In a message dated 5/29/2006 1:28:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer addressing the
issue of nudity in art
"Perhaps art is the best medium to spell the difference between
Michelangelo and Playboy. It is a difference in poses, in lighting,
and most of all, in intent. "
I agree, This is also how I see it and explain it to parents and students in
high school. I tell them to distinguish nudity in art by its message. Is its
intention to convey a sexual, porn message? In other words, what was the
All nudity is not bad...it is how we perceive it. Is it porn? Now when
students in my classes see a nude in my art books they understand this concept
and are not blown away. They get more disgusted with a girl in a boating ad
just wearing a thong with her boobs hanging out.
I went to a major expo of galleries and print companies in Miami a few years
ago. There was an installation of a man on a table having intercourse with a
woman, motorized no less. I was deeply offended by it because I felt the
artist belittled my intelligence and judgement of what is decency . I did not
think the artist's intent was convey anything more than shock.
Is this so new? Actually art movements always went off the edge. Worhol's
Campbell's Soup Can had the same effect. But, this installation went a little
too far because it challenged society's values of decency. Are we even
losing the boundaries of what that is in our culture? Where do we stop? Would
someone want that fornicating sculpture in their living room? Worse, in a
house with kids? Are we so fixated on the sexual that we can't discern anymore?
I guess I must be getting old and have lost touch with what is our new
trends in the arts.