Artists stripped of award due to nude art

[Bob S.]

In a case that is becoming an embarrassment to my local paper, The Virginian Pilot, two local high school students had their awards stripped due to the nature of their art. Beth Reid, a senior in high school, painted a nice nude self-portrait that showed her side and back, nothing of interest shown. The judge that was chosen by the paper from the Chrysler Museum, the co-sponsor where the art is now being shown, chose Ms Reid's painting as the winner.

The newspaper stripped her of the award and chose another judge to pick a piece of art. That judge chose a bust of a pregnant woman's torso by Jasmine Childs, very basic and showing no specific detail. The Pilot stripped that award from her as well. They then chose another judge who picked a "safe" piece of art to win.

The newspaper was afraid of what kids and younger siblings may think if they awarded the top prize to the nude art. They refuse to even show the self-portrait.

The story will be in my next message. I am also planning on writing a letter to the editor, which a few people have done. The good thing is that the first judge, with help from the Chrysler Museum, is raising funds to award Beth Reid, the original winner, $1,000 that she is owed.

Note, the following two news sites linking to the articles may be time sensitive.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

From The Virginian Pilot (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/art-lovers-raise-money-teen-who-lost-student-gallery-title):

Bob S.

Art lovers raise money for teen who lost Student Gallery title


By Teresa Annas (http://hamptonroads.com/2007/10/teresa-annas)
The Virginian-Pilot
© April 5, 2008
Local art lovers rushed to donate money this week to a high school artist who was chosen as a winner in The Virginian-Pilot Student Gallery but was not given the award because the newspaper’s publisher deemed her work inappropriate.
By late Friday, $700 had been collected. The goal was to raise $1,000.
That’s the sum Nancy “Beth” Reid, a 17-year-old senior at Churchland High School in Portsmouth, would have won for her nude self-portrait, which art experts described as discreet.
Beth said she was flattered that people were trying to replace the cash prize. “I was not expecting it. That’s really nice of them. But I feel bad that they’re doing that. It shouldn’t be their responsibility to make up for this huge scandal going on.”
Beth said she loves art history and appreciates the nudes she has seen in classical art. “It’s not perverted at all. Now, it’s almost like if you see a naked person it’s pornographic, and that’s not true.”
Student Gallery is a 36-year-old art contest open to any high school junior or senior in the region. This year, the show was judged three times.
The top winners chosen by the first two jurors were rejected because their work depicted nudity. Bruce Bradley, publisher of The Virginian-Pilot, on Friday took responsibility for the decision.
“While it’s true we don’t specifically address this in the rules and regulations, the concern I had was to have a 17-year-old girl do a self-portrait of herself in the nude,” Bradley said. “I thought that was inappropriate for the contest.
“This is why we did not name it the first-place winner.”
Bradley told the newspaper’s editor not to publish a photograph of that work, for the same reasons. “I feel it’s an inappropriate picture to run in The Virginian-Pilot.”
Even though the newspaper has received numerous letters from outraged art supporters, he said he has not changed his mind. “I believe we made the right decision.”
Artwork by the 62 finalists, including the two pieces in question, is on display through April 18 at the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk. The first judge was Aaron De Groft, director of the Muscarelle Museum of Art at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg. De Groft selected Beth’s self-portrait. A second judge, Scott Howe, education director at the Chrysler Museum, selected a ceramic sculpture of a pregnant, nude torso. The work, by Jasmine Childs, a senior at Oscar Smith High School in Chesapeake, also was rejected.
Both girls have been accepted to Virginia Commonwealth University for the fall, and both plan to study art. Two Pilot employees, one from the marketing department and one from advertising, picked a final winner and announced the decision Tuesday.
“It’s the most bizarre thing,” said Ann Dearsley-Vernon of Norfolk, “especially when you see the nude, which is the sweetest, least-revealing nude. There’s nothing showing.”
