[Ben Barker]

Here is the story, saw it on Shacknews.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/HallsOfJustice/hallsofjustice.html

The jist of it is, ever since the 1930s there has been this statue in the Justice Department of the figure of Justice. As many know it is a woman, and in this particular statue she is wearing draping clothing that exposes one breast.

For years, whenever the attorney general has made a speech about pornography, or censorship, or obscenity the media has squirmed to get the phtograph showing the bare breasted figure in the background of the Attorney General for the sake of irony, I guess.

Ashcroft, or at least someone in his office who claims it to be "his desire", has had enough and is ordering that huge drapes be placed to cover the offending areas from now on.

I have two problems with this:
1) This confirms a really bad stereotype about America. We are really uptight about sex in this country, moreso that almost anywhere else it seems. And where there are taboos, there are people pushing them. So there is sex all over the media. The end result is a country obsessed with the issue. This makes me want to move to some place with common sense.

2) People who cannot tell the difference between naked and nude. I live in Cincinnati, and as you may or may not know, a few years ago Robert Mablethorpe almost got the museum director keel-hauled for his exhibit of nude, or naked as many put it, photographs of gay men, flowers, and children. I thought it also pertained to this forum, where the familiar *NUDITY* is showing up in so many subject lines, sometimes appropriately, and sometimes for traced over porn.

-Are people getting better, or worse about this?

-Or am I totally off base here?

-Where do you draw the line between naked and nude?

-What has been your experience in other countries? Are they more or less tolerant than the United States? How so?

I'm really interested to hear what people on the forum think about this.

Now, walking around a fine art museum and seeing a stack of multi-sized TV's playing video loops of eyeballs and hands... that's obscene

P.S.
-sorry if you think this is in the wrong forum. It's pretty random, but involves art. I wasn't sure. I flipped for it.-

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ben Barker ]

[horstenpeter]

This is what I hate about conservativism (spelling?). Does this change ANYTHING for the better ? Partial nudity has been a part of art for as long as there's a history of art to speak of. And how can they DARE to mutilate the sculptors work ? If they don't like them, they should put them into a museum and replace it with something they like better. But this is so wrong. It's like when they ordered to have clothing painted over the genitals of the people in Michelangelos ceiling paintings in Italy so long ago. But humanity hasn't learned anything since then.

[[Shizo]]

I dont think it really matters. Some people are more conservative, others are prostitutes. Everyone is different and judges are probably on to 10 list of most conservative people in the world hehe.

[HawkOne]

First I would just like to point out that as far as I know, regarding a human nude, both nude and naked means one thing and that is “without clothes on”. Partial nudity is the definition of any part usually covered, without the usual coverings. Think about what that actually means in Arab Emirates or Afghanistan ??? burkha-less = naked ??

We come into this world naked ...and it takes years before it is possible to put the silly idea into childrens minds that a nude body is somehow shameful or ugly.

Unfortunately it also seems that those who grow up keeping this antiquated silly notion, in this allegedly advanced day and age, are the same who campaign so strongly to cover up any form of nudity, whether it is lewd or innocent. The other side of this "conflict" is unfortunately mostly silent.

I guess the real question is just that, when can nudity rightfully be considered lewd ? When is that invisible border crossed? When does nudity become too explicit? Sexual suggestiveness can be richly portrayed just by the look on a face, where is the limit?? I think there should be very clear-cut rules for this here at Sijun, people seem to be a bit too biased about what is inappropriate and what is not. If anything, in my opinion, an artists board like this should be more liberal than whatever rules apply for regular media like print and film/TV. How about using the local interpretation of the laws of the country/state where the servers are located. In Sijuns case, Seattle, Washington.

I’m not sure about the local laws there, but I hope that they are not as silly as Miami where (I’ve been told) women are fined and reprimanded for enjoying the sun topless on Miami beach !!!

