to do/say something shouldn't trample on another's rights not to have to hear or view it when our words or speech are harmful.

"The corrupt government" idea gives me pause. Are they all crooks? Lets extend this way of thinking further...Is every cop on the take? Are all lawyers liars? Are all doctors just doing it for the money? The cynicism this kind of thinking implies is disheartening. "Everyone is out to screw everyone" is the final end of this line of reasoning and I don't buy into it. I know too many decent people to go that way. Could it be that someone in the system actually believed that they were creating a speed limit to keep people safe?...it isn't beyond the realm of possibility I think.

I went to pick them up and needed to use the urinal-as I walked into the "little boys room" I noticed a staff member moving to follow me. He followed me into the room, stopping inside the doorway as i approached the very low urinal---as I finished, and turned to the business of greeting my children, he appologized for his actions. I stopped, and turned to him and with heartfelt gratitude shook his hand and thanked him for his vigilance in protecting the children under his care.
I would rather forego the freedom of privace for the act of protecting the children.

This is an excellent example of the paradox of what you are saying. You tell a story of someone (you) whose very privacy was "censored", curtailed by another entity to keep others safe(the children at the daycare)...yet you balk at doing the same thing in terms of what our children have no control over viewing or having to be exposed to? It doesn't add up.

When you encourage censorship to "protect someone" you allow the cover of intellectual darkness to those whom we should want "outed"

I think "intellectual darkness" is a little extreme. This takes the idea of the "slippery slope" a little too far. (Why don't people balance ideas instead of running to the extremes?) All things in moderation. You are basically saying that it is humanly impossible to intelligently moderate what we view and or hear? But, we do it all the time voluntarily. At the workplace you don't say things that might hurt anothers feelings or get you sued. You obey traffic laws to keep from being killed or cited for reckless driving. When you go out in public you don't wear a shirt, but no pants or underwear for fear of being arrested and offending others. You allow censorship of your thoughts and actions in all those situations without an "intellectual darkness" descending and creating a second dark age. These are all societal rules that have been created for the greater good....censorship of how you live and interact with others.


It seems you might be paranoid about institutions of authority, but it is a paronoia that might be blinding you to the fact that some people actually work in such places for the good of others...not all...maybe not even a majority. Still, I think it is up to us to find good people and screen them closer before we nominate/elect/appoint them...do what we have to to get the right people for those positions instead of decrying how loony they all are. The latter action is a tad useless. We are the real power in this country....we just forget that our vote and our dollar makes things work or not work....and our apathy allows them to get worse.

As to Koons and the like...I would laugh if it wasn't damaging to others. My fear only rests in seeing others hurt or their potential unrealized. (And it might be a little more complex than differing tastes of music I'm afraid.)

Still, I appreciate your take and think that generally there is a lot of overlap in what we are saying. Thanks for taking the time respond.

[anatomist1]

JG,

I'm perfectly calm. No problem with reading comprehension here. Quite the reverse. It's obvious to me that you don't understand what you have said or what it implies. I was simply spinning out some of those implications. Sorry, but much of what you say falls into the category of baseless assertions and impugning motives, and doesn't require careful reading or specific response.

Your ideas of the 'harmfulness' of sexual material are simply nonsense. Sex is the most natural, harmless activity there is, and exposure even to explicit or bizarre forms of it doesn't hurt anyone. Sex is involved in terrible activities like slavery, rape, and molestation, but sex is not the problem with them, violence and predation is. It's an issue of crime and law enforcement, not mind control through media restrictions.

As I said, repression of sexual interest and urges has a lot more to do with these crimes than sexual liberality. Repressing urges and energies make them stronger and forces them to find expression in twisted, unexpected ways. If anything, you are on the side of promoting sexual perversity, you just don't seem to get it.

Likewise, the idea that 'just a little' censorship is a good is a bad one. It really is a slippery slope, and whether you see it or not, you are casting yourself as someone who knows better than others and can make decisions for them in your posting. Even if your particular ideas of what to restrict seem minor and sensible, it's a corrupt paradigm that always snowballs in the direction of totalitarianism. It has to be resisted at even the smallest level.


***

I agree with you, Sculptor, about the insanity of the values which try to emphasize 'protection' from sex and ignore the constant bombardment of violence and warmongering in this country. I'd prefer to see all anal gangbang movies playing 24 hours a day on broadcast television above the kind of killing, torture, and revenge fantasies that litter prime time TV. Do you remember that flap about the video game "Grand Theft Auto"? It's a game where you role-play as a rampaging, random killer in graphic detail, and success is measured by how much killing and destruction you do. No one had a problem with it until it was discovered that there was a secret part of the program where the character can take a girl to a hotel room and have R-rated sex with her. Unbelievable.

[Landseer]

When you encourage censorship to "protect someone" you allow the cover of intellectual darkness to those whom we should want "outed"

I noticed a staff member moving to follow me. He followed me into the room,

I would rather forego the freedom of privace for the act of protecting the children.
Great post Rod!
Someone else here mentioned that restroom issue, but what I see is your staff member invasion of your privacy was to protect someone from a possible ACT of violence, "ACTS" which can injure or kill another person such as speeding/reckless driving, firing a gun in the air, building bon fires in a field during a drought etc. These are acts and I don't consider their regulation "censorship" because your right to do something ends when it can directly affect life and limb of another person.

A news item today about a suit to ban 7 BOOKS is censorship, it is saying that because someone doesn't like these particular books and won't read them which is their right, but they are now wanting to infringe on MY rights and everyone elses' by wanting them removed so NO ONE can read them.
THAT's censorship.

No one is required to read any book or magazine against their will, if you don't like the TV or radio station's language or programs it is your right to turn them off, it is NOT your right to try to forbid "me" from listening or viewing these same stations just because you don't like them. Howard Stern's show is a good example there.


which brings us round to another aspect of censorship's interactions with other freedoms

The media censors are all bullgoose freaking loonies
for every (poorly disguised)act of sex on tv you will see 20-50 murders
THIS IS NUTS
That's all about the Christian religious right (the SAME church who protected pedo priests for decades but that's another story) trying to foist their stuff on the rest of us, as well as MONEY- the FCC fines!


"shit-goddamn-fuck" etc.. explitive, the remembrance of the task would defuse the tension with a laugh
( a True pleasure for a parent)
Perfect! and you just showed how this is, kids USE those words BECAUSE they provoke a reaction in people, if people would stop reacting to these idiotic words they wouldn't have this effect and the shock value peters out.
Surest way to get people to use them is show a negative shock response and call attention to it.


ergo my request to see the modified cartoons
janet jacksons breast,
and any other censored material, especially when associated with sculpture or the written word (thanx fer pan and the goat) Pompei was FULL of erotic art and sculpture, it's a good example of censorship as well- how all these works were kept locked up from public view and how many statues had their genitals smashed, broken off or otherwise obliterated. The same way copy statues of Michaelangelo's David often sport a fig leaf, I believe the original was also covered by such for a time- to hide a PENIS on a stone statue of all things!
The amazing thing is how the marble pan and goat ever survived the conflagration that befell many other works- some stautes once were ordered reburied!

Would you like it if someone censored "the duality of mans nature" because he is a disembodied head, or because his mouth is provocatively open-pruriently ready to give head to some homosexual? Insane...
I searched and found a few other photos of the marble, all from the same side as it appears to be placed on a pedistal by a wall in the museum, I'd sure like to find photos of the back and other angles, but just take a look at the top part here- the workmaship that went into this 2100 years ago!

There's also this Greek pottery, bowl, vase, amphora-whatever.. from 560 bc, obviously this was something someone had in their house and no doubt on display or at least seen by visitors. Same for the circa 1850 French locket. Pictures of art from Pompei and other places way back when shows all kinds of this material in art, sculpture and utility items- lamps, bowls etc. Could it be people back then had a much freer attitude/culture than our supposedly modern, progressive and open one today?

I can't imagine how we have seemingly gone BACKWARDS towards a puritanic society, but when you see works like these, the "erotic temple" in Asia? covered with carvings of all sorts of adult themes- to the point where you almost can't even see pictures of them on the web in any detail because they might "offend" some viewer, or the FCC fines a tv station $500,000 becase of a 1/8th second "wardrobe malfunction", and the news has articles on book removals from libraries because they contain "references to.." incest, rape, bestiality, or other sex, then what other conclusion can one come to?

Yet, you pick up the news and they include the most gory, sickening and explicit details of the murder, the murder scene etc. A recent case in the news detailed the child's abduction by a neighbor, and included the most minute details about how the accused bought certain tools, knives and other items, how he planned to carry out the murder, drain the blood, cut the body up, cook and canabalize it and dispose of the organs and bones.
This was in the print media as well as the radio!

Dennis Raider's case was like watching a soap opera unfolding, the media was playing out every last detail in graphic dialogue.
Somehow all of that is "ok" but sex or nude statues, explicit books are not?




The pottery as an aside, has a very modernish style that reminds me of the 20's or 30's.

[JasonGillespie]

What can I say? The logic is overwhelming and at least three people believe it so it must be true. That settles it.

[Landseer]

LONDON: Hindu groups here were in a denial mode on Friday after the attack on paintings by world-renowned artist MF Husain, during an exhibition in London, forcing organisers to wind up the show.

“It is unfortunate that such an incident has happened and that the exhibition has been withdrawn due to that rather then listening to our protests,” said Arjun Mallick, spokesman of the Hindu Human Rights, the body which was in the forefront of the agitation against Husain’s exhibition.

“It is sad that they listened to the wrong voice, rather than listen to us,” Mallick told DNA, insisting that they were in no way involved with the disfigurement of the valuable artworks. Vandals disfigured Husain’s paintings of Durga and Draupadi on Saturday 20 May. The octogenarian artist was upset by the attack. Police are investigating the incident but have not made any arrests so far.

The Hindu Forum of Britain, another Hindu group which is generally in the forefront of such agitation and calls itself an umbrella body of 270 Hindu organisations in Britain also disassociated themselves from the attack.

“We condemn such action, we believe in peaceful protests,” said Sanjay Mistry, spokesman for HFB. It argued that they did not want a blanket ban on Husain, but wanted the artist to destroy his paintings of Hindu gods and goddess. “His paintings depict sex and bestiality and they are perverted, we object to them. He has painted Sita masturbating on Hanuman’s tail, this is abuse of freedom of expression,” said Mallick of HHR. “He should dispose of such paintings or paint over them, then we have nothing against him,” added Mallick.

When asked for his reaction, the barefoot artist told DNA: “these are painting done over 50 years ago, and I don’t own a single one of them. They are with collectors all over the world”.

Art circles in London were shocked by Saturday’s incident. “This is completely unbelievable. I was there at the opening only a couple of weeks ago, as were many of my NRI collectors and MF Husain. And they were all very happy to chat to the artist with no objections of any kind,” said Mehreen Rizvi Khursheed, an Indian art specialist at Bonhams.

[Landseer]

This thread kind of die out, no one has more to add?

[Duck]

Blake wrote>I think that change in North America will be difficult without therapy as suggested by sculptor. Having said that, what we as artists need to do is administer that therapy, <

I don’t care what you say, that’s funny

[Landseer]

Why are we using billboard sized text?

[fused]

The subject line of this thread is PUBLIC DISPLAYING OF NUDE ART, which means Jeff Koon's photography is not part of the equation. He isn't doing nude/naked public art (yet). He may be guilty of aesthetic obscenity by many artistic measures with his kitsch ceramic endeavors, but that isn't public art either.

Most/many of the points expressed in this thread are moot at the point of departure and others are gross generalizations. When art is put in a public arena, community standards are always (ALL WAYS) part of the equation. If the intent of the artist is aesthetic grace & beauty or shock & awe isn't the question, there is a time & place for everything and not all communities are enamored by a confrontation with the naked human form occupying a public place that they frequent.

I don't find driving around town with a nude mounted on top of a vehicle to be a particularly clever way to promote the nude form as public art or as a good method of fighting censorship. Install the sculpture in the environment it was intended and invite me to come see it.

There are no cities in America that allow you to lawfully walk down the street in the nude, but there are places you can go and get publicly naked. There are few public art projects made with the intention of being confrontational that succeed. Part of this discussion isn't about freedom of speech at all, but the right to flaunt self expression in public with a total disregard towards the local community's opinion.

There is also a big difference between permanent public works and temporary installations. The Mark Quinn sculpture was temporary in Tralfalgar Square, just as Jean Tinguely's huge penis in Milan (which didn't cause a big stink in 1970) was only there a short time. Many things that are known to be temporary are much easier to accept in the public domain, which allows for many works of art to be exhibited and gain understanding from a very skeptical audience.

I have been involved in many exhibitions in public spaces where nudity (and particularly penises) had to be dealt with tactfully. Never underestimate the public reponse when you place art in a space that they consider theirs.

[Merlion]

Here is a news story that makes me laugh. So much fuss, even about the groin area of a boy in a seated position. It is a story I've just found, about the debates in an American city council committee about this topic.