Dearsley-Vernon is a former education director at the Chrysler Museum who has been a paid consultant and a judge for Student Gallery.
She and Shelley Brooks, who coordinates exhibitions and arts programming for Tidewater Community College’s Visual Arts Center, are spearheading the fund drive.
“We’re going to try to make some public recompense to this young lady,” Dearsley-Vernon said.
Trish Pfeifer, an elementary school art teacher for Norfolk Public Schools, said she was “just stunned” by The Pilot’s decision. She and her husband, Ken Pfeifer, contributed Thursday toward Beth’s gift. The couple has funded a yearly $250 Student Gallery prize, called the Visual Wit Award, for the past decade.
“I could not believe it,” Trish Pfeifer said. “I thought it was so unethical of The Pilot to take away this award from this child. It brings up issues of censorship and freedom of speech. It was so unethical to hire a judge and not honor that judge’s decision.
“The thing I was so amazed at was the fact that they still included the work but took away the award. If it was so offensive for people to see, why did it stay in the show?”
Beth had the same question.
“I think it seems ludicrous,” she said. “And, of course, there’s naked men on the front porch,” referring to a monumental statue of torch bearers at the museum’s main entrance.
Beth said her self-portrait was inspired by books such as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” She wanted to reflect the idea that humans have a darker, animal side as well as a social facade.
Because the dark side is bestial, she said she felt she should portray herself in the nude. In the rendering, she is crouching, with most of her private parts hidden, except for a small portion of her backside. “I’m comparing that inner darkness to what an animal feels. They don’t have religion or philosophy or art, or anything that separates humans from animals, from running around in packs naked.”
Beth admitted her father was uncomfortable at first with her creating a nude but became supportive as he understood her ideas. Beth’s mother, Nancy Reid, was out of town but e-mailed that she felt her daughter earned the award, “and it could have contributed to her ability to receive further scholarships.”
One of Beth’s art teachers, Jean Stith, said her reaction to the rejection of Beth’s work was to meet with all of the art students. “We talked about community, judging, censorship and whose rights have been infringed on.
“When Beth told me what happened, I just put my arms around her and congratulated her. I said, 'With or without the prize, you know you won the show.’ ”
De Groft said Beth’s work was “head and shoulders above most of the things in the exhibition.” He said he was impressed with the quality of her rendering and the sophistication of her ideas.
Jasmine Childs, who is 17, did not return phone calls Friday. Her mother, Karen Childs, said that after Jasmine discovered she was one of the denied winners, the two sat down for a talk.
“I said, 'Jasmine, what inspired you to do this piece?’ And she said, 'Mother, I’ve always been fascinated with the connection between a mother and a child, and when it actually began.’ ”
“I was so teary,” Karen Childs said. “I didn’t want her to go away with a negative tone. Things like this can affect you into adulthood. I wanted to keep it all positive, by just talking with her about some of her other accomplishments. And we prayed about it.”
Howe saw Jasmine’s ceramic torso as “a beautiful female form. It’s full of great curves and lines. It’s technically a great feat, the way it’s made of slab. It would have been difficult and taken a lot of time,” said Howe, who also works in clay.
“It’s very sad,” Howe said. The newspaper has “done a disservice rather than a service to the community.”

Teresa Annas, (757) 446-2485, teresa.annas@pilotonline.com
(teresa.annas@pilotonline.com)
Below is an image of the sculpture by Jasmine Childs:

http://hamptonroads.com/files/images/73181.jpg

[Bob S.]

From WVEC (http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_040408_nude_painting_gallery.30f66b4f.h tml), another story, this one showing the "offending" nude self-portrait:

Bob S.

Newspaper vetoes judge's ruling that nude painting should win contest

11:23 PM EDT on Friday, April 4, 2008

By Kristina Rohall, 13News NORFOLK, Va. -- When a 17-year-old entered a nude painting into The Virginian-Pilot’s prestigious Student Gallery competition, they refused it first prize despite a judge’s ruling.
Beth Reid painted the nude self-portrait based on inspiration from her two favorite art periods; the Renaissance and Baroque.

