nudity in public art!

Hi All,
I know this is offthe security discussion but I was wondering what is the AO communities impression of nudity in art? Personally I think it is fine. The human body is natural and is a topic that should not be shunned. I also think that we suffer from pervasive body puritanism here in the US. Maybe though public is not the place to view such displays? Is there a balance that can be struck between artistic freedom and personal comfort? Take a look at the articles and tell me your impressions if any! Cheers

Captfb

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...29/statues.htm

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/28...ome_say+.shtml

The human body is a piece of art, so what's the big deal?

I dont have a problem with it either. There was a special on HBO a month or 2 ago about a guy going across the United States taking pictures of people in public nude. There was one really cool one where he got a bunch of people (maybe 1000?) and they all layed down to get their picture taken. The pictures were stunning when they came out, with every body looking like a knit of a large canvas. It was really cool. Does anyone remember the name of this HBO special?

~Xe

Quote:

---

The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues, said spokesman Shane Hix. For aesthetic reasons, he said, the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.

---

$8000.00 f***ing just so Ashcroft can keep his hard-on in check?!?!?!

I do not have a problem with nudity in art, even public art. I do have a problem with pornography in public art. The two articles you referred to both deal with art not pornography. To have problems with the Venus Di Milo or even Michaelangelo's David is, IMO, ridiculous. Many famous paintings show the artistic nature of the human body. As stated previously the human body is a work of art. Displaying it in a manner that is artistic and tasteful should not be a problem. Of course, as captfb pointed out, public nudity has long been a standard taboo here even when artistic.

The problem is the definition of pornography and that is difficult to tie down. Impossible probably because people will disagree, however I think most disagree on the basis of agenda rather than honesty. I think most people can tell the difference quite easily but some will try to push their agenda down people's throats. The fear of this happening makes others even more reluctant to admit that any nudity can be considered public art. It is unfortunate because some of the greatest art involves nudity.

I will even go so far as to allow that pornography can be considered art I just don't think it should be public art. I believe wild life paintings and pictures are wonderful. A painting of someone clubbing a baby seal or torturing animals may be art but it isn't wonderful and it shouldn't be public either.

i don’t think the beauty of the human body is a question here. Its perfectly healthy for someone to enjoy the freedom of nudity and feel its fine and dandy and it's just as healthy for someone to be offended by it. Its not fair to say everyone must accept nudity for what it is, when its different things to different folks.

i attend gatherings where clothing is optional. i prefer wearing clothing because sweat running down my body annoys me (besides smelling bad) and i'm prone to insect bites. But i have no problem with it if it’s called for. This is my choice and the choice of all who attend, but if someone is offended by nakedness they should not have to be subjected to it.

Quote:

---

''They are very beautiful. Why complain?'' she said in a telephone interview yesterday. ''People have to be more open-minded. I have four statues in my home and they are all beautiful.''

---

If open mindedness means being aware that there are other ways of seeing a situation than just your own, it is she who needs to be more open minded and consider the feelings of others. the fact that all of the statues on display are nude sounds like it might be more than just an aesthetic statement.

There should not be laws against nudity in art but those who display it should show some discretion.

In Federal building, if the press is going to use the nudity of statues as a weapon against those they photograph maybe its best that they be covered for press conferences.

I love all forms of art, but I personally prefer to paint (oils).

I have done some nude paintings, and they have been recieved differently by different people. Some think the human body beautiful. Others see it simply as pornography; which makes me assume that those people watch porn on a regular basis.

A naked body can be lovely with out it having to be viewed as "erotic". Though, some people don't know that. Their mind set is that "nudity always follows with sex." I find that very sad.

As "modern" as this society supposidly is, in general, people are quite uptight and intimidated by nudity in art. People who are against artistic nudity believe that the naked body only belongs in the bedroom for a spouse to see. If that's how they feel, I have no problem with it. No one is making them pose nude for public display. They don't even have to look at nude art. No one is forcing them too. I just get mad when those vary people try and make art more censored and force their own standards of what they believe art is. And as we all know, there is no standard as to what art really is. It differs from person to person.

Take care,

::Chelle::

I'd have to say that the human body is beautiful as well and that nudity in paintings has nothing to do with having "porno" or any "erotic" scene in a painting or sculpture. I believe that many people have different perservisions of this topic, but I think some of them have the wrong idea on the topic as well. Like fallenstar said, The human body is a piece of art. What's the big deal? I'd have to say I agree with that more than anything in reguards to this topic.

There is art, and there is "government art".
Usually, the controversy is over the expenditure of public
funds to satisfy some loser wannabe "artists" who can't find
customers for their crap.

You want nudes, there are lotsa girlie magazines on the news stand.
Why spend millions in tax money for bullshit fake art, and then
spend more on curtains to hide it from the offended public?
:cool:

I beleive the name of the HBO program with all those naked people was Naked States

NC law states with websites, artistic nudity is ok. The three no's (against the law) are no children, no fluids and no penetration. Personally I think this is a good example to follow by.

Quote:

---

The three no's (against the law) are no children, no fluids and no penetration.

---

So a naked guy drinking a coke and picking his nose it against the law? LOL....just kidding. That seems like a very reasonable law to me. I think that art is art, nudity is nudity, and the two will be intertwined forever. I don't think there is anything wrong with nudity. I have taken my 7 year old to several art museums. There is always going to be nudity in art, and it is a beautiful, free, wonder-inspiring thing almost always. The human body is something ALL of us share, despite ethnic, economic, cultural, religious, or any other difference. I think that it can be a very simple way to teach a child that everyone is the same.

Deb ;)