La Crosse plans no fig leaf for gift statue from French city (http://www.gazetteextra.com/nudeboystatue062906.asp)

LA CROSSE, Wis. - A bronze statue of an unclothed boy - a gift to La Crosse from its sister city of Epinal, France - won't have any fig leaf-like additions to cover its European-style nudity after all, city officials have decided.

The statue Le Pinau, showing a boy in a seated position pulling a thorn from his foot, is symbolic of the French city whose name stems from a word meaning thorn.

But someone noticed that the groin area could be seen when viewing the statue from below the column on which it will be placed.

That prompted the city's Contributions Committee to amend its resolution accepting the statue to allow for covering the critical area.

Elmer Petersen, chairman of the Downtown La Crosse Sculpture Project Committee and a sculptor, said he understood he was to "discreetly cover the private parts so it is presentable," possibly with a small bronze cloth.

"Not like a fig leaf, which would be noticed and laughable," he said.

The Common Council approved the resolution several months ago, but when some council members saw the statue Wednesday, they said they opposed changing it. [snip]

[Landseer]

Absolutely amazing the idiocy today, it's like we've gone BACKWARDS and are rapidly regressing back to times when a woman dared not even show her ankle in public because it was obscene.

Mae West was arrested once after her Broadway play in the 30's for obscenity.

So from this thread, it seems we have at least 3 major categories I can come up with;

1) Classical type simple posed nudes- ala Michaelangelo's David
2) More active "erotica" or "pornographic" ala Jeff Koons etc
3) Classical or antiquities showing nudes as well as sex acts- ala Pompei or the "erotic" temple in India.

The well known temple in India has been photographed gazillions of times, it's been around hundreds of years and the stone carvings are all amazingly still intact. This is fine for antiquities art for the public to see, and photograph, but can you imagine a structure like this in the USA
with carvings like these on it what kind of row it would cause?

The carvings leave nothing to the imagination, I've reduced the sizes of the photos considerably;


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/khajuraho.jpg





http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/temple.jpg

[Merlion]

Wow. Can you imagine this? I nearly couldn't, nor too many American city and town councellors, from what I understand (with apology to those who can).

A naked sculpture, a male life cast, may be installed on top of the Westminister Palace, as well as the top of dozens of major buildings along the Thames. If you don't believe me, read this latest Telegraph news (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/30/naked30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/30/ixuknews.html). Some excerpts below.

Naked sculptures to celebrate reopening of Festival Hall

A lifesize naked sculpture by Antony Gormley, creator of The Angel of the North, may be installed on the roof of the Palace of Westminster for three months as part of plans for the reopening of the Royal Festival Hall. ....

A giant party is to be held on the Thames, two weeks of special events will re-launch the hall and over and around London's South Bank complex 32 lead or glass fibre Gormley figures, cast from his own body, will dominate the area.

The South Bank Centre is planning to place 32 of the figures on the roofs of major buildings along the Thames that overlook the hall. They are intended to draw visitors to an exhibition of Gormley's work in the Hayward Gallery.

Gormley, whose sculptures can fetch up to £1 million, won the Turner Prize in 1994. For almost all his pieces - The Angel of the North included - he uses casts of his body.

The Palace of Westminster, which has not previously shown the work of any Turner Prize winner, said yesterday that a decision to allow the Gormley sculpture on its roof was "imminent". ....

[Candice Lee]

I haven't seen the specific Husain paintings that were censored, but it's ironic that such an ancient culture with unabashed attitudes toward sexuality and the human body in the past should now censor similar themes. Perhaps the more puritanical attitudes of the Muslim Moghul invaders and British colonization have contributed to this change.

In Oakville, Ontario, an upscale "suburb" of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, nudity of any kind was specifically excluded in a call for artists by a local artist's society. The Call reads "Controversial and/or nude subject matter cannot be accepted for this show due to display at Oakville Town Hall." Let's limit art to images of flower pots and tea cosies.

Candice

[sculptor]

wowie zowie
Landseer
I love the sculptures of the temple at Khajurhu(sp?)
Please e-mail me the unshrunk photos
at mandali@mindspring.com
or figuresculpture@hotmail.com
cool?

they were the inspiration and guides for my "nelly"

Yes I can imagine these sculptures in the USA
and I think that they would be appreciated by 80% of the viewing public
ignored by 19.06%
and complained loudly and obnoxiously about by .04%
the squeeky wheel gets the grease
the braying jackasses get the headlines
the pleased majority gets denied the chance to experience what I consider "real art"

[Duck]

>two guys and a mule<

Could this have been an ancient political cartoon? I keep seeing George W. and his Daddy taking turns giving it to democrats/people, and a balloon/caption from what looks like the willing mule-- “It's getting so I like it”.

[Landseer]

Be glad to tonight after work sculptor, as as I have two architectural images of carvings from about 1912 I will scan and post- these are up on buildings in NYC in full public view.

[Landseer]

On a building at 146th and Broadway, 1912;

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/caryatids.jpg

And on the American Telephone and Telegraph building- 195 Broadway- 1917
Obviously this one has symbolism- there are entwined in the vines some sheep, cattle, birds, small human figures in the design lower left corner, a cornucopia, ears of corn nude child with wings possibly, and bare breasted lady, so it must be some sort of "Mother Earth/life" type theme.
With that observation in mind, then the question comes up- did people back then not have a problem with full frontal nudity on a building like this BECAUSE it was "disguised" in part of a "Mother Earth" theme they recognized, or did this theme even play a part at all in the apparant acceptance? (if it wasn't acceptable I'm certain it ould have been modified later)

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/reclining.jpg

[JasonGillespie]

fused,
I think your comments were very astute regarding the public space.

Landseer,
The obvious differences between the nudity on the facade of the buildings and Koons pornographic work or even the temple carvings has to do with what is an acceptable cultural norm. (The temple carvings are seen in the light of the culture that created them....Eastern. We are talking about Western culture in this thread) I don't think that we are in any way in danger of reverting to the sort of society you refer to....where women have to cover everything up. Last time I looked the amount of flesh that is acceptable to be shown is quite a lot....and getting greater every year.

The cultural standard that many in this thread are railing against has more to do with...I think...what is tasteless and of purient nature as opposed to nudity that merely reveals the beauty of the human form. (As viewed through prevailing Western and possibly mostly American cultural norms) There are artists on both sides of this fence. Now, obviously some artists want to show a lot more of the former than perhaps the majority in our society presently wants to tolerate. That society as a whole, as the final arbitrators of what is fit for consumption at that given time, may not agree. (We the artists not being the arbitrators of societal norms...although perhaps that is what bugs some here)
I don't see any regression. If anything it is a progression. What was taboo 20 years ago is certainly not today....look at the media and that much is plain. The billboards, magazines, TV, movies, all show more and in a greater degree of graphicness. Your fears are foundless.

But, we do still have a country where many are concerned with open displays of trashy imagery for no good reason.....at least as it pertains to public art. I'm sorry if I am backward in thinking that Koon's pornographic work(and other similiar work), when compared to Donatello, Rubens, Manet, or Maillol, is somewhaty lacking in artistic value. All of the artists I refer to used the nude form, but did so in a way that doesn't devalue the form or human sexuality by making it resemble a stag film. Blatant sexualization of art is the least creative avenue and easiest bell to ring as an artist. It is the artistic equal to Chris Rock shouting expletives on stage. The shock value distracts the viewer from the fact that the substance of what they are seeing is most likely lacking. I have a hard time thinking of any artist in the recent past who has created a lasting work of value by using the lowest common denominator of sexualizing their work.

[sculptor]

eg:
wut i wuz shooting for wuz sexy widdout being pornographic

and?

[JasonGillespie]

sculptor,
It looks like you did exactly that to me. Nothing offensive in the nudity of your figure as far as I am concerned. Even erotic figures can be done without making them blantantly distasteful. Thanks for the example.

[Landseer]

Jason- I see what you mean, still, it is interesting to observe this.
I still believe it seems like we are regressing, yes, there's more graphic material and all the rest as you said, but the tide is changing- just scanning the bills coming out of the Republicon House, the huge increase in fines from the FCC for "indecent" language on the air, the huge fine and bill that came out after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national TV in which her breast was exposed for 1/10th of a second "obscene"- meanwhile the news shows disfigured dead bodies and extremely graphic play by play descriptions of the intent of the accused in at least one recent child abduction/murder.

[fused]

It is obvious that some communities are more tolerant (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431d9e8f9052720207.jpg) about what can be placed in their public spaces than others and most artists have enough intelligence to know when they are crossing the line (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431e8015f371300753.jpg) of acceptance (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a243197e483988827699.jpg). Public art programs work extremely hard to educate their audience (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431aacb77118376949.jpg) and allow for a graceful transition of new art into populated arenas. This reduces the shock (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431d8ecd8694623770.jpg) of the new (nude) (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a243234e5f4017826667.jpg) by not just plopping (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431b257c3748321708.jpg) a sculpture out there with no warning, but introducing it (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a24322a21ce122444023.jpg) to the world at every stage of development.

http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431a07285800722835.jpg

When an artist pushes the limits of community standards --often intentionally seeking notoriety-- in the name of art, the resulting confrontation rarely produces a winner on either side of the equation. The fallout of extended bad press does have a scandalous effect on the public image of all artists --guilt by association-- and can diminish their ability to secure public support (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431d08e7c390762186.jpg) for new projects.

Sculpture (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2432001411138086685.jpg) that is tolerated (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a24320991e9866475750.jpg) in one community may not be acceptable (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a24322ede0c716106768.jpg) in another and I believe it is the artist's responsibility to know what the situation (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a24323ed4eb834048367.jpg) is and accept the repercussions (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431edc1a4570400108.jpg) of their actions (http://www.fileden.com/public/2006/6/28/44a2431e566bb131707697.jpg).

[Landseer]

Wow, is that sculpture PEEING?? that's hilarious!
I kind of like the sliced "layers"

I like the bronze businessman banging his head on the wall- different, using the wall as part of the model too.

Pushing the limits isn't always a good idea as it can backfire, but I agree- involve the public in every stage of the work.

[Merlion]

You have collected many photos of interesting sculptures, Fused. A few are very well done, and even give us good ideas. Thanks for showing us these photos through your links.

For us, a minor problem is that after viewing them, it takes us quite a while to find specific ones to view again.

[Merlion]

Can you believe this. It is about the disapproval of a church in Loveland, CO, to a nude sculpture to be placed a whole mile away from their yet to be built church building.

No love lost for nude sculpture (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060716-123418-4300r)

LOVELAND, Colo., July 16 (UPI) -- Members of the Abiding Love church in Loveland, Colo., say they have no abiding love for a nude statue set to be placed a mile from their new church building.

The congregation and pastor object to the statue of two nude women and one man as inappropriate for its planned location, at a traffic roundabout, the Denver Post reports. ....

"It just doesn't make sense to put it in such a public place where kids can see it," said Pastor Kevin Klug of Abiding Love Lutheran Church.

The sculpture is a 13-foot-tall design featuring three nude figures, two holding the third aloft.

Sculptor Kirsten Kokkin said her creation tries to show how everyone is dependent on someone else's support.

The church is constructing a building less than a mile from where the sculpture is scheduled to be dedicated in August. ....

[Landseer]

Can you believe this. It is about the disapproval of a church in Loveland, CO, to a nude sculpture to be placed a whole mile away from their yet to be built church building.
Oh yes, I sure do believe it, the latest in a retrograde right wing "thing" that seems to be sweeping the country.

The congregation and pastor object to the statue of two nude women and one man as inappropriate for its planned location,

"It just doesn't make sense to put it in such a public place where kids can see it,"

Oh of course, we have to hide the dirty and NASTY body from view and at the same time protect the ChiLdReN from seeing the DIRTY NASTY naked body whilst instilling in them a hate for their own bodies as filthy, dirty and needing to be covered- by example. Forget that the "nude" is only a statue not a real person.



The church is constructing a building less than a mile from where the sculpture is scheduled to be dedicated in August. ....Well, maybe they oughtta build their little church someplace else, I can think of a few choices places they can go, but I'll refrain from comment.

[sculptor]

If GOD wanted people naked, they'd-a-been born that way

[anatomist1]

It doesn't surprise me that this is happening in Colorado. The state has been a mecca for the whole movement of fascism masquerading as Christianity.

I'm no fan of any Christianity, but what is going on in the US is about a decades long concerted drive by a few major evangelical players with political and money connections to turn the masses of what used to be the ordinary churchgoing public into a mob unified by the themes of intolerance and warmongering. Dobson is one of the key players - obsessed with the persecution of homosexuals - and has made his headquarters in Colorado Springs.

Actually, the last time I was in the Springs, I saw a giant church in a renovated grocery store called "Victory Bible Church" and even more disturbingly, a church with a star-spangled US Army tank right on their front lawn. Apparently fetishized war machinery is much better for the children than naked bodies...