“I actually thought I was being very discreet,” said the Churchland High School senior.
However, contest organizers disagreed. After throwing out the first judge’s decision, they brought in a second judge who chose a nude sculpture as the new winner. However, organizers vetoed that choice as well.
The newspaper released a statement saying; "The Pilot felt the artwork was inappropriate for a high school art show, especially the depiction of a 17-year-old female minor in the nude. We are working closely with the Chrysler to avoid this situation in the future."
Ann Dearsley-Vernon, former Director of Education at the Chrysler Museum (http://www.chrysler.org/default.asp) where the competition is held, said she was “quite shocked and appalled” by The Pilot’s decision.
She is now raising $1,000 to give Reid; the same amount of scholarship money the contest would have awarded her for winning.

“Young people are the artists of the future, and they need to be encouraged and not see people changing the rules in the middle of the game,” said Dearsley-Vernon.
“That makes me feel really good, and I almost feel guilty because it’s really not their fault,” said Reid.
She said she’s disappointed she won’t have the bragging rights that come with winning the Student Gallery, but assures 13News this will not be the last nude she paints.

“I’m almost glad this has happened, because, maybe this revolution is needed about nudity,” she said.
This year marked the 37th Student Gallery hosted at the Chrysler Museum. There were 62 finalists in this year's competition.
Two employees of The Pilot judged the entries the third time, awarding 17-year-old Erin Ayres' sculpture "Unveiled Tokens of Lonely and Deserted Past" with the top prize.
The Student Gallery exhibition runs from March 28th to April 18th.

The painting in question from the WVEC site:



http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/M_IMAGE.118eaf352b3.93.88.fa.d0.314d5bd8.jpg

[Stu2630]

I dislike nude art but have no objection to its presence in art galleries - provided that there are notices informing visitors that such material is on display.

This, however, was a high school competition and I agree that nude art is inappropriate for young students like these. If such art were to be displayed in my daughter's school, I would make BIG trouble and I know plenty of other parents would too: in fact, heads would roll.

This sort of stuff may be acceptable in an art college but it is simply not acceptable in a school.

I may write to The Pilot myself.

Stu

[GymFuzz]

This sort of stuff may be acceptable in an art college but it is simply not acceptable in a school.


Is there some reasoning based on fact behind this?

Jim

[Stu2630]

Jim

Here in the UK, an art college is an adult educational establishment, whereas a high school is, by definition, an institution for children. What is permissible for adults is often highly inappropriate for children.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Jim

Here in the UK, an art college is an adult educational establishment, whereas a high school is, by definition, an institution for children. What is permissible for adults is often highly inappropriate for children.

Stu

Stu,

You may not be aware of what art involving life (nude) models is all about. Some information must therefore be provided for you. In the USA, high schools are not allowed to use nude models. Yet, high school students must prepare portfolios of their art work when applying to post high school art schools or university art departments. High school students must therfore go to community art centers or community colleges to gain access to nude models.

High school students should be taught about what real art is all about and about respect for the human body. The paranoid of society should not influence or destroy healthy opportunities for high school students. Yet, they presently do and this is very unfortunate for those high school students with real talent and ability.

ART is NOT Pornography.

The Naked Human Body is NOT Indecent.

[jon71]

I'm glad that decent people are replacing the award that talented young lady won. My little girl is very creative and I can see her doing something like that when in high school. I would support her one thousand percent even if she went much further than the very tame piece this young lady did. The people objecting have made absolute fools of themselves. Shame on them.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

We obviously see this issue quite differently. For me, there is a line in the sand which is reached when education passes the 18-years-of-age point. I don't believe that it is proper for 17-year-olds to be submitting nude work, be it pornographic or otherwise. If a child wishes to go on to further or higher education post-18 then that's fine and working with nudity may be acceptable in the adults-only institutions when they actually get there. There will be plenty of time and opportunity to try that art form if they wish at such art colleges. As for school kids doing nudes? Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that and I reckon many other parents would feel the same way.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

We obviously see this issue quite differently. For me, there is a line in the sand which is reached when education passes the 18-years-of-age point. I don't believe that it is proper for 17-year-olds to be submitting nude work, be it pornographic or otherwise. If a child wishes to go on to further or higher education post-18 then that's fine and working with nudity may be acceptable in the adults-only institutions when they actually get there. There will be plenty of time and opportunity to try that art form if they wish at such art colleges. As for school kids doing nudes? Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that and I reckon many other parents would feel the same way.

