Yep. Its happened again.
Theres a painting of a nude female"Rose" in the WIlloughby Fine Arts Gallery.
A pastor has objected (!) becasue its nude and kids walk through the museum and can see it!!!
They show the painting, and it simply shows a woman, seated, and all you can really see are her breasts.
Man, what is with these people!
This minister has suggested putting a screen in front of it so kids can’t see it, but any adult who wants to can.
Nice to teach kids that the human body is dirty somehow…
I know, not much of a debate. I hope no one posts here agreeign with this guy.
Er, is this pastor in any way affiliated with the place that is putting up the painting?
I don’t see anything wrong with nudity but then again, I support zoophilia, incest, and pedophilia(with sexually developed kids), so perhaps you are asking the wrong person.
Not that you asked me explicitely, of course.
But if he is in some way affiliated with the place then surely he can put a screen up. I don’t see a problem with that.
Might point out Genesis 1 and 2 to him, Vanilla. According to the Bible, God created the human body, and called it good. Shame and embarrassment about it only came with the Fall. It’s not the painting but the mind of the observers that sees a woman’s breasts as somehow “dirty.”
BTW, when did you become a model? I think I wanna see this picture.
At my hometown’s convention center’s park-like grounds (which are open to the public), there is a statue of Posidon throwing a spear, a gift to our city from the Greek govenment. Yes, that statue is nude.
About a year ago a convention of, you guessed it, homeschoolers, came to town. They declared that the statue was unacceptable, and that they would leave town if it was not clothed.
One of the cevention goers said that it might cause his kid to “ask questions”.
The city of Sacramento, chooseing cash over guts, obligeingly let them put a suit and tie on the God.
Yet another example of the positive correlation of Fundamentalist fervor and slack-jawed thumpheadedness. It is so telling that one of the homeschoolers worried that nudity might cause his kid to ask questions. Questions and free intellectual inquiry to a Jeezer[sub]1[/sub] are like garlic and sunlight to a vampire. It takes a petty, grubby mind to look at a depiction of the human body, like Ingres’s * Odalisque* or Goya’s La Maja Desnuda, and see obscenity. Have they never seen Renaissance paintings of the Blessed Virgin nursing the infant Jesus?
Ah, but I forget: the average Jeezer has probably never seen a painting that doesn’t portray Elvis, crying children, or dogs playing cards.
[sub]By Jeezer, I mean folks of the FoG crowd, not the average Christian.[/sub]
A quick hijack: the majority of home-schoolers are not hyper-religious fundies. Most simply have the goal of providing the best possible education fro their children.
Probably not, given exposure to that cold seawater…
Is there a link to a photo of Poseidon wearing a suit and tie? I’m trying to imagine him in pinstripes.
Maybe a Nike warmup outfit would have been more suitable.
I come from a rather “traditional” Christian background (but we are from L.A., so that sort of cancelled some of it out, at least for us…)
I am an artist, and took a lot of figure drawing, artistic anatomy, and Life Drawing classes in college. Hence, lots of nude drawings. Dammit, it is ART. I was learning anatomy, I was learning how to draw figures, it was of monumental importance to me, and it is very important to many artists. Even if they never draw another nude for the rest of their life, they NEED to know how the figure works under those clothes. Squeaky-clean Norman Rockwell took Life Drawing, fer crying out loud. (In his autobiography, Rockwell describes his Life Drawing days, particulary with famed teacher and artist, George Bridgman. I share his sentiments about the importance of Life Drawing.)
Anyway, I’ve done a lot of nude art, and even some nude Fine Art that has been in galleries. And there is NOTHING wrong with it. And yet I remember meeting a fellow church member who had a real problem with Life Drawing. She was an accomplished artist, but she had refused to take Life Drawing in college, because of her objections to the nudity. And you know what? All her paintings or drawings of people and figures SUCKED. Artists NEED that training, IMO. Or at least, she did. Sheesh. She should have read Norman Rockwell’s autobiography!
Anyway, the nude is not dirty, it’s beautiful. Ask Norman Rockwell!
And what is the deal with so many Christians finding nudity offensive? Doesn’t the Bible teach that we were created in God’s image? Nude? By God Himself? What is obscene about that?
The people being pounded on this thread are exercising their freedom of speech to express their sensibilities. Those posting on this web have different artistic tastes from theirs (as do I). So what?