[Landseer]

Yeah for sure, don't forget Phelps either... the intolerance mobs is nothing new, just read the history about the crusades, reformation, how many people were burned at the stake, hung- this included children and women by the way, history recounts the grusome story of how an elderly man (Gile Corey) was "pressed" by church people piling heavy stones on his chest over 2 days trying to make him confess to practicing witchcraft;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey

Christian groups warned that SpongeBob SquarePants was an insidious weapon being used to promote acceptance of homosexuality in a music video made for elementary schools. The video teaches children cooperation and tolerance

So nothing surprises me these days, they censor art, text, photos, radio waves, TV you name it. The FCC can levy a $325,000 fine on a talk show host says the word SHIT on the air, even if quoting Bush's open mic utterances the other day.

[Chashab]

With respect to the OP (Would love to read this whole thread but, good grief, I don't have the time! Hope I'm not being redundant.) . . .

. . . there is a difference between "nude" and "naked." The word "naked" (as it is used presently in American English) has implications of lewdness not associated with the word "nude."

[Merlion]

Ah! I've got more details of this Loveland nude sculpture, including a good photo of the work still in the foundry. This article gives a lot of details of the city council's deliberations and the views of the public.

Sculpture controversy embroils council (http://www.lovelandfyi.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6088)
Members refuse to override commission

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So, is morality in the heart of the beholder — or in the hands of city officials?

Controversy over too much bronze skin landed that moral debate in the laps of Loveland City Council members ......

[Landseer]

Unbelieveable, yep, sure enough they quote some minister who said the statue provokes "immoral thoughts" and he wonders what happens to the minds of people who drive by and see it.

20 people protested the sculpture saying it was immoral and a few other choice words, including one who said she had to drive out of her way to avoid seeing it!

Only here in bible country Amerika do people protest a nude STATUE as "immoral" and demand it's removal.

[Scout]

All their hoop-la makes me want to see it all the more. The artist only benefits from all the attention so there are good things and bad things. I'd love to see more angles.

For all of you who posted all those sculptures (especially fused) thank you. I've never seen any of those. It's getting me excited. To sculpt. Scout

[GlennT]

Believe it or not, the original query of this thread was whether or not the display of nude art was appropriate when seen by children, and what are the boundries.

Children come to earth with a veil of innocence that is very precious and can be damaged by many things in a society that is fixated on the human ego rather than spiritual values. The human ego says, " don't censor me, don't restrict me, I have the right to say or do anything I want" whereas a spiritiually enlightened person will consider the effects of his or her actions upon another.

In my opinion, an artistic image is an expression of what is in the heart of the artist. A pure heart creating a nude figure will make a work that is acceptable to be viewed by children, and more than that, comforting and uplifting. Someone with a disturbed mental or emotional state will probably have those energies represented at some level in the work, which will then have a disturbing effect upon others. Children being more sensative than adults, may be haunted by such images. If the artist understood the laws of karma, they may not want to be responsible for negatively effecting the consciousness of children.

If the question where about what type of art can uplift society and raise it to a higher level, most of this would be self-evident and the discussion would not be broaching pornographic images, left-wing radicals and right wing censors. The issue should not be what is the boundry at which I go from "decent" to "indecent", but rather, what is the best way my art can help enlighten a world that is truly in need.

[Merlion]

Ok. I'll go back to the opening sentences of this thread.

I was wondering what everyone thought about public display of nude art to children. Do you see it as something that is inappropriate? This would include sculpture, drawings and photography. What are the boundries here? ....

There is nothing universal about this. It depends on general social attitude, and on what countries we are talking about.

Many Asian countries do not accept it but is gradually opening up due to globalization. In a way, this is similar to the idea of sex education for children.

Another point relating to this thread is that we have to be more specific about what is 'nude art'.

[Landseer]

The issue should not be what is the boundry at which I go from "decent" to "indecent", but rather, what is the best way my art can help enlighten a world that is truly in need. The whole concept of "decent" "indecent" is rooted in religion and the shame put forth on people's bodies and sex. Remember back 100 years ago it was considered indecent for a woman to even show her bare ANKLES in public, in Europe it is common in some countries such as Switzerland to see women bare chested in public parks, it's not shocking, people dont stare, it just "is."

A photo of a Swiss dog which was the main subject of the photo- happened to include a portion taken from the side of a picnicking lady in a Swiss park, it was printed on a Swiss related dog club newsletter and some tightwad people wrote the newsletter editor some very angry letters and complained to the board about the NUDE photo.

It was explained that this was perfectly normal and typical there, the lady was simply sitting on her picnic blanket and the only thing that you could see of her was the side of her face and the SIDE of one breast.
But here it's like this big paranoia- COVER UP!!! someone might SEE a breast, but forgetting that half the people on the planet have them, and the other half have rudimentary versions of them with nipples, so what's the big deal??

[anne (bxl)]

...in Europe it is common in some countries such as Switzerland to see women bare chested in public parks, it's not shocking, people dont stare, it just "is."
......It was explained that this was perfectly normal and typical

Landseer, I invite you to visit Europe next summer and you will realize it is not common in cityparks! only on beaches, selected beaches. The answer to the article you mentionned was probably a bit provocative. But thrue Europe is much less controversial than US about a cheast appearing in the media. Kids will see it somewhere anyway. Soon or later, that's the question.

Boundries are very much cultural.

[JasonGillespie]

Children come to earth with a veil of innocence that is very precious and can be damaged by many things in a society that is fixated on the human ego rather than spiritual values. The human ego says, " don't censor me, don't restrict me, I have the right to say or do anything I want" whereas a spiritiually enlightened person will consider the effects of his or her actions upon another.


GlennT,

You packed more common sense and wisdom into these two sentences than the entire rest of the posts. (or should it be uncommon sense?)

Sadly, the number of 'pure hearts' creating art these days might be a small minority though. As much as I agree with your thoughts, I personally am afraid that creation is by and large a selfish act on the part of many. Uplifting others is an extremely worthwhile goal, but some how not high on a lot of people's lists these days. (or so it would seem)

Thanks for injecting some altruistic comments.

[GlennT]

Thanks for the kind words and thoughts, Jason. And I enjoyed looking through your website, the product of a deep thinker. Glad you are pursuing the sculpting path.

Landseer: My comments on decent/indecent were actually not meant to be limited to the display of the human form, but rather the intention or motives of the artist no matter what the subject. The shock-value approach to art is in my mind indecent, not because it stems from a religious bias, but because it is meant to negatively jar ones emotions. Perhaps some people need a slap in the face to wake up, but art that does that publicly slaps eveyone in the face whether they need it or not. If the artist has the intention to instruct via the art, there are ways of doing that which are decent, i.e. they use harmony, beauty, grace, movement, rythmn, and a number of very old-fashioned principles that allow for the viewer to be moved without being offended.
This is a new concept to artists whose primary goal is to be noticed ( by being controversial ).

[Merlion]

Landseer, I invite you to visit Europe next summer ....

Oh, wow! Do open up your invitation to others interested, Anne. I would welcome having such an experienced artist as a guide to see the nude public art in Belgium and some neighboring countries. :)

[Landseer]

Oh, wow! Do open up your invitation to others interested, Anne. I would welcome having such an experienced artist as a guide to see the nude public art in Belgium and some neighboring countries. :)Merlion, here when you "invite" someone, it means you are paying their way!
;)

Usage for proof: "I'd like to invite you to the party tomorrow"

That means Anne is paying my air fair to see Europe Merlion, isn't that great??!!!! if you can get Anne to invite you Merlion we'd be a great teams touring Europe's fine art on Anne's credit card!!

[Merlion]

That's great. And Anne is a generous rich lady. :)

Do you know that in Belgium, the drinking fountains are all figurative sculptures of a small boy urinating? But in France, you create your own drinking fountain by the road side, behind a barrier. :p :p

[anne (bxl)]

Merlion, here when you "invite" someone, it means you are paying their way!

In french "inviter" has a double meaning, in this case "to suggest".
Please stop teasing my poor english! ...or learn french!
intolerance has no place here.

Merlion, there is ONE fountain with a statue called "Manneke-pis" brussels slang meaning the "pissing little boy" here is a link http://www.eurobru.com/monum001.htm
Although originally he is nude he has his own wardrobe (a museum dedicated only to him on the grandplace) componed of more than 600 suits...
...and he has a sister "Jeanneke-pis" meaning the pissing little Jeanne that you can discover on the same link.
Both have a dog "Zinneke-pis" Brussels slang meaning the pissing bastard... but dogs are not concerned by nude art

[Merlion]

Sorry, Anne. It wasn't meant to make fun of you or your English at all. It's more to do with Landseer and I trying to pull each other's legs, which we sometimes do, and it so happens that your sentence triggered it off.

Actually, I don't think inviting somebody over for a visit means paying for the expenses of the visit, unless the invitation is from one senior government minister to that of another country, or from a very rich man to the grand wedding of his daughter.

About my mention of drinking fountains in Belgium, this very famous Brussels boy statue urinating is what I had in mind. But I am not aware of his 'sister' and his dog. Thanks for the link.

Come to think of it, it is the very first time I see a statue of a girl pissing, whether real or a picture. Is it placed next to, or not too far away from the boy statue? I've been to Brussels only once, and that was long long long ago. See, that's why I jumped at the chance of being shown around your public art.

[jOe~]

Anne, you're English is excellent, much better than my French. I have forgotten virtually all of my native language since emigrating at age 5 from, yes, Brussels, where I was born. I can recall visting "Manneke-pis" as a child. We lived very close to the statue.

"Joe"

[Landseer]

In french "inviter" has a double meaning, in this case "to suggest".
Please stop teasing my poor english! ...or learn french!
intolerance has no place here.Well I'm sorry if you thought I was making fun of your English or being "intolerant", I thought a bit of levity and joking with Merlion might create a couple of laughs, but I guess not.
Ok, then I can take a hint, no jokes or levity allowed, my posts will be strictly business/technical from now on then, thanks for clarifying the policies here.

[anne (bxl)]

yes, Brussels, where I was born. I can recall visting "Manneke-pis" as a child. We lived very close to the statue.

World is so small sometimes...

Merlion, Jeanneke-pis the little girl is located 3 blocks away from her brother in a much more confidential place.

[Thatch]

My neighbor went to Brussels on business and mailed me a post card, of the little boy taking a piss. Maybe I ought to complain to the Postmaster General that inappropriate visual images are going through the mail and that if a child saw it they might never piss again.
I think there ought to be a sub catagory to this nude art that some are finding upsetting. Lets' call it "Yanking your chain!!!". Some of you are ringing like church bells.


Thatch

[Landseer]

Eyeglass store assures second Bleecker ad will also get a rise

By Lori Haught

Residents and merchants of Bleecker St. will see no more of the controversial SEE Eyewear ad, which was removed from the future storefront sometime last week.

Richard Golden, founder and president of SEE, said the ad was removed because it was rendered useless by vandalism. The ad had featured a burly construction worker grabbing his crotch with the words, “I got your glasses right here!” A few days after the ad was put up, some person or persons spray-painted over the offending area, then tore it off.





“I’m satisfied that they took it down,” Marco Ticas, from Blaustein Paint and Hardware, said. Ticas was concerned when the billboard first went up because of the street’s high traffic of school children.


http://www.thevillager.com/villager_177/eyeglassstore.html

[Merlion]

Animals are naked. How about animal sculptures in public? How much can they show? Are there objections? Here is an example from Phoenix.

Developer to scrap lion statues with bared anatomy (http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5570086)

PHOENIX -- Eight lion statues with bared anatomy will have to find a new kingdom.

The statues guard a children's water fountain park and sit across from what will soon be Arizona's largest cineplex in Glendale, just north of the new University of Phoenix Stadium.

The concrete beasts are depicted raising their rear-ends in the air, each hovering over a terror-stricken ram in what some perceive as a sexually suggestive pose. The lions' tails are swished to the side, leaving their, er, pride in plain view.

Developer Ellman Cos., which is building the Westgate shopping and entertainment plaza, said the statues will be gone before the center welcomes its first customers next month.

"We're removing more than the anatomy," company spokesman Jeffrey Hecht said. "We're removing all the lions."

Hecht said Ellman was not pressured to get rid of the beasts. "(The statues) represent too much of a gargoyle or medieval feel that was out of place from the Arizona Deco architecture of the center," he said.

[Landseer]

Animals are naked. How about animal sculptures in public? How much can they show? Are there objections? Here is an example from Phoenix.

Developer to scrap lion statues with bared anatomy (http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5570086)

The concrete beasts are depicted raising their rear-ends in the air, each hovering over a terror-stricken ram in what some perceive as a sexually suggestive pose. The lions' tails are swished to the side, leaving their, er, pride in plain view.
I like animals the way they are- naked, some of us want to see the whole natural anatomy left intact. All I can say is people are insane when it comes to the slightest hint of sex organs, that's why Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny are always called him and he but they don't have the parts to demonstrait that, or the pants to cover them if they did.

The same idiots who object to "nude" wildlife are the ones who would require they wear clothes or covering in the field.

The article has no pictures, I want to see the lions!

[fritchie]

From this news report, I'd say the lions are not in a natural pose, but something the artist considered provocative. I want to see pictures before responding further.

[Merlion]

Sigh! Of course it would be interesting to see the pictures of the lions. If they are easy to find, I would already have posted the links. Perhaps Fused can have a go at it.

