"David" is declared obscene

[luvnaturism]

Nudes In The News has a link to a story about a shopping center that invested in replicas of classical artworks as part of its effort to provide a beautiful ambiance. A few hyper-Christians, considering themselves to be the moral authorities for the community, made such a fuss about Michaelangelo's David that the owners ended up placing a plaster fig leaf over his "offensive" parts. Other classical works were removed from view.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5479134&BRD=1572&PAG=461&dept_id=183019&rfi=6

At the end of the story there's a place to add your comments. Not sure that it makes a difference, but I added mine. Others might like to do the same. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[luvnaturism]

Nudes In The News has a link to a story about a shopping center that invested in replicas of classical artworks as part of its effort to provide a beautiful ambiance. A few hyper-Christians, considering themselves to be the moral authorities for the community, made such a fuss about Michaelangelo's David that the owners ended up placing a plaster fig leaf over his "offensive" parts. Other classical works were removed from view.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5479134&BRD=1572&PAG=461&dept_id=183019&rfi=6

At the end of the story there's a place to add your comments. Not sure that it makes a difference, but I added mine. Others might like to do the same. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Well, I added my 2 cents worth if it gets posted. I can't understand why some people are so offended by God's greatest creation that they want to destroy art.

I never cease to be amazed at what one person can do in a negative way. One person got prayer and the Bible removed from schools. When I was in school, we started the class with prayer and Bible reading, and the pledge of allegience with the words "under God" included. One person also got a religious picture removed from a school wall. He was the only one offended enough to want it removed.

These works of art have been around for centuries, offending no one, and suddenly someone decides they're obscene. Books that depict homosexuality as normal are offensive and obscene though. Works of art that depict nudity in a positive light are not.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bob S.]

In the story, there is a paragraph that states,
"The RLC {Republican Leadership Council} is an arch conservative faction of teh Republican Party that believes in the strict adherence to the party's platform."

Just to clarify, the Republican Party's platform does not involve censorship. This is a part of the ultra-right, anti-nudity sect that goes against what I believe is the Republican platform that believes in smaller government and less governmental interference. Ironic that the groups that usually are into censorship are the religious right who are usually Repubs.

Bob S.

[nudistwheelchair]

I put my two cent also about this some people r just brain wash. I pray to God and ask him for giveniss for people thinking his creation is bad. Also to have a mouth were we could all go nude for a week just like one of the prophits did in the Old Testiment

If" David"was created in "all his male glory "with an erection , would most here then consider it obscene...... as that seems to be the standard for removal of photos from this forum?

Do most naturists consider erotic art obscene? Is there a difference between erotic art and porn? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[gamblefish]

<font color=blue>

I submitted my opinion yesterday (Oct. 5) but it hasn't been posted as of this morning (Oct. 6). Probably because this is the weekend.


It's sad to say, but sometimes I do not want people to know that I am a Christian because I do not want to be associated with the likes of the Whitts. I'm sure they think they are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, they are somewhat misguided.


Speaking from a Christian perspective: If your children see something that you deem offensive and wrong then use that situation to teach. Tell your kids why you believe it is wrong. You cannot sheild your children from every evil thing in this world. It is better to let them know how the world is and to teach them right from wrong so that when they are older they will have that firm foundation to base their decisions on.</font>

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by outdoorbare:
Is there a difference between erotic art and porn? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, there is and it has to do with motive.

Greek mythology contained many erotic characters, and these were widely depicted on such objects as pots and urns. Satyrs (creatures that are half man, half animal, and constantly aroused) were typically drawn with an enormous erection. Many ancient cultures had their fertility gods, commonly depicted with huge sex organs. Similarly there are many depictions of men and women coupling.

I've seen a lot of this kind of thing in museums, and none of it has ever seemed pornographic to me. However, when I see the same figures mass produced and sold for profit (little figures with big erections are commonly offered by vendors at tourist stops in Greece), then I do consider them to be pornographic.

The line between erotic and pornographic is subtle and highly subjective, definitely in the eye of the beholder. Even if something clearly remains on the erotic side of that line, most people wouldn't want to populate public areas with reproductions of that sort of art.

David was created originally to be placed on the roof of a cathedral, a use that would have made an erection unacceptable. Had the artist given him one, the statue might still be considered great art ? but you wouldn't see so many reproductions around the world.

The nude male body with a flaccid penis is not erotic. An erect penis is meant to be erotic. The man is sexually aroused. There is definitely a difference between the two.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Would only non- naturists find "David" erotic? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by outdoorbare:
Would only non- naturists find "David" erotic? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't imagine that any naturist would view David as an erotic representation, and it's clear that only a tiny percentage of non-naturists view it that way. The judgment of centuries is that it's one of the greatest art works ever created.

