By my count, there are (approximately, the Snake Charmer was hard to
count) 62 figures on the home page. Of these, 39 are fully clothed, 14
are "nude" but don't "reveal anything" (this includes cherubs), and only
9 are "nude" and reveal "banned" body parts.
HOWEVER, NONE of them are presented even remotely pornographically. I
understand and appreciate some consideration being given for right,
ultra-right, and ultra-conservative attitudes, but think of all of the
great art works which could be banned, possibly even destroyed, or
confiscated and locked away only to be surreptitiously viewed by a
"select few" of these "highly moral" people if they had their way.
What *would* happen to Art? Human creativity? Human self-appreciation?
On this point (alone) I side with Mr. Callow. We do much more damage,
to Art, to the general public, and to our children, than we realize.
> good ones - classics--but none the less
"but none the less" after "good...classics"? THAT is shameful. Do we
remove violence next? What will happen to Bosch and Bruegel? Should we
remove all of the photographs of WWII and the Vietnam War (which the
Vietnamese refer to as "The American War") which show the wounded and
dead? Should we re-shape the reality we (are allowed to) perceive just
to soothe our sensibilities?
No, I'm sorry. I realize the community pressure you are most likely
under, but I can't agree. Would you have someone paint over the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel?
Why not let our children learn about what is beautiful in the human form
Why not stand up for the principles and philosophies of Art and not bend
to the pressures of the tyrannical few who desire to re-make the world
in their image?
Lawrence A. Parker
Philosopher and Educational Consultant
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Decker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> ---and you guessed it-- all of the
> images on the home page are nudes (good ones - classics--but
> none the less).