[Landseer]

It is always a possibility the original sculptor had something in mind to be secretly provocative like an inside joke, that no one else would "get" but someone else "in the know," you know?
Sort of like the colored hanky system that was used by peope trying to make contacts in bars in the 70's- the message depended on the color as well as which pocket it was displayed in.

If I saw a photo and maybe a name I might be able to tell more, but the pose sounds similar to Barye or Mene's lion killing another animal bronze- very violent looking, lots of action, I can't visualise anyone finding a sexually suggestive theme from THAT pose even with a swished tail, so I am guessing that since lions have pretty prominent testes the objection is just seeing those, the "children might see them" is just a coverup excuse I find more and more used as a weapon for there is no way to defend against that, because defending against that you are then painted as not caring about the CHILDREN.

I searched for a photo merlion, didnt find one, Delvoy's deer were easier to find but even the deer were photographed by the newspapers in such a way as to HIDE most of it geez!
One went so far as to crop everything but the HEADS out, but I obtained the uncensored versions from other sources.

[Merlion]

Well, well, Lanseer & Fritchie, instead of showing a picture of the bare bottom lion statues, I can show a blog about the odd behavior of a New Zealand man with a statue of a ram.

The blog would be a good ammunition for people who are against installing naked animal sculptures. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm afraid there is no picture of the man in his act.

Kiwi in ram-shagging shock (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=22215&in_page_id=2)

A New Zealander admitted to simulating sex with a statue of a ram while, a court in the Rotorua district of New Zealand heard.

Ronald Benjamin Holden, a 34-year-old sales manager, said that he was 'just being a clown' when he pulled down his pants and simulated having sex with the statue, which was of a merino ram.

Impressively, he managed to be seen not only by a policeman who happened to be passing by, but also a bus filled with over forty tourists – who took pictures of him doing the dirty with the statue. .....

[Landseer]

LOL merlion that's funny!
Darn, he wasn't thinking, with 10 sheep per person there he could have had the real thing.
There's plenty of photos and video clips around that could illustrait the story well enough but they'd never print em.

Still want to see the lions :)

[Merlion]

I want to see pictures before responding further.
Still want to see the lions :)
Ah, hah! Good news Landseer and Fritchie. I finally got a good picture of one of the eight 'anatomically correct' lion statues at Phoenix mentoned at post #153 above. See link and news story below. It is not only the picture, but also the good news for Landseer that the lions will be sold.

Mall's lion statues to get names, be sold (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1025gl-lions26-ON.html)

You now have a chance to buy one of eight anatomically correct lion statues, which had originally been planned for Westgate City Center until they became controversial.

Starting this weekend, Internet users will be able to log on to the Glendale shopping and entertainment center's Web site and submit names for the lions.

And developer Ellman Cos. will auction the concrete beasts for charity at the end of next month, just two weeks after the center's slated Nov. 17 debut.

Guarding the entrances of a children's park at the Glendale Avenue project, the lions are depicted raising their bottoms in the air, each with a ram trapped under it in what some perceive as a sexually suggestive pose.

And the lions' tails are swished to the side, exposing certain parts of their anatomy. .....

To get people's creative juices flowing, Hecht already has named the first lion: Matt Lionart, a play off the name of the Cardinals' quarterback, who plays in nearby University of Phoenix Stadium.

[Landseer]

THAT'S the lion causing all this rukus??? this design must be the LOUSIEST looking lion I've seen yet- not only looks emaciated, it's just a poor design, but I guess being strictly a commercial prop it doesn't matter.



...it in what some perceive as a sexually suggestive pose.

How in the WORLD do people come up with that -CRAP-? those people must live sheltered lives in a convent or something! this statement is just the most insane I've read.


And the lions' tails are swished to the side, exposing certain parts of their anatomy. .....
Geez, genitals and a penis or testicles are treated with this same PC -crap- like "F word", it's called TESTICLES and I noted the paper didn't even show the back of the lion- it's a concrete STATUE for crying out loud!

I sent this to the reporter who wrote the story just now.
Anyway thanks for the photo Merlion, I still want to see the back end if any paper EVER get's "brave" enough to publish the photo!

[Merlion]

I agree the lion statue is a poor piece of artwork. But we can't expect a shopping mall to install a few pieces of stone carved masterpieces, can we?
It is not a rich NYC or other large city art museum.

About exposing the male bottom protrusions, as animals are naked, this is not much of a big deal for animal statues. Perhaps you can sculpt and show us the details.

[Landseer]

I agree the lion statue is a poor piece of artwork. But we can't expect a shopping mall to install a few pieces of stone carved masterpieces, can we?
It is not a rich NYC or other large city art museum.
Yeah but made of concrete, you'd figure the company that made them would have hired better sculptors for the original design, this looks like they hired a $4.75 an hour guy off the street ;)


About exposing the male bottom protrusions, as animals are naked, this is not much of a big deal for animal statues. Perhaps you can sculpt and show us the details.I could post close-up photos but they wouldn't be sculptures they'd be the real thing. No, I won't, but way on the back burner of model ideas I might do one of that marble shown further back in the thread, the Pan and the Goat carving, or even a parody of it, but it would be a very complex model needing an armature.

[Tlouis]

some of these posts are hilarious.

Why not call this section of the thread: The Leonine Family Jewels Imbroglio.

Keep posting. We all need a good laugh what with elections coming up.

Lou

[Merlion]

We all need a good laugh what with elections coming up.
Yes, we all need a good laugh. (At least you have a vote, a say, not us.)

[Tlouis]

Hi Merlion

You are not allowed to vote? Is Singapore not a parliamentry republic? I somehow had the impression, I don't know why, that voting was compulsary in Singapore. Maybe its Indonesia.

Regards, Lou

[Merlion]

As this is too much off topic, Tiouis, I've sent you a PM.

[Landseer]

Ok, here are the real lion family jewels as seen in nature, they ARE a prominent feature so leaving them out is pretty stupid;

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/lion.jpg

And on what appears to be cast iron that was painted black, some of the paint is chipped off on the tail;

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/lion-bronze.jpg

And one in stone in Paris on the bridge;


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/lion-stone.jpg

[HorseModels]

Ok, here are the real lion family jewels as seen in nature, they ARE a prominent feature so leaving them out is pretty stupid;

I agree, that it would be stupid to leave out natural body parts of animals. After reviewing the photos originally posted in this thread, though, I can see why some people objected to the sculptures. I don't think it is the "family jewels" that disturbs people so much as does the position of the lion over the ram. It is a suggestive pose which could be considered inappropriate for entrance to a childrens' area.

Since I do mainly horses and have seen it "all" in the real equine world (I bred, raised, trained and showed National winning horses), there are a lot of things that I would not sculpt for children to view. That includes a stallion mounting a mare. Do you have any idea how big and long a horse's penis is when extended? They are very prodigious and although it is something natural, it does not mean that it is something wholesome for small children to view. I did see a bronze sculpture years ago at a venue I was attending with this scene as the inspiration for the bronze. It was tastelessly done and all of the people I saw viewing it were snickering, gufawing and pointing to it to their friends. It became an object of ridicule and scorn. It does not mean that all of these people were prudes; it's just that there is a time and place for everything and this sculpture did not fit in with the venue (which included small children). My bronzes and resins have always been anatomically correct. I do not hide parts of their anatomy for fear of reprisal, but I also keep in mind what is considered tasteful and tasteless in society if these sculptures will be viewed in the public.

The examples in the previous post are good examples of anatomical parts which ARE in public places which are acceptible. If not, they would also have been removed. I just think that the whole concept of the lions and rams was unacceptible for the venue in which they were placed. Just my $.02 worth. :)

[Landseer]

I agree, that it would be stupid to leave out natural body parts of animals. After reviewing the photos originally posted in this thread, though, I can see why some people objected to the sculptures. I don't think it is the "family jewels" that disturbs people so much as does the position of the lion over the ram. It is a suggestive pose which could be considered inappropriate for entrance to a childrens' area.
I'm not sure, it was probably both, the articles I read all mentioned how the lion's tails were swished to the side showing...- and then the article sidesteps "testicles" used as even a medical term- like it was the "F" word.

That includes a stallion mounting a mare. Do you have any idea how big and long a horse's penis is when extended? Some of us know all of this a little more in depth on this topic than you might think or wish to imagine. There are also plenty of photos and videos clips which amply show any details one wishes to see- including A.I and natural matings, so yes, I DO know the size- approximately 30" , or for ease of visualizing- figure on roughly the size of man's arm, 12-18" for a mini, up to 8 or 9 for a large dog.
But penis size is not the point at least with the lions (though I know what you are speaking of in regards to OTHER models) as the lion's were not in a mating position with an erection, they were simply in a pose that SOME 'think' they see as "sexual"- typically I would bet they get all upset over nude animals in the field, or as I've read once- a woman who was so upset seeing a couple of horses mate in a field next to where she lived, she filed a complaint or lawsuit I forget which, and wanted a fence put up.

The thing is, do we remove everything that 99% enjoy because 1% don't like it?


They are very prodigious and although it is something natural, it does not mean that it is something wholesome for small children to view. You have to remember one thing- back in the days pre 1900 when horses were THE automobile of the day, the children not only knew how to ride them, but living around horses and farms they no doubt saw PLENTY, daddy no doubt helped the stallion into the mare and all the rest of the chores around the farm with the kid's help, it was a normal natural daily occurance just like disposing of the dead animals was, so what's the big deal NOW with kids seeing these things?

I did see a bronze sculpture years ago at a venue I was attending with this scene as the inspiration for the bronze. It was tastelessly done and all of the people I saw viewing it were snickering, gufawing and pointing to it to their friends. It became an object of ridicule and scorn. I suspect much of it had to do with embarassment, but if it was tastelessly done then that was it's shortfall, OTH if it was done more like the Pan and the Goat marble from Herculaneum shown further back in this thread, I suspect the story would have been different. There's a difference between crude, rude, pornographic for shock value, and a sensitively done model of the same scene.

I have seen a bronze of a dog defecating, in fact I bought it on Ebay because it was so different and unique, but returned it right away only because the cast and the model were so POORLY done it looked like someone's first attempt at sculpting.

t does not mean that all of these people were prudes; it's just that there is a time and place for everything and this sculpture did not fit in with the venue (which included small children). Granted, a scene of a lion ATTACKING a ram by the throat in a death grip would be inappropriate and upsetting for a children's park display, I didn't see THIS lion and ram in that pose. I did at first assume it was a violent death grip according to the article which indicated the lion was attacking or pouncing on the ram, but when I saw it in the photo, it was near Disney-land character in it's execution- like Bugs Bunny holding Daffy duck down on the ground, I had to laugh!

I would say it's almost more along the lines of the Biblical "Lion shall lay with the lamb" theme than either violence or sexual, but then I've only seen the one angle view.

My bronzes and resins have always been anatomically correct. I do not hide parts of their anatomy for fear of reprisal, but I also keep in mind what is considered tasteful and tasteless in society if these sculptures will be viewed in the public. All of my animal models and dog bronzes have always been male, and correct, but as you point out indirectly- showing an erection on a model might be a bit out of place, then again horses as you know "relax" sometimes and their penis shows, usually at bad times.

The examples in the previous post are good examples of anatomical parts which ARE in public places which are acceptible. If not, they would also have been removed. I just think that the whole concept of the lions and rams was unacceptible for the venue in which they were placed. Those lions I posted were all done in the 19th century or earlier, in the "prudish" Victoria era, they were perfectly acceptable or as you point out- they wouldn't be there, so why is TODAY during th so called free enlightenment times would they NOT be acceptable!

I can agree that lions attacking a ram- in a childrens park is a stupid place to put them, but then again, at some point kids HAVE to learn that like it or not- lions, wolves etc DO catch, brutally slaughter (according to OUR ethics) , tear apart while still alive and eat ~Bambi~, and that most baby animals in many species never make it to adulthood- they become food for other animals.

[Merlion]

Controversy over the topic raised in this thread is never ending not only in the US, but also all over the world. This is the story from South Africa, interestingly published in a Zambia site.

Town gets knickers in a knot for naked statue (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20061210113954866C771488)

A giant carbon steel statue of a naked black man erected above the entrance of a new upmarket apartment block on Strand's beachfront is causing a stir in the conservative town.

The 750kg, 2,6m high statue, titled Positive, created by local sculptor Angus Taylor, was lifted into place by a crane in front of Cape Sands on Friday.

Strand couple Cirina and Frans Louw said it was scandalous.

"We were shocked to see how big it is," she said.

"It is disgusting. If the owner likes it so much he should put it in his lounge. Why must we Christians be subjected to this?"

"What about the children?" Frans wanted to know.

A Somerset West woman, who did not wish to be named, said: "I'm not used to seeing a naked man so it is intriguing."

To which her friend responded: "For such a big statue it's not well-endowed."

Engela Pienaar said: "This is a conservative town and by tomorrow it will probably have underpants or a robe on it."

The apartment block was built and is owned by Belgian architect Willy Woestyn who lives in Strand.

Woestyn, a patron of the arts, said: "When I designed this building, I created that specific space for a sculpture. I searched for the ideal creation for a year and when I saw this piece at an exhibition in Franschhoek, I knew it was the one. It's beautiful. I don't care what people say, it's here to stay."