Stu

Stu,

Actually, we are definitely not talking about children in general. We are talking abuot senior high school level with are generally 16 to 18 year olds. The way the system is set up now, those senior high school level who are interested in a career in art must prepare portfolios which generally include life (nude) art. Since the high schools do not provide access to nude models, the senior high school students must make alternate arrangements at other facilities. Those facilities generally require signed parental consent forms where those under 18 have explicit parental permission to draw, paint, sculpt from life.

One extreme is to have no controls over those senior high school students and allow them to have free access to nude models anywhere and everywhere including high school. The other extreme is to prohibit them to have access to any nude models until they reach the age of consent - generally 18. The problem with this extreme is that we are allowing society's paranoid behavior to stunt the growth and talent of mature and aspiring future artists. The children already suffer enough as is but the present system does allow access to nude models under carefully controlled conditions to allow for the protection of those under 18. I believe that this is a more then fair enough compromise given society's hysteria towards nudity.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

If it is only done with the express permission of parents, and what is produced is kept away from children under 18 years at the school, then fair enough.

In the final analysis, parent is king - if it's OK with the parents of the specific children involved, then it's OK by me. I didn't spot that fact in the story, though.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

If it is only done with the express permission of parents, and what is produced is kept away from children under 18 years at the school, then fair enough.

In the final analysis, parent is king - if it's OK with the parents of the specific children involved, then it's OK by me. I didn't spot that fact in the story, though.

Stu

Stu,

In today's USA, it MUST be done with parental permission. The parents are the legal guardians of their under 18 child. Parental permission releases the art schools from a whole batch of legal liabilities.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

OK. Fair enough. You have made a strong case and convinced me. :yes:

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"In the final analysis, parent is king - if it's OK with the parents of the specific children involved, then it's OK by me. I didn't spot that fact in the story, though."

Stu, read the following excerpts from the Virginian Pilot story:

Beth {Reid, the original winner} admitted her father was uncomfortable at first with her creating a nude but became supportive as he understood her ideas. Beth’s mother, Nancy Reid, was out of town but e-mailed that she felt her daughter earned the award

Jasmine Childs, who is 17, did not return phone calls Friday. Her mother, Karen Childs, said that after Jasmine discovered she was one of the denied winners, the two sat down for a talk.
“I said, 'Jasmine, what inspired you to do this piece?’ And she said, 'Mother, I’ve always been fascinated with the connection between a mother and a child, and when it actually began.’ ”
“I was so teary,” Karen Childs said. “I didn’t want her to go away with a negative tone. Things like this can affect you into adulthood. I wanted to keep it all positive, by just talking with her about some of her other accomplishments. And we prayed about it.”


Ultimately though, this is about the Newspaper not following its own rules. There were no rules stating that nudes were not allowed. There also was a rule about the judging that stated, "Sponsors will consider the judge's selections final." As a sponsor, The Virginian Pilot did not abide by their own rule. The director of the Chrysler Museum of Art, the other sponsor of the contest and where the art is being exhibited, wrote a letter to the editor distancing itself from the decision. William J. Hennessey wrote, "For its part, the museum is deeply embarrassed to be associated, however indirectly, with this action.

Stu, the fact of the matter is that nudes are a part of art. They always have and probably always will. Beth Reid stated that she was influenced by the Renaissance and the Baroque periods in art history. If you look at her self-portrait, you will notice that nothing is showing except for a little bit of the left cheek of her buttocks, about how much one would see of her buttocks if she were wearing a bikini.

So far, every letter to the editor has been negative toward the paper. The responses at the paper's site were also negative to the paper. High school students will do nude art. These two pieces are tame and probably represent the typical type of nude art that their peers would create. And here I was thinking that not even you would have a problem with them, Stu.

Bob S.

[barebuns]

I wish I could find information about how to donate to the scholarship. . .

