interesting article

I do a lot of nude sculpture and I am a gay man in a woman's body!

seriously, I do nudes, and there are many shows I can't participate in because of it. My sculpture is not erotica, it is not sexual, but more based on philosophy. it is about relationships on an emotional level.

So, not only is my work forbidden from many shows due to nudity, but also I work in 3-D. Most shows can only accomodate 2-D artists.

When nudity is officially forbidden, there are always a few people wanting to bend the rules when they can get away with it and find this phobia about the naked human body in art ridiculous. Occasionally these sympathizers are in a position to slip some nudity into shows here and there and *this* creates inconsistency.

A work of art is an idea. Just like any idea shared by any person, sometimes it's accepted, sometimes it's ridiculed and rejected. A man and a woman can express the same idea with very different results because of what is socially acceptable for their genders. Someone with good connections can get away with more than someone unknown or unliked. It's politics, marketing, mood, personal taste.

A listing of past rejection should be one of the areas on an artist's resume.

 

I can only say from what I've observed here in art shows. I've seen work accepted that looks like it was done by a 3 year old, or work that is blatantly copied from another artist. I've seen work rejected that is incredible and meaningful in my opinion.

I've seen exceptions made to the rules when a work of art has so much impact on someone involved in the jurying-in process that they fight for the piece and talk others into bending the rules because of the merit of the work.(for shows that require you be juried in, judges must approve each piece that is shown and there are no refunds of entry fees to those who are rejected)

I looked at the work by that artist and the painting that was rejected is actually my favorite of all the work she has posted.

To say lifestyle had nothing to do with it...well, the only ones who can truely answer that are the people directly involved. Getting them to answer that question candidly...that's another thing.

I sculpt in a group with quite a few homosexual men and there are times when I feel I am talked down to, harshly pre-judged, overlooked by them because I'm a woman. They say things like, "women are cruel, women are mean," and their behavior is different toward other men...more respectful. There are also plenty of times when these same people are accepting of me. ...like moods they go through.

I cast bronze with a bunch of heterosexual men and they have a tendency to take the tools out of my hands...noone else's. my hands like I need to be taken care of because I'm a woman and can't use a drill. I have to stick up for my right to drive my own screws and drill my own holes and grind my own sprues off.

I believe every single person in the universe is effected by and afflicted with these kinds of prejudices (which are usually fear-based) to some degree no matter how you try to fight them, no matter how humble you are and no matter how sincere you are in trying to treat everyone with respect and consideration. The best we can hope for is sincere people who make an effort to resist their own fears and open their minds.

 

From reading the article, it seems that the artist's lifestyle certainly played a part. The woman who talked to her said "there used to be a BDSM artist in the building and his stuff was really…you know… beyond suggestive.”

If his stuff was beyond suggestive, then he shouldn't be allowed if that is their rules. This woman's painting suggested nothing sexual or even suggestive, let alone beyond.

But by the coordinater bringing in someones lifestyle, the "BDSM" artist, she is basically stating that banning something IS based on lifestyle. She brought that up as a qualifier.

This painting says nothing of the artist's lifestyle.

If a straight man had painted it, he would have been seen as "sensitive to the plight of breast cancer victims". And applauded.

If a straight woman had painted it, she would have "captured the true plight of victims of breast cancer". And applauded.

I think her lifestyle had something to do with it.

And I think that is a shame.

 

I agree with ya chuck. Its obvious these people were basing this on the fact that she isnt straight.

 

obvious? we've seen one side of the story written by the rejected artist herself. She could be dead on, or maybe not.

I haven't seen the other work that was accepted. I haven't heard from the other judges involved in the jurying in process. I read one statement from one person about whey they felt the need to censor nudity heavily today and in that statement she said she didn't feel the work that was rejected was the same as what that other artist was putting out there.

...and there is one part of the painting that is a dark shadow near the groin area. Is it possible we can't see what is there due to image quality?

I'm still left with uncertainty although my heart goes out to the artist.

I deal with and think about these issues every day. My work is nudes. I teach at an art center with public gallery space that my young students *must* pass through to get to my classroom.

 

The dark shadow near the groin area...what is there? I bet it's not a monkey! Probably another "animal", though.

So now we are LOOKING for something offensive. Granted, there isn't much that offends me in this aspect, but I really don't think there is something "hiding in the dark" there that isn't supposed to be there.

The artist may be lying, but for some reason, I don't think she is.

 

all I'm saying is we don't have the full story. I haven't seen the work that was accepted into the show and I wonder if there may be something in the painting we can't see from just a picture of it.

Based on the picture alone, I don't see anything offensive but I can tell you right now that painting as it appears in the photo would not be permitted in the gallery space where I work simply because of the nudity.

It's possible other nude works were permitted in that particular show because the nudity was more subtle. I don't know. Not enough information. Didn't see any of the other paintings.

I'm not ready to burn anyone at the stake based on that article and I'm also not ready to dismiss the possibility that there was some prejudice. Need more info.

You know I love ya, but if I am ever on trial for a murder I didn't commit, I sure hope you aren't on the jury, chuk.

 

You do nudes, but in the gallery you work nudes wouldn't be permitted.

Ok.

I hope I'm never judged by you either.

 

Apparently it depends on "who" does the nudity.

 

People are trying to draw the line between porn and art and everyone draws it differently. The church was really pissed off at Michelangelo about all the nudes. He had to fight them for every nude he did in the sistine chapel and got away with it because he was such a gifted artist.

His sculpture of david...the church official who commissioned it wanted him clothed. Michelangelo actually pointed out in the bible where it said David took off the armor that was given to him because it was too big for him. There was nothing in the bible about him putting any clothing back on. This is how The statue of David was permitted to be nude.

I believe absolutely that bias plays a role in some of these decisions..but not all of them. I also know that many times I've been rejected and i find myself thinking "omg, I suck. I shouldn't be pretending to be an artist." Wouldn't it be easier to say, "Omg, they are racists. I'm black so they wouldn't accept my art." ...wait. I'm not black. I can't use that excuse. Damn.

 

I didn't read the full article. The art world is a quirky bunch. IMO it really depends upon if you catch the interest of the right people. That old "It's not what you know, but who you know" thing. There's been lots of 'art' that has made tons of money and I just can't appreciate it. Then there are those, like that french 'artist' back in 1995/96 who displayed a dead pregnant cow in formaldihyde. Carcus cut such viewers could see the calf. Think he was given a chunk of money as an art reward or something.

There educational art on display here in Dallas showcasing the human anatomy. If I were a biology major or medical, I might be interested, but I'm not.

Anyway, just my two cents.

 

This might sound funny but sometimes censorship is a good thing. If everything was acceptable than nothing would create controversy.

I think that the curator who censored this piece was completely wrong about doing so, yet because it was not allowed in the show, it brought more awareness and sparked discussion.

Funny to think that censorship, in some cases, has more of an influence on the exchange of ideas than the art itself.

 

Censorship does often have the opposite effect of what the censor intended. It's a good illustration of how authoritarian policy in general doesn't work.