He paid R100 000 [currently about US$14,000] for the work which was first placed outside the University of Potchefstroom where students painted an old South African flag over it. After that they also placed an apron on it. ....

[Landseer]

"It is disgusting....Why must we Christians be subjected to this?"

"What about the children?" Frans wanted to know.

Engela Pienaar said: "This is a conservative town and by tomorrow it will probably have underpants or a robe on it."

Naturally, religion comes into it, the human NUDE body is filty, nasty and disgusting you know, even if it is metal it must be COVERED and it must be covered lest the CHIlDrUn see it!

No doubt it will have a robe over it, people are screwballs.

[Merlion]

This topic 'public displaying of nude art' never fails to attract attention and news stories. This story is again from the US, from a town called Brighton. Reaction is not all negative. The town official seems to like it.

Actually because a local resident, a gadfly, started complaining about a public nude art, this helped to publicise the statue and got people in the State notice the town's art Biennalle. "People are talking about art." This extra publicity made the organiser very happy.

Nude statue had tongues wagging (http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/NEWS01/612280307)

For several weeks in spring 2006, the bronze sculpture in front of Brighton's Mill Pond stood alone and unknown. Jay Holland's bronze sculpture, "Decision Pending," was just another one of the 28 sculptures in the Brighton Biennial, an outdoor sculpture exhibit.

Then he was discovered.

Brighton city resident and gadfly Susan Walters-Steinacker walked by and noticed he was nude and, let's just say, complete. She and a few other residents called a state senator's office to complain, and soon everyone was checking out the nude piece.

"Decision Pending" became a star, and the Brighton Biennial was put on the map.

People were driving into town and having their photographs taken beside the piece that has universally became known as the "naked man."

Although residents' opinions of the artwork varies, organizers of the Biennial accomplished their goal by placing artwork through downtown Brighton. People are talking about art.

"If it wasn't for Susan Walters-Steinacker, the Brighton Biennial would have gone unnoticed," said John Sauve, who organized the Biennial and serves as its curator.

Sauve said he received a telephone call from Holland, the nationally-known artist who created the nude sculpture, and how he appreciated what Walters-Steinacker had done.

Sauve said Holland told him, "We couldn't get this much press if we paid for it. I want to personally come out and thank her." .....

[Tlouis]

Hi Merlion

Another very interesting post. Perhaps the complaining woman was disappointed the nude wasn't "energetic" enough for her.

Several pictures of this sculpture including a close-up of the offending member can be seen at:

www.detroitfunk.com

Viewers have posted comments. Some quite funny.

Happy New Year

Lou

[MountainSong]

Merlion the sheep statue article was funny!

I love a good nude statue/painting but this picture is something I’d leave to children to find when they are old enough - let’s just say it’s too naked:

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/jenny_saville.htm


Sorry it’s kinda back on topic. Nude/naked. Boundary’s/no Boundary’s.

[tonofelephant]

Could not find the image with Tlouis message. Try this one - http://www.art-exchange.com/search_result_details.aspx?ArtId=1201

Carl

[Merlion]

Carl, thanks for the link. The indicated price is $45,000. It looks life-size to me, but at this price the space allocated for size shows only 0" x 0" x 0".

Anyway, I did a search and find the link Tluois was trying to show but didn't show up. The link is below with site pictures of the statue and some more interesting information on its story.

Decision Pending (http://www.detroitfunk.com/2006/06/decision_pending.html)

"Decision Pending" a now ironic title for a powerful bronze piece by Detroit area sculptor Jay Holland.

This sculpture is part of a two year rotating public art program in Brighton. The idea is to get some culture into the sterile lilly-white sheltered environs of the town of Brighton. Well, to be fair to 99.99999% of the residents, everybody seems to be receptive to the project.

Ah, but these things tend to flush out the freaks and culturally depraved. . .

From the local Brighton paper, to the local Channel 2/4 and 7 news shows, the same mantra - from ONE person !

Brighton resident Susan Walters-Steinacker, one of those who called the office of state Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Marion Township, said she was driving by the Mill Pond when she first saw the sculpture and was shocked. She later walked up to the sculpture to verify the piece was anatomically correct from both the front and back.

"I am disgusted, I am appalled," Walters-Steinacker said.

If she visited a museum with sculptures that "have those things," Walters-Steinacker said she could at least walk away, but Holland's sculpture is located in a public area where everyone has to see it.

"This is embarrassing to me, as an adult, to have it thrown in my face," she said.

Walters-Steinacker said she feels uncomfortable and wouldn't take her grandchildren to the Mill Pond as long as that statue was there. She doesn't feel parents should be forced to explain these pieces of art that, she said, are being thrown into people's faces. She questioned how Brighton, which prides itself on being family-oriented, could justify having a naked statue on display in public.

"It needs to go," she said. ......

Somebody shocked that a sculpture would actually have one of those "things". Well heres some news for you lady HALF OF THE WORLDS PEOPLE HAVE THOSE "THINGS". .....

Heres the response from the State Rep that the woman called to complain to:
"My personal opinion is it's great to have art in the community, but some pieces are best left in the museum," (Republican State Sen. Valde Garcia) said. "Nude sculptures are considered to be art, but why do we have a sculpture of a naked man in public?" ....

And whats worse is that local media picks it up and runs with it for several days, encoraging such childish behavior. "Look, it has a pee-pee!" :) :)

[MountainSong]

*LOL* That's just being silly to be upset about that sculpture. It's not offensive, a bit lumpy maybe but hardly offensive.

[Tlouis]

Hi All

The irony in all this is that--from my experience anyway--kids who see sculpture of nude men or women usually just giggle and walk on. They're not shocked or traumatized in any way, and soon forget what they've seen. It's the adults that put a nasty spin on nude sculpture.

This woman has grand children? Pity the poor kids.

Get a life grandma!

Y'all have a great and sculpture rich New Year.

Lou

PS I wrote this while semi-nude wearing just a pair of shorts. Hope no one is offended.

[Merlion]

PS I wrote this while semi-nude wearing just a pair of shorts. Hope no one is offended.
How are we going to believe you Tlouis? Unless you take and show us a picture of you like this. :)

[MountainSong]

Hey Mr. Chillin in your shorts half nude , :cool: just out of curiosity are you cool with your grandchildren seeing this artists work live and 8 feet tall?


http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/jenny_saville.htm

It's a serious question, cause I wouldn't have wanted to see it as a kid or even a teenager. To be honest I liked my innocence for as long as it lasted and this would have made sex in the future a weird thing for me that had to be absolved/gotten over in order to really enjoy without strange mental flashes during the act which probably would have been mixed up with dead cows and corpulent pigs not to mention he-she’s.

Life’s weird enough you know? And let's face it, women with uncomfortable associations in their sex lives make for men who don't get..... er, uhm... :o
Why mess with a good thing right?

Nudity particularly romantic nudity (as in the classics) = good thing.
Scary nudity= bad thing.
Lines can be a good thing. Think self preservation of happiness. ;)

[sculptor]

innocence ain't 'bout what you see
it's more about what you think or feel
"eye of the beholder" and all that

about the above, ... static pose, lumpy and not very interesting fersure

as to children, mine grew up with my models and sculptures and ain't suffered from it.
if anything, they're a tad more conservative than their old dad
very noticeable when i wish to discuss their sex-lives, and when I mention their parent's sex lives, they almost hold their hands over their ears and dance arround chanting la-la-la-la-la-

the population decline in the industrialized world may be directly tied to the repugnant repression of seeing and or sculpting the figure in all it's beauty.
Can we as a species will ourselves into extinction?

[MountainSong]

So you went to the link, looked at Jenny Seville's work, maybe googled her name to see more and are totally comfortable with it or are you just generalizing?

Really I want to know. Did your kids grow up with work like this or more classical nudity?

[dondougan]

"Nudity particularly romantic nudity (as in the classics) = good thing.
Scary nudity= bad thing.
Lines can be a good thing. Think self preservation of happiness."

How can you generalize something like that? It is like saying there is no gray only black and white.

To use well-established examples, look at Francis Bacon's work, or going back further Goya's "Chronos Eating His Children."
Scary? YES. Good thing? YES. Something you want to hang in your kitchen, your bedroom, or a child's room? Probably NOT.

Jenny Saville's work may not be easy to live with, but trying to hide it from children simply provides more power to the image when it is seen later. By allowing it to be seen and processed by the 'innocent' minds the concepts it represents can be put in perspective by the questions it gives rise to, and the comments/reactions the surrounding adults give it. Being exposed to it — in public places such as museums and galleries — can only broaden the horizons of a growing mind and prevent the child from inhabiting an insular make-believe utopia that has nothing to do with the real world.

Happiness is a relative thing too — in this increasingly fragmented (pluralistic) world are you saying ignorance is bliss? Rather than being like the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand, I have always found it is only by observing and being curious about everything that I can see distinguish the difference between fool's gold and the real treasures in our world. The more you know the more discriminating your perceptions — and that is what I want my children to learn.

Don

[JamesW]

I'd pretty much echo what Don has said.
Mountainsong - not sure what you mean by scary nudity.
Is it
male nudity = OK
female nudity = OK
transgender nudity = Not OK ?
Remember that the nude portrait is of a real person - a member of our community.
As for kids - its important that adults model a calm, no fuss response. Like Lou, my experience has been that kids' response to nude art is to just giggle and walk on.
And as for the carcass & pigs belly although they are rounded, fecund images they don't read as sexual to me. None of theses images would arise for me during the, um, act. Although my own belly has a porcine quality - sorry too much information.

James

[Tlouis]

Hi All

Sorry the address link in my previous post was inadequate. The following will get you to the additional pictures:

www.detroitfunk.com/2006/06/10/decision_pending.htm

MountainSong: Had I been blessed with grandchildren I would not have covered their eyes when passing Mr Hollands nude man. And I would have answered any questions they might have had as directly and honestly as possible. Kids know a damn sight more than we think they do--and I speak from experience--so trying to deflect their curosity with obfuscating answers will only make them more curious and send the message that THIS isn't to be spoken about. Which would only raise more questions and might send them to less than nice adults, ie swaggering, foul-mouthed teenagers to get the answers they seek. It did me.

As for explaining Jenny Saville's painting of a hermaphrodite...well, that would be a tough call. I doubt if any explanation would satisfy a child younger than say 13 or 14. :eek:

Let's not anyone overdo the New Year's champagne. There's nothing worse than a champagne hangover.

Merlion. I didn't post pictures of my corpus humani nudi because I didn't want any kiddies out there to fall down laughing, nor did I want to cause any grandma's to have impure thoughts.

Lou

Don't know why link address shows up missiing three letters. It's decision_pending.htm

[MountainSong]

"Nudity particularly romantic nudity (as in the classics) = good thing.
Scary nudity= bad thing.
Lines can be a good thing. Think self preservation of happiness."

How can you generalize something like that? It is like saying there is no gray only black and white.

I'm saying there's gray, black and white - not just gray. And each of use must determine for ourselves what the percentages are for each of those.

To use well-established examples, look at Francis Bacon's work, or going back further Goya's "Chronos Eating His Children."
Scary? YES. Good thing? YES. Something you want to hang in your kitchen, your bedroom, or a child's room? Probably NOT.

Jenny Saville's work may not be easy to live with, but trying to hide it from children simply provides more power to the image when it is seen later. By allowing it to be seen and processed by the 'innocent' minds the concepts it represents can be put in perspective by the questions it gives rise to, and the comments/reactions the surrounding adults give it. Being exposed to it — in public places such as museums and galleries — can only broaden the horizons of a growing mind and prevent the child from inhabiting an insular make-believe utopia that has nothing to do with the real world.

Not following you on this one. I'm talking about not dragging my kids off to see it. They'd rather be playing ball with their friends anyway and by the time they do see it, in their teens or early twenties, they'll take it in stride most likely. There is a natural unfolding of events that happens if we go with the flow in life and don't push the envelope all the time.
As far and the comment on 'inhabiting an insular make-believe utopia, I don't know how, nor why you would want to stop this in a child, it's part of the chemical make up of their brain at the younger ages and slowly dissipates as they move into puberty and is as it should be - they do not live in the real world as we adults see it and shouldn't have to either.


Happiness is a relative thing too — in this increasingly fragmented (pluralistic) world are you saying ignorance is bliss? Rather than being like the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand, I have always found it is only by observing and being curious about everything that I can see distinguish the difference between fool's gold and the real treasures in our world. The more you know the more discriminating your perceptions — and that is what I want my children to learn.

Yep, not agreeing here either.
Ignorance is not to be confused with unintelligence. Ignorance is lack of exposure of information, intelligence is the capacity for learning and faculty for understanding.

I’ve traveled extensively in third world undeveloped countries and you know what? They are happier people than people of the first world. They laugh, quicker, longer and more heartily, they help each other out more, and they are far less jaded and cynical. They hardly own a thing and that’s just not very important to them - family, friends and community are however.