[tiggy]

Isn't it strange how people like stu & others seem to think it innapropriate
for a 17 year old to do a nude portrait and yet she can be legally married and have a child?
Tiggy

[xLOUx]

I think that the problem is that most adults (non nudist) can't process that nudity has no sexual content until given to it. So an innocent piece of art will no longer be innocent because someone gave it a sexual value. The human body is the most amazing form of life on earth and the most complex of all. All other living creatures live just the way they are born, some with a brain of the size of a grain of rice; but we are the smartest, with a highly capable brain and still unable to figure how to live life. Very sad!

If an artist sees nudity amazing enough to try reproducing it, why crushing their views by injecting fear and sexualized judgment? If a children is capable of creating art similar to Picasso, why tearing their artistic dreams because of just age? I think that if anyone can create art that I can't, why would I be against it! I would cheer them and support their views and maybe that would be enough to help them to become someone in life. As long you don't hurt yourself or anyone else (mental or physical), why to destroy their dreams?

Just my 2 cents!

[Sanslines]

I think that the problem is that most adults (non nudist) can't process that nudity has no sexual content until given to it. So an innocent piece of art will no longer be innocent because someone gave it a sexual value. The human body is the most amazing form of life on earth and the most complex of all. All other living creatures live just the way they are born, some with a brain of the size of a grain of rice; but we are the smartest, with a highly capable brain and still unable to figure how to live life. Very sad!

If an artist sees nudity amazing enough to try reproducing it, why crushing their views by injecting fear and sexualized judgment? If a children is capable of creating art similar to Picasso, why tearing their artistic dreams because of just age? I think that if anyone can create art that I can't, why would I be against it! I would cheer them and support their views and maybe that would be enough to help them to become someone in life. As long you don't hurt yourself or anyone else (mental or physical), why to destroy their dreams?

Just my 2 cents!

Lou,

I agree with you. However, I am an experienced art model who understands the complexities of the world in which we live. In our world, a teacher can have his or her reputation ruined by mere accusation from a disgruntled student. In the art world, a student who is under 18 can say anything and mere accusation is enough to cause a great deal of harm to the art model and art school. Precautions are absolutely necessary in order to protect everyone. The sad reality is that in order to implement those precautions, many aspiring under legal age art students will pay the price. They are required by art schools to prepare portfolios which do include life drawings or paintings. As both you and I know, there is nothing wrong with such drawings or paintings. However, our opinions are but two opinions and sadly most people will not agree with us. Until artists work more dilligently to change perceptions that life drawings and paintings are NOT pornography and that there is nothing wrong with drawing or painting from life, nothing will change. The controls and precautions will remain in place.

[Bob S.]

barebuns, I found the email address to Chrysler Museum (http://www.chrysler.org/). It is museum@chrysler.org You could probably write to them and ask for more information.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Ultimately though, this is about the Newspaper not following its own rules.

I agree with that point. It was unfair to make up new rules and then penalise the girls for breaching them. Look at what I said to Sanslines. For me, parent is king. If the parents are OK with this, then I am. So long as their so-called "art" is kept away from a school containing children (whose parents may object), then I'm OK with that.

Stu, the fact of the matter is that nudes are a part of art.

That doesn't make it acceptable. There are many films which are considered to be works of art that I wouldn't be happy for my child to see, let alone participate in making. Art is a vast area of human endeavor and there are plenty of subjects within it for painting and sculpting which are entirely non-controversial. If these girls' parents were OK with their daughters producing such material, then that's their decision and it should be respected. The Pilot may have been wiser to have stipulated from the start that work containing depictions of nudity would be disqualified.

So far, every letter to the editor has been negative toward the paper.

That doesn't necessarily prove that most parents would approve of their children, who are minors, being praised for producing works containing naked human torsos.

Stu

[jon71]

It does strongly indicate that most parents would have no problem with it. It's taken for granted that prudish reactionaries make noise FAR disproportionate to their actual numbers. It's so good to see normal parents who realize that this young lady should be praised and supported for her worm are actually speaking up this time. There should be a greater acceptance of nudity in high school art. Perhaps with some sort of an opt-out clause for those who object. The catch there is that if the student wants to participate I'd be very uncomfortable with giving the parents a veto option. It would be best to allow the opt-out for when both the parents and the students want to use it.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"It was unfair to make up new rules and then penalise the girls for breaching them. Look at what I said to Sanslines. For me, parent is king. If the parents are OK with this, then I am. So long as their so-called "art" is kept away from a school containing children (whose parents may object), then I'm OK with that."

Stu, they didn't make up any new rules. They just violated their own rules. Their excuse for that violation was the fact that younger siblings and other children would see these works, despite coming into the Museum past a nude statue or two in the front of the building. Their reasoning made no sense, especially considering there was nothing explicit in the works of art.

And these works were presented in a section of an art museum. However, I have a feeling the school libraries that have a section on art have more explicit examples.

Stu:"That doesn't make it acceptable."

Stu, have you even looked at the pieces that are in question? Even you would not be affected by them. I agree that what is considered good art is subjective, but so many famous works of art are nudes, some prominently displayed.

Stu:"That doesn't necessarily prove that most parents would approve of their children, who are minors, being praised for producing works containing naked human torsos."

No, what it proves is that the public feels upset that the Pilot was wrong in stripping the winners their awards due to the nudity, which everyone agrees was tasteful. It says nothing regarding how any other parent would act if it was their child who did the work, but generally speaking, I would imagine the parents who would object the most would have the children most reticent to create nude art.

Bob S.

[simonsebs]

Muscarelle director fired as judge (http://www.flathatnews.com/news/2331/muscarelle-director-fired-as-judge)

Here's an update. I guess the moral of the story to keep your mouth shut when people do wrong if you want to keep your job.:mad:

[jon71]

At least the efforts to raise $1000 for the real winner was successful and apparently an undisclosed prize was given to the runner up (the second "winner" after this mess began). That article did include a picture of the photograph. It was beautifully done and very tasteful. My little eight year old is very creative and I wonder sometimes if she is a future artist. If she creates a work like that I will support her 100% at any age. It is something the young lady in question (and her parents) should be VERY proud of.

[Bob S.]

simonsebs, the article you linked to was just another retelling of the story. The judge was simply released from that specific contest. He was not fired from anything else. He was fired for doing his job as the Virginian Pilot had chosen him to do.

Another interesting thing I read was that the Pilot refused to take the two pieces of art that won out of contention for judging. The only thing was that they were not supposed to be chosen as the winner according to The Pilot. Kind of hypocritical. No rules stating that nudes are not to be chosen, picking the nudes as finalists, but not allowing them to win.

This is modesty and the pedophile society run amok.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Stu,

The only thing that perhaps should be done to appease those individuals (such as yourself) who are hypersensitive to nude depictions of art might be to post a sign at the entrance of the museum warning people or the presence of nude depictions of art.

Society should not give in to the fanatics of society by hiding nude depictions of art behind screens or anything else. When society does this, society is clearly sending a very strong message to children that nude art is somehow wrong, immoral, etc because it depicts certain body parts that these same members of society consider to be dirty, obscene, etc.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with nude art. It is an important part of art that unfortunately has suffered due to the persecutions of a very misguided and confused society.

[Joontiki]

In my opinion, this situation is . . . so unfortunate & disgusting. Nudity in art does not automatically equate to pornography. I'm just so tired of . . . ultra-conservative, prudish people! Aargh!

We're talking high school here! Where they learn about the Masters. They see & study nudes. They sometimes copy these nudes in the process of learning (i know i did in high school)... not make crayon drawings of their stick people family with a sun in the corner! The nude is a part of art. And high school is where it should begin. There are hugely talented artists at that age - even younger! The nude is the hardest thing to master, and if they have the talent to do them? ... Actually i'd like to see budding high school artists have the guts to do more nudes!

I agree with the artist herself. As bad as it was for her, it's probably a good thing that this happened. It puts the injustice 'out there'. It's publicity that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It makes people angry at the injustice and hopefully that will eventually bring forward the Freedom that we are supposed to have!

And remember... we are talking High School, NOT Elementary School. And we are talking tasteful nudes, NOT pornography!! Please, get things into perspective! This sort of thing is exactly why my signature quote is what it is.
~If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?~

*big sigh* Ok, rant over. Sorry about that. :-) This post is, of course, just my opinion.