Painters and sculptors have immersed themselves in nude studies pretty much since the beginning of art, from primitive fertility statuettes to Jeff Koonz (spelling?) “Kitschy” Cicciolina images. Very rarely do you see nudes who are indulging in some feebly disguised form of porn. Usually it is the beauty, admiration, strength, masculinity/femininity, vulnerability, innocence, purity, “newness”, undisguised honesty and pride that may be the purpose of including a nude subject, conveying one or more of these associations is the purpose of the artwork and I feel that any one alone is a more than viable reason to include a nude in a particular piece of art.

As far as I know there are no “Parental Advisory” given to people, whatever age, when they visit the major art galleries to enjoy the works of countless classical artists who very often used the nude body as the main focus of attention in their work.

I think it is sad that there are still people who are actually screaming “PORN !!!” whenever they see a nipple, pubic hair, buttocks, genitals, suggestive facial expressions or poses, and so on ... even sadder when those who say this are artists ...

As far as I’m concerned ...

Nudity DOES NOT equate inappropriate !!!

A definition of pornography is: “writing, pictures or films intended to stimulate erotic feeling by portrayal of sexual activity”.

When knowing that some people are erotically stimulated by feces, pain, or sheep for that matter, it is clear to me that this definition is too loosely defined to be useful for censorship since it leaves the interpretation up to the individual and thus is totally useless. Censorship requires razor-sharp definitions of what is, and what is not acceptable. I also think we should now try to once and for all try to establish these rules here on this board. I’ll suggest some below, based on actual definitions from Cornell Law Schools definitions.

-------------------------------------------
Suggested guidelines for justified censorship of imagery displayed on the Sijun boards.

-------------------------------------------
Images displaying sexually explicit conduct, actual or simulated
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person

Endorsement of Violence ???
(A) ???
(B) ???
(C) ???

Endorsement of Drug Abuse ???
(A) ???
(B) ???
(C) ???
----------------------------------

Erotically stimulating ?? Some people think YES ?? Does that mean that it actually is ?? I think NO!!!


[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[horstenpeter]

I can't agree with these rules, HawkOne. While some of the things you say are right, consider that your rules would censor out another part of art.
The first thing that came to my mind where things like depictions of rape or similar things that some artists did (not on this board, but in 20th century art) to make people aware of social problems. I would not want that element taken out of art.
As sad as it may be, I think we'll have to leave it up to the individual to judge what he thinks is appropriate for this board or not, and to the moderators as well.

[HawkOne]

Well, I must reiterate that the "rules" were a suggestion to be built on and refined, and nothing more. I am of course in no position to insist on anything, so I think a productive way would be to discuss it with the members here, make those who care post their own rules suggestions, and sensibly argue why other rule suggestions should go.

Your example about rape is a good one, but I feel that it should not be neccesary to display the things mentioned in the suggested rules above, in order to make a convincing piece.

The reasons why I focused only on "sexual inappropriateness" in the initial suggested rules is the fact that the appropriateness of things like violence for example, is never discussed, but nudity is constantly pointed at, some saying "shame" and some saying "great boobs" or whatever.

Violence is probably another area that needs some definitions, although for some weird reason it is more acceptable to see someone blow their brains out, or snort cocain than seeing a couple make love. Now THAT I think is irrational.

I am not dreaming of a perfect solution here, but I feel that leaving censorship up to any individuals personal interpretation will bring about problems of its own. Clear rules would definately be good.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[[Shizo]]

That's a sexy animal you got there.

Although nude = more sex
more sex = more people
more people = less air
less air = poopy quality of life

[horstenpeter]

Yeah that's right. It would probably not be necessary to explicitly show the things you mentioned. But then again, forbidding them would be limiting our artistic freedom, and that is something that artists really don't like.
It would however be open to discussion as to whether this board should rule out such images because the place is so public and frequented by so many different people.
I really don't know, one part of me says it would be OK to exclude such sexually explicit material, the other is rebelling against censorship in any form. Oh well.

Oh yeah and you're so damn right about the divergence between the public opinions about sex and violence. I hate it when they rate a movie R because of a brief sexual reference and don't care if theres's lots of killing in a PG movie.

[edible snowman]

For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.

Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.

The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.

The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometimes nude!

-Robert Graves