NYTimes.com: "One after the next, they trudged through the horizontal-blowing snow on Thursday, most focusing more on the icy sidewalk than on the body of a naked woman, who stood in a gallery window in Greenwich Village."
There was the occasional elongated stare, or, in at least one case, a mother breaking her prepubescent son out of his trance with a firm tug.
Then, not long after the nude woman, Megan Hanford, assumed her pose, a patrol car rolled toward the gallery, Chair and the Maiden. The police vehicle rolled slowly, paused for a moment, and then kept going.
8 comments:
Ahh the line between art and public indecency is such a fun topic. On the one hand, nudity in art and in theatre can definitely have significant meaning and purpose, on the other as mentioned in the article some people just want attention or the right to do whatever they want. By the standard that anything can be defined as artistic expression than i could kill someone, decorate the walls with their blood, and say i was doing art. An extreme yes, but this is what many people would argue against complete free speech in art. Where is that line, and how do we draw it? What is more scary - complete freedom or restrictions against it? I don't think a clear answer for the question will ever exist.
I think this is a bit ridiculous. I don't see any problem with nudity for the sake of art, such as in a play, photograph, etc. But, this is as the article mentions, forcing nudity onto the public. There is no warning of any sort. I also question the choice of putting this in the window display. The way the piece is described could justify the nudity, I suppose. But why must this particular piece be placed in the store front, other than to draw attention? However, this just shows that there is really no way to define what is a legitimate use of nudity, because standards vary greatly.
I think this case of nudity is hard to judge as we do not know exactly what the store front looks like. As it is very blunt, sticking a nude woman in a window display, it may still be art and not just nudity for sake of nudity. Defining the line when nudity is not art is a very hard one to draw, so many times it is art, such as in plays, paintings, sculptures, the list goes on. It is always interesting to see how this line is drawn, especially when the public or a public area is involved.
Part of me respects the artistic value of this piece and their willingness to portray it boldly in a storefront window, while another part of me pities every parent who has had to cover their childrens' eyes at the abrupt, unannounced display of nudity. Both sides of this continuous argument have a right to their opinions, although some take it to extremes, making public nudity appear to be the downfall of our society, when it should simply be the artistic debate that it will always be.
It sort of makes me laugh to compare our culture to others. We are taught that nudity is bad, that there is something dirty and inappropriate about it. Where as in many other cultures, nudity doesn't have nearly such the negative connotations. A friend of mine is from another country, and to her, it was weird that when friends and family changed their clothing they tried to hide their body from anyone else seeing it. She thought everyone here was a bit ridiculous for having such strong sentiments about always being covered up and not revealing too much. For me, nudity isn't something I seek out, but at the same time it isn't something that I think is an awful thing to express. I think that our culture, in a way, has 'brainwashed' us into a standard that I don't necessarily believe is correct.
I agree with Tiffany. I think a large part of maturing into an adult (as completely weird as this sounds) involves erasing this idea bread into my mind that nudity is inappropriate, because I really don't think it is, especially in this case. How is this different than going to a fine art exhibit and seeing sculptures? However, when I look at the society we live in and the context in which nudity is portrayed, I get annoyed when people use nudity as a shock factor. I can't speak for this specific piece because I don't think I got the full effect from the article. But I can't stand it when people call for nudity when it's not necessary. When they incorporate nudity for "arts sake" but really, it serves little to no purpose.
I agree with Sara. I feel that nudity can convey many important ideas when it comes to art. The free form and openness of the human body is a great way to express your feeling or ideas. But I agree that there is a time and place for nudity. It should not be forced onto people just walking down the street. From mothers with young childen to older people, nudity is can provoke things that are nt ready to be discussed.
I find it interesting that this article didn't really look at property and privacy rights - the naked woman was inside a shop owned (or leased) by the proprietor, not out on the street. Yes, she's visible from the street, but she's still inside. I seem to recall a case from a few years ago when a man was charged with indecent exposure for gardening naked but was acquitted since he was doing it on his own property, the general conclusion was that the neighbors who complained should not be concerned with what he does in his own yard.
Post a Comment