[nudeM]

I tend to agree with all replies concerning the statue "David". It is an excellent form of art and to imagine that only ONE family finds it un-acceptable and obscene is ridiculous. I just cannot imagine an entire city council caved in for this ONE family. This ONE family, as I understand, is a husband, wife and a boy. The wife found this statue offensive toward the boy and herself. (HOW DID SHE BECOME IMPREGNATED)?

I think I have heard about this particular family before. They were also, I beleive, involved in another political issue sometime back concerning smoking and were struck down. Montgomery County became the laughing stock of the state, and that issue became moot.

I hope the city rescinds their decision and allow the statue to return to it's glory, and allow the owner to again put up his pictures. It's sad that an entire city council would change their objectives just for ONE family.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nudeM:
... to imagine that only ONE family finds it un-acceptable and obscene is ridiculous. I just cannot imagine an entire city council caved in for this ONE family. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be pedantic it was only "one family" which complained about the statue. There could be many more out there who find the statue obscene but failed to complain about it.

This raises the question of how many people are likely to be embarrassed (if not actually offended) by the statue of David on show in a very public place as opposed to a not so public art gallery. And supposing it had been a real human being posing there instead of the statue?

There seems to be a continuum of acceptability of nakedness. You might think of this as a straight line where on one extreme, say the left, you have the likes of the Witts who complained about the statue and on the far right you have the exhibitionist nudists who might, for example, go so far as to have sex on a public beach. In between these two extremes are the rest of us.

As naturists we probably sit somewhere between 60 and 80 per cent along the line. I guess most reasonably liberal non-nudists would sit at around the 50% mark. The "moral majority" who don't want anything to do with human nudity but are probably ok with images are around the 20 to 40 per cent mark which still leaves quite a lot of room for the "righteous" who may not be as extreme as the Witts but are certainly up there with them and may be relieved that the "offending" art has been covered up or withdrawn.

As naturists we are bound to disapprove of the Witts - and many non-naturists would agree with us - but we shouldn't be complacent that this is just a laughably silly story because when it comes to "real" nudity we still have to convince not only the "righteous" (who will never be convinced anyway) but also the "moral majority" that the human body is not obscene.

[David77]

I had an experience to share, which would be of interests to Naturists.

A woman artist came up to me (as I was then the coordinator of our life drawing group) and asked me to tell the nude model to put on his robe during the five minute breaks, as the woman objected to his walking around the room and sometimes talking with them while nude.

I refused to do this, as she and the group were accustomed to gazing upon the nude body on the modeling stand during our weekly three hour group sessions, so his nudity on or off the modeling stand should not be an issue with the group. His behaviour was good in all respects. (She finally took it upon herself to request him to put on his robe during breaks).

The majority of the models put on their robe during the five minute breaks, primarily because it is warmer, and some still feel more comfortable with something on, as society has conditioned them. Other models prefer to remain nude; remain nude while resting while sitting on the modeling stand or walking about looking at each artists rendition of the model and talking with the artists.

For many years I envied these model's comfortable feelings of acceptance of their nude body without their being embarrassed. They had respect for their nude body. Finally, at long last, I got up the courage to become a Naturists attending resorts.

I would hate to think of how Dianna Whitt would react to seeing this sketch group, since her reaction was so extreme at seeing the great statue of "David".

Reminds me of a "story"......A woman comes up to this famous portrait artist and shyly asks him if he could paint her in the nude. He calmly replys"I would love to madam but do you mind if I keep my socks on ,I always get cold feet when I paint in the nude........A little humor....I know... very little. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Snoboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by outdoorbare:
Reminds me of a "story"......A woman comes up to this famous portrait artist and shyly asks him if he could paint her in the nude. He calmly replys"I would love to madam but do you mind if I keep my socks on ,I always get cold feet when I paint in the nude........A little humor....I know... very little. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Snoboy]

Outdoorbare, I simply love your "repartee" in these forums...and I loved the "little bit of humor", with regard to the David statue. I love this life size piece. I did freehand drawings of it last summer in the Louvre in Paris. Even if Michaelangelo had given the young lad an erection it would not have taken away its sheer beauty and grace. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gene:
I love this life size piece. I did freehand drawings of it last summer in the Louvre in Paris. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously a lot of us love this work. David is the most awe-inspiring work of art I've ever seen.

Perhaps the statue has been loaned to the Louvre, but it's home is in Florence, Italy. Many reproductions have been made, so it's also possible that the Louvre is displaying one of those. My understanding is that to avoid fakes the copies are always made with either a change of scale or a change of material.

The real article is carved of white marble, and is not life-sized. It's done in heroic scale, far larger than life.

The original has one quality that I've never seen reproduced. Stand still and focus your eyes in one spot on the statue ? any spot will do ? and after a bit you will be sure you saw the statue move.

For an entire community to be deprived of public art of this quality because a tiny handful of people don't know fine art from pornography is a total disgrace.