Now you could take them and put them in the first world with all its
technology, superior infrastructure, vaccinations, cool gadgets, instant communication and amazing entertainment complexes and they’d think they’d died and gone to heaven once they got over the shock of it all. It’d be a premier experience for them.
But you can’t take us and put us in their world and expect us to be as happy as they are because we take with us the knowledge of nuclear bombs, chemical warfare, bio-terrorism, disease, genetic altering, instant communication, home delivered food, modern utilities and sewage, instant world news, caffeine, the world wide web, 401 k’s, movies, pain pills, etc.

Normalcy to us is extremely stimulating by any other standards than our own, it’s highly customized, fast paced and extremely convenient, it’s a billion GB of information and entertainment coming at us from all sides.
Let’s face it, we as a society stand in danger of becoming terminally bored if all this stimulation ever stops or slows down. And to keep getting our dosages of stimulation we have to expose ourselves to more and more ‘stuff’. (does current cutting edge art spell this out or what??) The Romans did that – didn’t work out for them so well…..an entire civilization who fell into complete apathy and then out of existence right. So yah, ignorance can be bliss.
So if you want to go see all this stuff and take your kids with you – go for it. Me and mine will pace ourselves so there’ still some stuff to be experienced and some flavor to life at 80- 90 yrs old.





Don[/QUOTE]

[MountainSong]

I'd pretty much echo what Don has said.
Mountainsong - not sure what you mean by scary nudity.
Is it
male nudity = OK
female nudity = OK
transgender nudity = Not OK ?
Remember that the nude portrait is of a real person - a member of our community.

James

Well sure James, I'll go with that. I'm not in a particularly PC kinda mood today. :D

[terracotta]

Here's another, in Jamaica http://www.geocities.com/emancipationstatues/

[MountainSong]

AH, I hope they don't recall them, they are really rather nice.

[Thatch]

I remember going to the National Gallery when I was 11 and seeing a nude sculpture. I remember viewing it. I don't recall any lewd thoughts about it though I do remember having them while at that age and often since. Never has a piece of art created the type of reaction I got from sneaking peeks at my father's Playboy magazines and while my wife's nephew was sneaking peeks at a brighly painted nude on the livingroom wall while visiting last summer I don't think he paid the slightest attention to any of my sculptures, some of which are fairly graphic, being much more interested in the cats. Most everybody has seen animals copulate before they are told about what it is they are doing and since everyone alive has a body it shouldn't be a big mystery. The chick with the dick would be a bit over the line for public viewing but to each his own and if someone wants to hang that in their house, let them.

Thatch

[terracotta]

going back to the lions at the shopping centre, maybe we missed the point. Perhaps it was not graphic realism that was the problem, but the symbolism. A hungry developer devours the landscape for another pointless consumerist centre, rapacious businesses devour their customers, greedy consumers eat up the earth... so no wonder lions eating their prey were disturbing symbols for adults to see outside a shopping centre...

Now why didn't they commission a piece about the lion lying down with the lamb?

[Merlion]

I have been waiting to see how China takes to public nude sculptures. Here is one news story, very short, no photo. I tried to search for it but no luck so far. From what we can read into it, the newspaper seems to be neutral about this.

Guangzhou is a very commercial and dynamic city near Hong Kong.

Nude sculpture creates stir (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/08/content_804222.htm)

Guangzhou Sculpture Park has caused a controversy by displaying a sculpture of a naked woman in a prominent position.

The naked woman sculpture, on display since last week, was carved by Tang Daxi, a well-known local sculptor, showing the brave and healthy image of a girl.

Many local residents complained the sculpture was dirty and did not keep with Chinese tradition. Others, including many artists, praise the sculpture, saying it's a great artwork.

For those with further interest, China's online newspapers by now do not hesitate to show news worthy semi-nude photos. Here is one example.

The undressing Harry Potter star (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/2007-02/05/content_801293.htm)

[Landseer]

I did a little image searching just for the heck of it, I found one more different photo of that 1st century BC Pan & goat marble sculpture than I have, same frontal view but higher angle, so far for some reason I have not found any other views of the sides, or the back.
It appears to be on a pedistal or table up against the wall or something.

The one I found tonight had a photographers name on it which led me to a Greek mythology site which led me to the author of the site which is in English, the photo caption is in Italian so I figured the site author would be the better one to email.

Gruppo Marmoeo de Pan e Capra. Ercolana
Photo (C) Maicar Forlag- GML

I emailed the site author just now to inquire- shake the tree and see what falls out http://www.artspan.com/community/images/smilies/smile.gif

http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=3091

I also found this article on the museum where this is, relevent to this thread in how these works found in Pompei were and basically stilla re kept locked up behind closed doors;

Robert Fulford's column about the erotic art of Pompeii

(The National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/), December 5, 2000) In the National Archeological Museum in Naples, right beside two large public rooms crammed with masterpieces found in the buried city of Pompeii, black iron gates and a surly attendant stand guard over a space called the Gabinetto Segretto, the secret room. This is the new repository for the erotic art that has created both scandal and delight ever since archeologists of Pompeii began uncovering it in the 18th century.



Giuseppe Garibaldi's government in the 1860s let the public see it, but when power passed to the Savoy kings, they buried the collection again. It was largely hidden during the period of Benito Mussolini, from 1922 to 1943. Even in the late 1940s, anyone wishing to see it needed written permission from a government official, attesting to serious purpose (there was a brisk trade in counterfeit permits). A special pornography room opened in the 1970s but soon closed, rather mysteriously, for "renovations." This year, after much private twittering, the museum has at last provided its pornographic holdings with what the curators consider an appropriately serious context.

When I was there last week, the otherwise sophisticated guide who was showing a group through the museum said he found the room disgusting and more or less advised us that we could see it at our own moral risk, without him. When entering the museum we had to make a reservation for this one part of the building, precisely scheduling our occasion of sin. There was no extra charge: The museum doesn't want to be seen profiting from pornography.

http://www.robertfulford.com/PompeiiEroticArt.html

[Merlion]

This is the situation in Singapore on this matter.

Over here the boundary of public taste is slowly being pushed back over the years. But even I have to admit this art gallery is challenging this boundary too boldly and too loud. Bear in mind this is a 4 m (13 ft) tall painting of a nude woman in full frontal pose, displayed in the public atrium of the building housing the government Ministry with portfolio covering the arts. Finally this painting is still being displayed, but inside the art gallery.

Painting Of Nude Woman Prohibited From Public Viewing In Singapore (http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_16546-Painting-Of-Nude-Woman-Prohibited-From-Public-Viewing-In-Singapore.html)

Feb 28, 2007. An art gallery in Singapore has been told it cannot display a four-metre high painting of a nude woman in the public atrium of a government building, but can show it out of the public's view, a ministry said on Wednesday.

SooBin Art Gallery wanted to showcase the 60,000-US-dollar oil painting by a Beijing artist in the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts building as part of an exhibition on the ground floor.

Under the Media Development Authority's guidelines, nude or erotic artworks "should not be displayed in venues which are easily accessible to general audiences, including children and youths," The Straits Times quoted a ministry spokesman as saying.

The atrium is a public area and display materials "should not offend general standards of taste and decency," he said, adding the restriction was not a total ban.

The painting depicting a model covered in soap suds against a black backdrop with a parrot flying over her head was on display briefly on Tuesday night during the opening reception for invited guests. Later it was turned to face the wall.

It is the centrepiece of a month-long exhibition by artist Chen Xi, 38. ....

[sculptor]

So you went to the link, looked at Jenny Seville's work, maybe googled her name to see more and are totally comfortable with it or are you just generalizing?

Really I want to know. Did your kids grow up with work like this or more classical nudity?

Yes,
unimpressed
and classical

[Merlion]

Feb 28, 2007. An art gallery in Singapore has been told it cannot display a four-metre high painting of a nude woman in the public atrium of a government building, but can show it out of the public's view, a ministry said on Wednesday.
SooBin Art Gallery wanted to showcase the 60,000-US-dollar oil painting by a Beijing artist in the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts building as part of an exhibition on the ground floor. ....

The painting depicting a model covered in soap suds against a black backdrop with a parrot flying over her head was on display briefly on Tuesday night during the opening reception for invited guests. Later it was turned to face the wall.

It is the centrepiece of a month-long exhibition by artist Chen Xi, 38. ....
The Art Gallery subsequently moved the huge painting into their Gallery. As their ceiling is not tall enough, they had to place it horizontally.

Now the painting has been sold, at this US$60,000 price, to a Singaporean. It is very fast work. Perhaps the extra publicity helps.

Nude Painting Sold After Singapore Prohibits General Viewing (http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_17712-Nude-Painting-Sold-After-Singapore-Prohibits-General-Viewing.html)

A 4-metre-high nude painting barred from general public viewing in restrictive Singapore has been sold for 60,000 US dollars to an art collector, the gallery owner said on Wednesday. ....

[evaldart]

Jenny Seville is a recognized painter because of HOW she paints not What she paints. I have seen her gallery shows in soho since she burst in. The paintings are so large that one cannot back away enough to compile the brushstroke information at first, your eyes have to adjust. She slashes meat-colored paint in such a way that you imagine she uses no revision, like a figurative Franz Kline. She has found a subject, herself, that time and again allows her to attack the canvas in the way she feels most effective. It hasn't hurt her rise in the artworld that her self-portraits may be considered "ghastly" (in a good way). But I'm quite sure that if she were to paint a Ceasar's salad instead it woul be one big, giant, ghastly Ceasars salad.

I'd have no problem with my kids seeing her work, my son, 7, would be amazed by her technique and then probably wisecrack about the big naked lady. But I would't want to have to try to explain some of the more challenging Maplethorpe's to him just yet. ("well son, its not about the bullwhip its about his printing quality...") No, not yet.

[Merlion]

This happens in Norway, in a famous sculpture park. But this is not censorship by the authorities, but by someone under the cover of darkness.

Vigeland statues censored (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1691701.ece)

The famed nude statues that fill the Vigeland Sculpture Park in Oslo were censored overnight.

Early morning strollers in Oslo's famous park on Thursday could note with surprise that someone had taken the time to hang bars of black paper over every sex organ and buttock cleft in the series of statues on the park bridge.

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00527/FROGNERPARKEN__skul_527514h.jpg


Only the best known figure, the furious child known as Sinnataggen, was allowed to stay uncovered. All other figures on the bridge, regardless of size or what was exposed, were given the black bars usually seen in censored material.

"There is too much nudity in newspapers and magazines, so here on the bridge the limit has been reached!" read a note left behind from the person or persons who used the cover of night to leave this unique editorial statement on one of Norway's best-known tourist landmarks......

[GlennT]

Dateline 2007, New world Order Times:

Everyone on Earth woke up today to find their genetalia had disappeared. Also, there were notes left in every home written in goldleaf on parchement paper that read, " There is too much nudity in the world, so I decided it had to stop. GOD "

[Merlion]

The park has many nude sculptures. It is the statues along this bridge that this puritanical prankster left his/her fig-leaf trail.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/287724209_c3bc2b9e64_m.jpg

[Merlion]

The Seattle Art Museum was landed with a million dollar problem to solve, related to the public displaying of a nude male. Read on if you want to see how they solved it.

At the bottom are two links to photos of the final sculpture.

Seattle Answers Challenge Of Naked Art Sculpture (http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4165491.html)

SEATTLE - A dying man left the Seattle Art Museum a million dollars for a statue.

But not just for any statue. He said the sculpture had to include a naked man, or, the museum doesn't get the money.

The new statue will be prominently displayed at the Seattle Art Museum's new sculpture park on the waterfront near where the trolley will come in.

There are crude sketches that show the sculpture "Father and Son". It is the work of renowned artist Louise Bourgeois.

http://media.komotv.com/images/naked_art_092805.jpg

The estate of art lover Stu Smailes is paying for the million-dollar piece.

But his lawyer says Smailes threw a hitch in to his will -- any sculpture he paid for had to include a nude male.

"So it was really a challenge to the city: 'Will you use my money to do what I want?' " said Tim Bradbury, attorney for the Smailes Estate. "And they did."

Lisa Corrin, the artistic lead for the sculpture park, says the Seattle Art Museum never balked at the challenge.

"It was never an issue," she said. "I can say that with my hand over my heart. The nakedness in the piece is not gratuitous, it's very much about an emotional nakedness they become very vulnerable to each other."

The father and son figures, made of stainless steel, reach out to one another, but one or the other is always shrouded in water.

"So this father and son are endlessly seeking each other and never being able to reach each other," Bradbury said.....

Link to photo of Louise Bourgeois's "Father and Son (http://www.flickr.com/photos/saska/364063520/)". And here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2003630068.html) is a bird's eye view of the same fountain sculpture.

[Landseer]

These two larger than life limestone carvings are on the facade of Rockefeller Center, NYC not far above eye level.
Circa 1930 leaving nothing to imagination;

[evaldart]

I recall a group of teenagers admiring that work as I coffee'd myself on the sidewalk there. I laughed out loud as one of them exclaimed "daaaamn bro, thats booty-licious". I looked at the relief with new eyes. Indeed it was.

[fritchie]

Pretty well-fed thighs, both women and men.

[Landseer]

Pretty well-fed thighs, both women and men.LOL you noticed that too? they look a little chunky or Michelin tire man-ish.

Odd sculptures, and they are right there on the facade in midtown Manhattan in a very busy area with lots of people and traffic, and ST Patrics cathedral is nearby as well if not across the street.

[gschnapp]

I am relieved they are not lion balls.

Greg

[Merlion]

Odd sculptures, and they are right there on the facade in midtown Manhattan in a very busy area with lots of people and traffic, and ST Patrics cathedral is nearby as well if not across the street.
Double standard !! Not fair !! Accepted in NYC and not accepted in other places like Loveland. :)

[sculptor]

Double standard !! Not fair !! Accepted in NYC and not accepted in other places like Loveland. :)

Maybe not a double standard

Maybe, just maybe, in new york they've learned to ignore the loud mouthed loonies?

[fritchie]

[QUOTE=Landseer]LOL you noticed that too? they look a little chunky or Michelin tire man-ish./QUOTE]

The boy in the right photo very much has Michelin legs. I had that same thought about him. He's probably worst among the group, to my taste. I haven't checked into the sculptor, though Rockefeller must have chosen popular artists. Is that part of his/her style, or are these exaggerations for the Center?

[Merlion]

At the same Rockefeller Center, NYC, is this bas relief nude more acceptable?

http://bluedandelion.net/english/nyc/P3240186.jpg

[evaldart]

This one is definitely lower in relief, less in-your-face, less booty-licious. And its gilded...takes something away from the figuration makes you think more about its ornamental qualitites. Opulent or excessive...in a good way.

[Landseer]

The boy in the right photo very much has Michelin legs. I had that same thought about him. He's probably worst among the group, to my taste. I haven't checked into the sculptor, though Rockefeller must have chosen popular artists. Is that part of his/her style, or are these exaggerations for the Center?The boy has a very stiff odd posture that reminds me of a marionette!
I don't like him at all. I think the best figure of the bunch is the nude male's back

I don't know if that was the sculptor's style or that was just a poorly done piece, the building complex was built 1930-1939 right in the Art Deco period so some may be style.

The complex used a few sculpors but I believe the sculptor of this was Lee Lawrie and he studied with Augustus St-Gaudens. Lee did the bulk of the artwork but not all of it so it may not be his work.

I found a pic of another sculpure like this there, odd thing is all of the figures were done in such a way that a hanging arm of one visually covered the genitals of another, while another has a small piece of cloth or drapery covering, and others are standing in such a way that one's hips or leg covers another's genitals, yet, ONE female figure has full frontal nudity which kind of negates the other's "modesty", not sure what the reason was.

Here's a couple of others;

http://flickr.com/photos/wallyg/451875851/in/set-72157600056966734/
http://flickr.com/photos/15937237@N00/399777611/in/pool-rockefellercenter/

[Landseer]

I am relieved they are not lion balls.

GregWell gosh, funny you mention that!

look!! another sculpture there just happens to HAVE lion balls in the group, here's the amazing photo!

[evaldart]

Heres a big nude out at the Tennis Center in Queens, NY. Arthur Ashe memorial by...Eric Fischl (the painter). He has never bee afaraid to misuse nudity in his painting to add some punch. I feel the same is happening here. Its stylized enough that no one seems to mind. I doubt that Ashe was fond of playing tennis in the nude, doesn't serve the purpose as a memorial. Another example, I suppose, of a famous painter's "sculptor envy".

[madrabbitwoman]

I don't expect everyone to agree, but this is my view;

Someone wrote "por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f) n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

I reckon that just about sums up the Koon man's "art" - my personal opinion is that he tries to call it art to expose (sorry) it to a wider audience, or a cheap trick to try to force the world to accept what is acceptable where he lives (is it??) is as acceptable as everyone else's.

I wonder what the reaction would be if an artist from a more relaxed (about these things) country published artistic nudity on a site or displayed a nude sculpture in a strict Muslim or other (please excuse my ignorance) more conservative area? I guess we all have to respect the cultural differences in the world? :confused:

It bugs me that so many "artists" really just do whatever is necessary to get a controversial reaction, perhaps to boost their profile up a bit. I'm all for controversial art like that of the disable pregnant lady (controvercy for a purpose - to raise awareness and acceptance of the differences and struggles she has, to improve the world a bit), but gratuatous photos of people's bits, or art aimed purely to distress the audience, is not, in my opinion, art.

One thing I would like to point out - I am on my lunch break at work, and I could very well get fired for what just popped up on my screen - I wonder if my boss's would believe I was looking as genuine art?! :mad: Perhaps a warning next time...? :(

I'm sorry to be so strong but isn't art something that defines us humans as civilised? :rolleyes:

[fritchie]

The Arthur Ashe piece can't possible be a portrait of Ashe, by any exaggeration of the meaning. Ashe's pictures, as I remember them, were of a rather thin man, and my impression is that he also more or less avoided publicity. The artist chose to use complete license in that case, it seems to me. And it's probably better art than a true portrait (in tennis clothing) would be.

[evaldart]

The Arthur Ashe piece can't possible be a portrait of Ashe, by any exaggeration of the meaning. Ashe's pictures, as I remember them, were of a rather thin man, and my impression is that he also more or less avoided publicity. The artist chose to use complete license in that case, it seems to me. And it's probably better art than a true portrait (in tennis clothing) would be.

Though he occasionally produces odd and exciting paintings and his brushy brand of figuration sometimes accidentally hits its mark, Fischl would probably not venture portraiture. Likeness are not his stregth, ESPECIALLY in sculpture. I would imagine he had plenty of well-paid help in bringing this about. He has painted nude athletes before (his baseball player being an amusing success) But in the public context his use of nudity is forced to become disarmed...maybe more fun than another pretentiously "proud" figure memorial, a twelve foot etched granite base with a bronze six foot chin-brandishing cherry on top.
Maybe it was just fun for him to work outside his usual medium, create something for once that could not be stashed under the bed.

[Landseer]

I don't expect everyone to agree, but this is my view;

Someone wrote "por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f) n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

I wonder what the reaction would be if an artist from a more relaxed (about these things) country published artistic nudity on a site or displayed a nude sculpture in a strict Muslim or other (please excuse my ignorance) more conservative area? I guess we all have to respect the cultural differences in the world? :confused:
I found an interesting 19th century artist who illustrated erotic books under pen name Paul Avril, I forget how I found his name/work, I was probably either searching "pan" or "goat" and found an image gallery with quite a few well done illustrations for a book. The illustrations were for a book from 1900 of sexual situations, but done in an old world style with a lot of muted pastel colors, rich backgrounds full of accessory details in the rooms- furniture, wall decor etc all very interestingly done without a trace of gore, grossness or just plain sleaze to be shocking. I like how he depicted the scenes which in a way remind me of wall murals or wallpaper.


The link which contains nudes in various sex acts is NOT work/school company of minors safe;

http://www.arterotismo.com/PaulAvril/index.htm

[Tlouis]

I can remember reading, some years ago, that some, tho not all sculptures at Rockerfeller Center were by Gaston Lachaise. He of the super zoftig boobs, belly and butt school. No doubt he was influenced by his wife's more than ample proportions.

Lou

[Landseer]

I can remember reading, some years ago, that some, tho not all sculptures at Rockerfeller Center were by Gaston Lachaise.

LouThere were a few artists who worked on this project, and what I read didn't conclusively attribute every specific work to a particular artist, though a few were, so it can be a little challenge to figure out and just going by "style" and likelyhood on some of them.

[fritchie]

All the works of Gaston Lachaise I know are much more "stylized", though very busty and hippy as you say. Though I can remember only cast works at this point. I doubt these are his, but possibly he made some sketches that were executed by stonemasons.

That work method, though, seems unlikely in context. Most work at that site probably was detailed fully by an acknowledged sculptor, even if executed by masons.

[Merlion]

Don't ask me if this is nude art. :)

It is if he is an artist. Nude performance art.

Nude Bather Arrested at Rome's Spanish Steps (http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=56419)

June 24, 2007, A 22-year-old American man was arrested on Sunday after an early morning naked bath in the historic Barcaccia fountain at the foot of Rome's Spanish Steps, an Italian news agency reported.

http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2007/m06/x79142537144980334.jpg

The man stripped and bathed in the 17th century Baroque fountain in front of a crowd of tourists, before being led away by police, AGI news agency said.

He faces charges of committing an obscene act, it said.....

[evaldart]

I knew an artist who made somewhat attractive abstract-expressionist wallpieces out of chewed-upubble-gum. He showed up nude at his opening at the Jersey City Museum, back when it was housed at the public Library. He seemed to be delighted at how everyone pretended not to notice that he was unclothed...they all fancied themselves too hip to be ruffled. But he played them all real good...made sure to gesture rowdily as he spoke to the art crowd, jangling as thier faces strained under their discomfort. He later tried to pull this act off accross the river at White Columns but it was passe there. The guy seemed to fade away after that - birthday suit traded-in for some kind of uniform and a paycheck.

[Landseer]

Here's another panel on a building in Paris by Antoine Sartorio with an African/Arabian theme, the lady's um, ... 'jugs' really jump out, they look like 2/3rds of a traffic light and the first thing you see;

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251407759&size=l

[Merlion]

Here's another panel on a building in Paris .....

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=251407759&size=l
Clicking into this link requires me to register with Yahoo before showing me the page. Other Flickr pages do not require this.

[Landseer]

Clicking into this link requires me to register with Yahoo before showing me the page. Other Flickr pages do not require this.Weird, I clicked on it and it pops right up... might be restricted due to "nudity" to logged in flicker.com members- a couple of my photos are set that way too.

[Merlion]

... might be restricted due to "nudity" to logged in flicker.com members- .
This may be the reason. YouTube also does the same.

Unless they think I am too young to see this sort of thing. :) :p

[Merlion]

Looks like Loveland does not mind this public nude art.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/Image/rose.jpg

The online story about this nude art is here.

The latest LR sculpture (http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/07/the_latest_lr_sculpture.aspx)

July 6, 2007, “Forever a Rose,” a life-sized bronze of a kneeling woman holding a rose, has been installed in Riverfront Park just west of the Main Street Bridge.

The sculpture, by Denny Haskew of Loveland, Colo., was a gift to the city....

[evaldart]

The above piece reminds me of Munch...one of my favorites. More psuchological than nude. Quite nice.

[Landseer]

One of the comments on that page says;

congratulations LR on your new lovely stature. Fort Baptist could take a tip, we've been trying public art and while I'm all for it.....the imported art on display here shows an amazing lack of talent. Plus some Ashcroft vandal cut the penis and balls off a bronze bird dog.....can you imagine? Ouch!

Next time you all are in town check out the giant 50 thousand buck vagina we got sitting in front of our new library. Like a friend of mine said, that ain't art....it's Art's old lady!


WHAT $50,000 vagina?
Someone cut the genitals off a dog bronze??

[Merlion]

This very nice sculpture by Denny Haskew is suitable for cemeteries. The sitting position reminds us of the little Mermaid of Copenhagen. But there seem to be something wrong in the breasts?

[MSC]

:rolleyes: Maybe I'm confused but I think I've been looking at nude sculptures in public settings since I was a new born. I don't ever remember being embarrased by them or concerned in the least by the nudity.

I did go to museums as a kid and there where four color glossy pictures of all kinds of nude people all over the place, and in the yards or on the steps out front, there where life sized full figures cast or carved. I remember nudes in the parks, or standing on some road side plinth or dolfins and frocking figures in some pool or another. I remember enjoying the jestures, the emotions, the stories in the pieces-- I don't really remember that they were nude or I didn't care that they were.

I can't imagine trying to limit myself to cloth covered figures though at times cloth can be helpful-- not that I actually do all that well with it.

[pylgrym]

I kept my (9) kids covered and my wife and myself covered at home but had a book of crucifixion art (Jesus was hanged naked; Adam and Eve were naked) and Dover Dore' Bible Illustrations. I raised my kids 'country', so they did NOT have TV; they got the facts of life from the barnyard and nature as well as from the Scriptures of the Old and New testaments. I always scouted ahead when we went to public places and avoided the naked stuff. Until barely a hundred years ago, U.S. ''indecent exposure'' laws were vigorously enforced. Can we say that public nudity in flesh, stone or metal 'naked art' has in any way, shape or form improved the world? Nakedness is everywhere and there is more crime, paranoia, sex-disease than ever!:confused:

[Merlion]

There are so much variations among individuals and families. It is more interesting to see how the general public in different countries and regions react to public display of nude art, say nude statues.

Generally Europe is more tolerant of such displays. After all, it was the ancient Greeks who started this trend, followed by the Romans, and the Renaisance artists.

The US is generally less tolerant. But there are variations as the US is such a big country.

