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 advertiseme