The naked truth about art

Herald Today ^ | Thursday, February 23, 2006 | Joan Altabe

[lastchance]

I agree. Placement of nude art should be based on many things. But if dealing with locations where children are the snicker factor must be the determining criteria.
What is the snicker factor? Simply put it is how long a group of boys or maybeeeee girls will snicker at the nude painting. If it is known that the snickering will be of brief duration the painting can probably be placed nearby. But if the snickering is overlong and leads to favorite body part jokes it is best to place the nude very much elsewhere.

[klossg]

"LOL! She's been channeling Freud a little too much. St. Agatha was tortured for being a Christian, and one of her punishments was having her breasts cut off. If she had did a little investigation, she would have learned about that easily."

I agree with you completely here. I am sure she knows about her being a Saint and that she died for the faith. I am sure she knows the mutilation was done by anti-Christians because St. Agatha was Christian. But, she chooses to interpret it as "men mutilating the breasts of a female in the belief that the female is a sexual temptation and must be crushed."

This is Freud and intense deadly-feminism and insecurity. She can't help but get a cheap shot in against the Catholic Church and men. I'll pray that she is able to get over the abuse that must have caused her to be this sad. If she hasn't been abused, then she just needs to work on her misplaced anger.

But, the point of my posting the article was to help us come to grips with the fact that the human body naked in public is not always bad and that Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body is worth more than a look. See Christopher West's ToB Website.

[klossg]

Here is another article I was able to find with one photo. I do understand the difference between art and pornography and would never lean toward pornography in any public place. Maybe the artist and the author of the article have an ax to grind. Here is the link to the other article.



From the looks of this photo, the art may have been too much. But, as I am sure you'd agree, not all art of the naked human body is shameful but actually beautiful and can even point us to God.

[dangus]

When I was in High School, we went to the MMA in New York; there were plenty of nudes. We came across one, and the curator asked, "Guys, this one hits you different, doesn't it?" It did.

The curator explained subtle surrealties that classical artists used that made the nudes somehow not arousing, and contrasted them with the one that did.

[Fintan]

 

Hey...art is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[dangus]

The funny thing to me is that it's really, really, really bad!

[peacebaby]

I agree and I understand the difference as you point out between the classic nude and the erotic nude. I appreciate the classic nude art. The body is beautiful. My concerns are with the pre-pubscient child and how he/she enterprets it. If he/she is exposed to beautiful nude art, and sees it as such, all the better.

[wintertime]

The answer may lie in the warring of two old ideals that continue to hold us:


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The answer lies in privatization of libraries.

Libraries can NOT be all things to all people. Just like government schools libraries WILL establish and uphold the worldview ( that means religious values ) of some while actively undermining the values, morals, and ethics of others ( that means religion).

Solution: Complete separation of SCHOOL and state.
Solution: Complete separation of LIBRARY and state.

[wintertime]

I agree and I understand the difference as you point out between the classic nude and the erotic nude. I appreciate the classic nude art. The body is beautiful. My concerns are with the pre-pubscient child and how he/she enterprets it. If he/she is exposed to beautiful nude art, and sees it as such, all the better.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This is YOUR personal artistic and child rearing philosophy. Are you willing to use armed police to force it on other citizens' children and FORCE other citizens to pay for YOUR child rearing worldview?

While I completely agree with your approach to art and child rearing, unlike you I would never FORCE another citizen to pay for it with taxes collected by way of police action threat. I would not FORCE it on other parents' children who have no other alternative but the government library.

Remember, just like schools, government libraries are a price-fixed monopoly that creates a hostile business climate and makes private alternatives unlikely.

[peacebaby]

check my post #5, and if you read further you 'll see that first thought was discussed by another poster... .

I'm willing to see the view points of others, and since this article was posted on February 23, I've had lots of very smart input from other posters.

[dangus]

Oh, don't get me wrong: We agree on this case. This whack job's chalk drawings are obscene. I'm not too horrified; I'm sure the graffiti on the restroom stalls has more vivid depictions of nudity.

[peacebaby]

What is art, anyway? My dear friend is surviving in New York showing some wierd stuff she calls intepretitive art... .

and I can draw you to look just like you, no intepretation needed. Yet here I am stuck to a desk.

Oh, well.