[GlennT]

I always scouted ahead when we went to public places and avoided the naked stuff. Until barely a hundred years ago, U.S. ''indecent exposure'' laws were vigorously enforced. Can we say that public nudity in flesh, stone or metal 'naked art' has in any way, shape or form improved the world? Nakedness is everywhere and there is more crime, paranoia, sex-disease than ever!:confused:

I think that you need better discernment in attributing cause and effect, as it relates to this discussion. There are two different elements here, nudity, and nakedness. Nudity is art that has been created for centuries up to the present, done in a tasteful and artistic manner whereby the emphasis is on the expression of the soul, or idea beyond the form. Or upon the aesthetic beauty of the human form. The other expression of "nakedness" is the use of the human form to consciously emphasize sexuality and erotic elements. This is done more in other areas outside of fine art, such as billboards, TV, movies, pornography, advertising, etc.

Since you are making an observation about an increase of "crime, paranoia, and sex-disease " ( to which you could also add abortion and births outside of wedlock ) , this would be more attributable to the type of "nakedness" that I described, which has definitely increased in my lifetime, versus the nudity which has always existed in art and thus cannot be cited as a factor in the rise of the problems you mentioned.

I hope that the nudity is not what you are trying to shield your children from, else they may grow up to believe that the human form is something to be ashamed of rather than appreciated for its beauty. As I recall, God saw everything that he had made (including the human form ), and behold, it was good.

GlennT

[fritchie]

There are two different elements here, nudity, and nakedness. Nudity is art that has been created for centuries up to the present, done in a tasteful and artistic manner whereby the emphasis is on the expression of the soul, or idea beyond the form. Or upon the aesthetic beauty of the human form. The other expression of "nakedness" is the use of the human form to consciously emphasize sexuality and erotic elements. This is done more in other areas outside of fine art, such as billboards, TV, movies, pornography, advertising, etc. .... [part omitted ...] GlennT

An excellent illustration of that old Marshall MacLuhan (sp?) dictum, "The medium is the message", though with more discernment required.

[Landseer]

I raised my kids 'country', so they did NOT have TV; they got the facts of life from the barnyard and nature as well as from the Scriptures of the Old and New testaments.
Oh yes that explains the paranois against nudity... the infamous BOOK of knowlege, the one with factual and translation errors written by those who wanted to keep the sheeple in line, under control and more importantly the money flowing into their church coffers. DId they also learn about stoning people to death for adultry and other "crimes"? Maybe being taught THAT kind of rhettoric is what is causing the violence- the child who curses their parents it is ordered are to be stoned to death.

You might learn the truth about this book at http://www.evilbible.com

And see the movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com


Until barely a hundred years ago, U.S. ''indecent exposure'' laws were vigorously enforced. Oh? did you happen to notice all of the NUDE art and sculptures? Michaelangelo's David comes to mind, Augustus' "Diana" a monumental gilded sculpture with NUDE breasts on top of Stanford White's Madison Square Garden- in full view of everyone in New York City who cared to look up;

http://www.sgnhs.org/Augustus%20SGaudens%20CD-HTML/Monuments/Ideal/Diana2.htm




There are plenty of 19th century brownstones and buildings in Manhattant who feature nude caryatid type carvings, some right on either side of the entrance, with full breasts at eye level- attached a photo of one of them, not it's right next to the front door.


What happened was the religious reich became involved and that is why we have paranoid people today. I read in the paper about a teenaged girl who opened the mail and screamed in terror and ran screaming to mom, what did the girl see?
She saw pictures of NUDE men on the cover of a little a sales brochure for adult movies that wound up in their mail by mistake- NUDE pictures of men sent this teenager SCREAMING In panic to mom in the other room for comfort.

THAT is the depth of paranoi and panic installed by stupidity and parents who teach their kids as you have- to PANIC and be shamed.


Can we say that public nudity in flesh, stone or metal 'naked art' has in any way, shape or form improved the world? Nakedness is everywhere and there is more crime, paranoia, sex-disease than ever! The problem is NOT nudity, the problem is this country had 150 million in 1950 and today it has over 300 million- DOUBLE what it was, and this is where the problems- all of them come from- like rats who overstrip their environment with too many of them jammed into too small an area.

Here's a couple more nude sculptures, on the facade of Rockefeller center, NYC in full view of the entire city, circa 1930;

http://flickr.com/photos/chrisinphilly5448/482112027/in/pool-rockefellercenter/
http://flickr.com/photos/wallyg/451338073/in/set-72157600056966734/
http://flickr.com/photos/hjbizzarro/83648615/in/pool-rockefellercenter/
http://flickr.com/photos/fiatluxe/117210513/in/pool-rockefellercenter/

[GlennT]

DId they also learn about stoning people to death for adultry and other "crimes"? Maybe being taught THAT kind of rhettoric is what is causing the violence- the child who curses their parents it is ordered are to be stoned to death.


Eh?....Sorry, there was a loud ruckuss down the street at Pleasantview Christian Church, stoning adulterers and unruly children....so, what did you say?

[MSC]

There are two different elements here, nudity, and nakedness. Nudity is art that has been created for centuries up to the present, done in a tasteful and artistic manner whereby the emphasis is on the expression of the soul, or idea beyond the form. Or upon the aesthetic beauty of the human form. The other expression of "nakedness" is the use of the human form to consciously emphasize sexuality and erotic elements. This is done more in other areas outside of fine art, such as billboards, TV, movies, pornography, advertising, etc.
GlennT

The distinctions of sexualized and un-sexualized are nice. The conscious emphasis of a sexualized form seems somewhat accurate (I do question what emphasis means—even some of the oldest Greek and Egyptian works seem to carry a sexualized air) but the terms nude and naked are a little unwieldy. Naked is probably just the wrong word. Naked has other senses, that of plain exposure, a kind of unvarnished truth, maybe even the emotional fragility that comes from exposing ones thoughts, feelings or form. These very normal human experiences often touch the soul. Maybe the expression of this is one of the ways that nude figures have improved the world.

This whole forum is hard. On one hand, nude forms are part of our lives now and have been for at least 30,000 years. They are in parks, houses, churches, on public buildings, and even adorn roadside triangles, granted maybe less so in the US then Europe but certainly more so then say in the Arabian states. On the other hand, there seems to be a hypersensitivity to nudity at the same time as there is a hypocritical movement in the media and advertising to sexualize just about everything. To the sensitive, it must fester to the point where any nudity can only be deemed sexual in nature or yet another insult to dearly held mores.

The in-your-face artists shock all and especially the sensitive. Right or wrong one has to grant that this is one of the intentions. These artist are brave (more so than I would be) but how studied expressing these intentions are or the reactions to these intentions, is and will remain in question. But as disturbing as the images are, I don’t buy that they, and in turn, all nude figures are the cause and the downfall to 30,000 or more years of human culture.

The tendency in this culture is to try being heard by radicalizing an issue. The more extreme the statement, the more likely that it will discussed. With this subject it is happening with a form that may be as old (and arguably older) as humans concept of god.

[Landseer]

On the other hand, there seems to be a hypersensitivity to nudity at the same time as there is a hypocritical movement in the media and advertising to sexualize just about everything.Humans can sexualize anything, concern about attacks on little girls and the nude pictures are brought up in the media and net along with the comments that even a Wal-mart catalogue or JC Penny sales circular simply showing minors fully clothed could be, and certainly is sexualized by certain individuals as a form of soft porn.

The average person does not see this aspect and in a way it is similar to those hidden objects images. So the viewer is the one who sees or doesn't see this because of their experience, teachings and what they have been exposed to.

This zebra picture is a good example of that, it's from flickr.com and to most folks it appears to be simply a wildlife photo, but it's much more than that and in some forums it's sexualized and even tagged with a "bestiality interest" as a form of soft "porn."


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/Randall2/zebra.jpg

The same issues arise with art, not knowing the artist's intent, we have no way of knowing the true story behind artworks or the motives of the artist and can only assume and guess.

[sculptor]

soft porn
time and place
age of development
eye of the beholder

long, long, long ago, when i was a recently post pubescent lad, we used to flip through the pages of the sears catalog and mostly view the womens underwear section--------it was certainly porn to us, and, oftimes a trusty masturbatory aide.

...........maybe I'm just really old, but it just don't do it for me no more...

the oversexualized dancers on the music videos are more porn than i'm accustomed to-especially the crotch shots with the thrusting pelvises...and, what Tina Turner used to do with a microphone-------if you're into blow jobs, i imagine it was highly arousing

without sexuality, we are in the fast lane to extinction
God gave us these bodies and desires so's we could have some fun while furthering the cause of reproduction
Those who would ignore or attempt to destroy god's gifts are the real sinners

life is short
be tolerant
and enjoy

and, if my sculpture should occasionally be of the stuff of a masturbatory aide, or arouse sexual desires in it's beholders
it really doesn't bother me much
eye of the beholder
time and place
age of development

[Landseer]

sears catalog and mostly view the womens underwear section--------it was certainly porn to us, and, oftimes a trusty masturbatory aide.

...........maybe I'm just really old, but it just don't do it for me no more...
Hehe, yeah pretty common no doubt, though when I was a kid of 8 or 9 I found mom's photo souveneer play booklet from the Broadway play "Oh Calcutta" which was performed totally nude on stage, friends and I wound up with various pages out of the booklet, some pages were never found again.
The play was supposed to be I guess performance art not porn or X rated, it was simply a nude chorus line of sorts, choreographed to music.

the oversexualized dancers on the music videos are more porn than i'm accustomed to-
When you grow up in the big city there is nothing you haven't seen before. I guess I don't see 'sex' there with that pelvic and microphone stuff, instead, I 'see' a sweaty clammy body under those clothes on stage and it's a major ICK factor to me.

Now of you want to see some really odd art, here's 3;

http://flickr.com/photos/26913790@N00/143150079/
http://flickr.com/photos/26913790@N00/143150072/
http://flickr.com/photos/26913790@N00/143150075/

[Merlion]

Boys, your imaginations are running wild. Lets go back to talk about public display of nude art.

(Trying to kick the obnoxious advert away from pole position.) :cool:

Edit: By now this advert has been deleted by a mod, probably Obseq.

[sculptor]

OK, merlion
lemme rephrase

If sculpting is honoring that which is sculpted,
then sculpting the figure well honors (wo)man

sculpting with clothes honors the fashion industry

and, by inverse extrapolation

being opposed to figurative sculpture is intentionally dishonoring (wo)man

by figurative sculpture, I mean without clothing

if you cannot look upon figurative sculpture without the act arousing prurient interests in yourself, then i contend that the arousal is due to something within your own psyche---
eye of the beholder.....
.......
and that the "something within yourself" changes with age of development, whether physical, mental, or emotional, or any combination thereof.

.............
I am not applying nor implying any value judgment with this comment.
and if you cannot view the Venus without getting a boner well into your 80's, then more power to you (and I hope you've a suitable use for the arousal)...
.....
and here, i had thought that the anecdotal story was a more direct path to the understanding........

in the immortal words of tiny tim...
god bless us everyone
...........
rod..
.....
p.s.
kill the frost giants

[GlennT]

Sculptor:

Your last post neglected to give proper weight to a very critical element in this topic: The intent and emotional energy of the artist behind the work.

When an artist "breathes life" into a figurative work, it is not an objective, emotionally neutral thing ( in most cases ) whereby any prurient interests are all the responsiblity of the viewer. Rather, a nude figure will reflect the perceptions of the artist. The clay or stone will take on the "vibration" of the person working it. If the artist has worked at a higher plane than the dwelling upon sexuality, then the piece will be much less likely to be a cause for sexual arousal and more likely to communicate the intention that the nude was designed to convey.

One can understand this by comparing most Ancient Greek nudes, or many 19th century nudes, " The Kiss ", by Hamo Thornycroft being a great example, with the commercially successful 20th century nudes by Bill Mack. Bill Mack found that sex sells, and his works exude that focus. They are far more likely to stimulate a sexual response in a viewer than the Greek or 19th century ones, which exalt the dignity of the soul and celebrate the beauty of form. One can find sexual stimulation in these as well, but then it probably becomes a matter of what is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

We have already discussed how portraits tend to reflect the features of the artist as well as the subject. This is also true about the emotional states of the artist. People will respond to and be effected at some level by those states. Again, something to consider when creating public art or working in a permanent media.

GlennT

[sculptor]

so true Glenn,

I was taking a bit of an rhetorical license to emphasize the importance of the mindset of the viewer.
If the craft is honed and competent, the artist can tilt the emphasis as per his/her intent..........
the result of which still rides with the mindset of the viewer-unless of course it is a sculpture of an overt sexual act

but a single subject alone in space and beyond time could easily be somewhat impact/meaning neutral, and thereby rest almost wholly with the mind of the viewer

ergo the silly naming of classical sculptures of unknown provenance
a glaring example of which would be the Getty "Aphrodite"

eg: pan fucking (as/per an earlier post by landseer)a goat is one thing, while pan playing his pipes is quite another
When viewing the more neutral figurative sculptures we are as r.d.lang's description of a metamessage confused schizophrenic

"what does it mean?"

eg: my ISIS rising from her dream of Osiris with the conception of Horus...
my intent was to capture the orgasmic moment of the conception of a god...
maybe many have felt this, but only one person (so far) has voiced a sexual desire for her(a drunken biker)---tho I had never intended her/them to be of a prurient nature------is he the only one who has felt the moment as I had intended--or was he just "shooting from the hip" and experiencing the sculpture within his own mindset--will i ever know?

rod