[nudelife]

The "David" discussion brings to mind a family incident. Our two children were regular visitors to our nudist resort and grew up knowing that the human body was no big deal. One winter Sunday we took them to a local museum. As we were strolling through the Egyptian exhibit, we came upon an ancient statute of a young male, with the head missing and torso missing below the knees. Our curious 6 year old daughter wanted to know who it was, and my wife patiently explained that it was a very old statue, and no one knew who it was. After thinking about that for a minute, our daughter replied in a loud, clear, 6-year-old "outside" voice, "I'LL BETCHA IT WAS A BOY!" No problem folks, it's only a body.

[nudeM]

Rik: I believe this is more of a political issue than a nudist issue. Here in the County where I live, there is a statue of a man, woman and a boy happily dancing in a circle. They are ALL NUDE. I remember when the statue went up. There was a lot of bickering about the nudity first of all, then the language started to center toward the appearance of two penis', in a public setting. The issue eventually came up for a vote by city and County officials, and to this day, the statue still stands.

To me, this is exactly what I have been stating, the councils, here, did not cave in to the simple minority. A vote came up to the board, and it was decided the statue stands. Was this a victory for the nudists? I don't think so. It was a showing of pure and simple leadership. They saw what was about to become a huge polical debate decided to give the people a voice, and the people won, decisively.

Sure, I guess one would say this was a victory for the nudists, but to me, this was a victory for the people. This is what the Montgomery council should have done and decide not to act on their own. The people were taken out of the equation just to keep this ONE family happy. As you stated, which you are probably right, this ONE family truely spoke for a minority group who opposed. But to take the people out of the decided factor, was wrong.

[Rik]

NudeM

I think we're probably agreeing on this. If there had been a vote on whether David should remain uncovered then I'm sure that good sense would have prevailed and David would not be suffering his present indignities.

The point I was trying to make is that if David (or the dancing family in your county) had been real people instead of statues and a similar vote was taken then my guess is that many or most of those that would vote to keep David would vote against a real naked boy standing there.

OK I know it's hypothetical but what I'm saying is that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst the public at large who support nudity if it is in the form of an artistic representation but not if it's in the form of the real thing.

Rik

[Snoboy]

Luvnaturism, your absolutely correct about the home of the "David". When I saw it at the Louvre it was on loan for a special exhibition of Michaelangelo's work. I think it was only in Paris for about 6-weeks, but I don't have the brochure handy. It is not perfectly life size but from the distance we were allowed to view it, it did appear to be about the size of a youth, perhaps 15 or 16. In any event, I enjoyed the opportunity of seeing it. Lord knows, I have seen hundreds of copies over the years. The Mona Lisa is the one painting that really surprised me...I had always thought it to be a fairly large painting, but in reality it is very small. Perception is a funny thing...everyone sees something a bit different. When I looked upon the "David" I thought his head would move toward me when I looked into his eyes. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luvnaturism.... I guess I'm one of the tiny percentage that finds " David " erotic.I believe that the smooth sensual qualities of the polished marble ,the detailed genitalia and the pose itself were designed to arouse deep hidden feelings.Im sure the creation would never have received as much attention and reproduction through the ages if it had been carved with a loin cloth covering the penis.Does anyone else feel this way or am I just a dirty old man who should probably leave this forum? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[nudeM]

We must all remind ourselvs that this statue was made in the times when nudity was the fashion for hunting, sports and even warfare. This statue may have been a warrior, or even a sporting athlete. In any case, the artistic reproduction of the nude male is tremendous. Attention to detail is truly the artists strong points.

This statue has been around for ages, and seems like we are starting to find excuses of any kind to have it removed. Apparently, these people (those opposed to nudity), weren't around at the time of it's creation, and even if they were, it goes to show how much clout they had (NONE).

I guess it takes all kinds to keep this world going. It's up to the majority to keep these sinister sterotypes out of the picture so we may live in a world of one in the future. I believe if the statue would have been made in this day and age, there would be all kinds of protests, court challenges and anti-nudists around to make sure that this statue would never leave the shop. This just goes to show how much the world has changed over the ages.

Centuries and even thousands of years ago nudity wasn't a big deal. It was accepted as a part of normal everyday life.

Now people want to "protect" the children from ever seeing a nude body because it might be too tramatic for them. This fear only causes the children to grow up with an excessive interest and curiosity in the nude body. It also causes them to be more interested in porn because they get to see what they've NEVER seen before, and they're fascinated. I believe that a child who grows up used to seeing nude bodies in every day life in a non-sexual way will have a much healthier attitude toward nudity. Even if they don't get into social nudity, they shouldn't be embarrassed or offended by nudity. Of course, I've read that there's no proof for or against nudity.

Be nude and have fun. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jon-marc...pretty good diagnosis of the origin of my problems /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif