Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    you've been reading too much of the propoganda surrounding the exhibit.
    Go see it instead. The "exploited children" were children of good
    friends of the artist, the parents gave consent, and the children (who
    are quite a bit older now) are mostly amused by the broughaha. Those
    pictures are no more exploitative than the pictures I've taken of Kai
    getting a bath.
    
    Art that doesn't arouse strong emotion is suitable only for wallpaper
    elevators, and airport waiting lounges. I want to be challenged by art,
    not coddled and protected. NEA has a *duty* to fund "offensive" art. If
    I found that not one NEA funded project offended me, I would worry.
    
    FWIW I did not find Mapplethorpe's art offensive. I found much of it
    strikingly beautiful, especially in his sculpted effects with the human
    form. His use of contrasting dark and light was wonderful. Some of his
    images were disturbing, some were thought provoking, some were simply
    visually beautiful. All of it was good art. Go see the exhibit. Judge
    for yourself.
    
    	-- Charles

    Charles,
    
    >The "exploited children" were children of good  friends of the artist, 
    >the parents gave consent,
    
    I don't believe parents should be able to give their consent on their
    children's behalf. This may have had an impact on the child. In my o-
    pinion it's exploitation. Then again, I would never take nude photos of
    my own children for fear they may be embarassed when they reach that
    "Oh, Mom" stage. 
    
   > I want to be challenged by art, not coddled and protected. NEA has a 
   > *duty* to fund "offensive" art. If I found that not one NEA funded pro-
   > ject offended me, I would worry.
    
    Heavens, why? Art can be beautiful. It can stir emotion, yes but why
    must it be offensive? And what art is offensive to you that's funded by
    the National Endowment For The Arts? Why does the National Endowment
    For the Arts have a duty to fund art which many taxpayers feel is porn?
    
    As far as going to the exibit goes, I have a weak stomach. More
    importantly I won't go because I'm starting my own private boycott.
    I'm thinking of pulling out my .005 cents of my tax dollar right now!
    
    Kate
    
    
    Kate
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    FWIW I did not find Mapplethorpe's art offensive. I found much of it
    strikingly beautiful, especially in his sculpted effects with the human
    form. His use of contrasting dark and light was wonderful. Some of his
    images were disturbing, some were thought provoking, some were simply
    visually beautiful. All of it was good art. Go see the exhibit. Judge
    for yourself.
    
    	-- Charles

If there's something else I'd rather fund, I fund it.
	Mez

    I browsed through a book of Mapplethorpe work in Cambridge at a
    bookstore.  There was some highly graphic (albeit beautifully and
    artfully photographed) stuff.  
    
    Last weekend there was a case in Maine where some photographer of high
    repute (name escapes me) had a photograph in a book of photographs of a
    boy sitting on a man's lap and the man had an erection.  This was
    censored at the Canadian border or somesuch as pornography.  Some of
    the artists interviewed spoke in defense of such art and I think they
    had a good point (I guess I'll avoid the "is it art, erotica, or pornography
    snare for today) - we are NOT used to seeing the male nude.  The female
    nude and semi-nude is everywhere, accessible to nearly everyone, in
    various states of blase'-ness or arousal.  But the male nude is
    something this culture is unaccustomed to viewing, particularly as
    art...  I think that's part of it...
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Well, I hope to go to the ICA while the exhibit is in town.  
    As I understand there are many (100+??) photos on exhibit of
    which 7 are the 'questionable' ones.  None of them sound very
    extreme to me.  Photographers have taken pix of nude kids forever...
    and most parents have as well...
    
    As for funding, I would rather have my tax $$$ go there than
    to defense, so I'm not complaining!
    
    deb
    

   I am sick and tired of hearing people on TV or radio being completely
   outraged by the Mapplethorpe exhibit, WHO HAVE YET TO SEE IT! UGH! How can
   anyone be so prone to hysteria and media hype to blast something when they
   have no idea what it is really like.  They're just responding in knee-jerk
   reaction to sound-byte words like 'homo-erotic'.  [What the heck is that
   anyway? It's male-centered, no? I assume 'hetero-erotic' means females are
   pictured, which of course lesbians would not find erotic.  Of course
   celebrating the male form in art is entirely different than celebrating the
   female form in art.  The latter is 'beautiful art' [male-centered
   definition] and the first is 'homo-erotic'.  I wonder if women would define
   these classes differently.  Of course it is 'homo-erotic' art if men are
   pictured because only men create and judge and view art, right?  <Grrr>

   I saw the exhibit at its first stop last year in Hartford.  The majority of
   the pictures were striking and beautiful still-life photos, mostly of
   flowers.  Each work was displayed correctly like any other art work, mounted
   on the wall with proper lighting.  The 'offending' photographs were all
   Polaroid-sized shots kept in a separate display case.  Funny thing, the
   prudish-looking attendees who were complaining about 'homo-eroticism' and
   'pornography' were the ones who rushed directly to stand in line for an hour
   to see the 'offending' display case, and ignored the beautiful artwork on
   the walls that made up 95% of the exhibit.  I also got the feeling that it
   was the first time that many of them had ever gone to an art exhibit
   before.  All pushing and shoving in a rush to see that which they were so
   offended by [in public].
    
   See the exhibit before criticizing it.  Apart from de-fizzing this
   controversy, you'll see some amazing photographs.  I have never seen such a
   rich hue of cobalt blue (my favorite color) in a photograph before as he
   achieved in one of his lilly photos.  We have the print hanging in our
   living room.  I have also never seen flowers so beautifully and exquisitely
   photographed before.  It was the best exhibit I attended last year - don't
   miss it on its last stop.  

    -Erik 

   PS- And don't believe everything hysterical ill-informed religious fanatics
   who appear on talk shows have to say about art in the first place!  :-) I
   think the highly self-critical art community would have been the first to
   scream if this exhibit did not have significant artistic value...  and the
   art community acclaims it.  I'd give them the benefit of the doubt to judge
   in their own area of expertise, even if I hadn't seen it for myself already.

    Re. .4:
    
    The photographer's name is Walter Chappell.  I knew Walter & Nancy
    Chappell in Big Sur in the mid-60's.  I saw that picture then.  Nancy
    was a very sensitive, very unusual woman (at least then), incapable of
    dissembleing and other useful forms of lying, which made life difficult
    for her.
    
    The family were nudists.  I would say that Walter would have challenged
    our seeing the male body, with or without erection, as dangerous or
    unacceptable.  
    
    Briana

    Note 262.7 (CYCLST::DEBRIAE) is right on the mark.  I also attended the
    exhibit in Hartford last year. As far as I'm concerned, the real
    obscenity issue here is not in a few pictures of the exhibit.  The real
    obscenity was in the attitudes of all those curiosity seekers who came
    just to satisfy their prurient interests. 
    
    The exhibit was titled "The Perfect Moment". I was truly moved by what
    I saw and thought it all was wonderful.  Those floral still-lifes were so
    heart-achingly beautiful.  The essence of life and beauty and
    time--fleeting moments frozen so that you could gaze at them forever
    and still never see all that was to be seen in them. 
    
    I encourage everyone to go and see it for themselves.  
     
    

    	Does anyone happen to have the number handy to call for ticket
    information?

    Thanks,
    :Amy

    (sidebar)
    
    *PLEASE* don't bash the National Endowment!  In their *entire* history,
    they have funded only *20* "controversial" exhibits.  If it were not
    for the NEA, many artists would not have the extra financial boost
    needed to exhibit or perform their work, and many organizations would
    not be able to provide the programs they provide.  Most of the NEA's
    funding goes towards symphony orchestras and all grants are reviewed by
    a peer review panel.
    
    When I worked with Pacific NW Ballet in Seattle, we were in the process
    of applying for a Challenge Grant from the NEA.  It took *TWO YEARS* to
    finally get approval for a 3-year grant which supplied funds for new
    productions.  The NEA went over everything with a fine-tooth comb -
    administration, fiscal responsibility, artistic merit and the general
    state of the organization.  In addition to the review process, the
    ballet had to raise a certain percentage of the funds *each year* in
    order to qualify for the grant during the 3-year period.
    
    The NEA does not give frivolous grants.  The guidelines are very strict
    and artistic merit carries just as much weight as does the state of the
    organization/reputation of the individual artist.
    
    The MFA has a new show this week - the paintings show a history of the
    human figure in painting.  If the human figure had been censored
    through history, do you think Michaelangelo would have been able to
    paint the Sistine Chapel?
    
    Personally, I think that the politicos find it easier to go after the
    NEA rather than the *real* issues facing them - S&L bailout, budget
    deficit, military overspending, etc.
    
    
    Judi
    

    I've seen some of the Mapplethorpe pics in a book, and I thought they
    were examples of very good photography.  I saw nothing pornographic
    about them, what I saw was a nude body in perfect lighting.  Reminded
    me somewhat of the Soloflex ads with no clothes.
    
    I've already purchased tickets and can't wait to go.
    
    Lisa

    Of course none of this argument is new. In the mid-late 1800's the
    French public and the "official" art critics called Manet's painting
    (something about lunch on the lawn - I can't for the life of me
    rememeber the French name) obscene because it showed a naked woman
    sitting with two clothed men in a modern (for then) setting. That same
    year the picture which won the highest award was by Cabenel. It showed
    a full frontal nude picture of Venus which could almost have been in
    Playboy in the early years. Go figure. 

    My art history instructor when asked why there were more pictures of
    nude women than men replied "it's because most of the artists were men
    and they liked looking at naked women". Perhaps men themselves find
    their own form obscene. You'd think so the way people react to seeing
    it.

    Art should press the boundaries. If it doesn't, it may be pretty but
    it's not exciting, new or innovating. If it's none of those then it
    didn't take an artist to make it. A computer could have done it. liesl

    I intend  to go to the exhibit. The work I've seen of his has been
    technically  wonderful,  but  sometimes  a  little too precise and
    almost  cold  for  my  taste. There can be no question that he's a
    serious,  highly  skilled  artist.  I'm going for two reasons, the
    main  one  is political. It's important to demonstrate support for
    freedom  of speech. The second is that I think the exhibit will be
    interesting, and the precision and technique are interesting.

    Should the  NEA  fund  him? If we're going to have an NEA, this is
    exactly  the  sort of thing that it should fund. (I'm not going to
    argue about whether having an NEA is a good idea, I'm not sure how
    I  feel  about  that.)  The  purpose of the NEA is to fund serious
    skilled  artists.  It should fund controversial art, and I find it
    disturbing that only 20 other grants have been controversial.

    Important (which  is  not  the  same  as good) art has always been
    controversial. Read the reviews of Ibsen or Shaw's plays when they
    were  first published. Many of the reviews urged that the plays be
    censored.  It  is  the  essence  of important art that it makes us
    think about some issue, and often offers a position on that issue.
    Often  people are offended because it's an issue that they want to
    ignore.  I have a limited amount of sympathy.

    The my  TAX  DOLLARS  argument bores me. There are so many ways in
    which  our  governments  waste  money that to worry about this one
    seems  hard  to  comprehend.  Personally,  I'm  more  offended  by
    spending my TAX DOLLARS on subsidizing the growing of an addictive
    drug  (tobacco) than I am by spending a pittance on art, even if I
    don't  like the art. Where are the complaints about my TAX DOLLARS
    being  spent on dishonest politicians? (The HUD scandal dwarfs the
    amount  the  NEA  ever got, and the S&L bailout dwarfs that.) [TAX
    DOLLARS  is  a  registered  trademark  of  some rightwing group or
    another.]


--David

  David,
>ULTRA::WITTENBERG 
>    The my  TAX  DOLLARS  argument bores me. There are so many ways in
>    which  our  governments  waste  money that to worry about this one
>    seems  hard  to  comprehend.  Personally,  I'm  more  offended  by
>    spending my TAX DOLLARS on subsidizing the growing of an addictive
>    drug  (tobacco) than I am by spending a pittance on art, even if I
>    don't  like the art. Where are the complaints about my TAX DOLLARS
>    being  spent on dishonest politicians? (The HUD scandal dwarfs the
>    amount  the  NEA  ever got, and the S&L bailout dwarfs that.) [TAX
>    DOLLARS  is  a  registered  trademark  of  some rightwing group or
>    another.]

    Unlike you, I have a great interest in seeing that the National
    Endowment for the Arts continues and flourishes. I do believe in it.
    It doesn't need this controversy. Sure, it's raking in bucks for the
    Mapplethorpe folks but I think it's a bad rap for the NEA at a time
    when budgets are getting slashed to pay for the S+L sh@t.
    
    Others,
    
    Also, I hate to beat a dead horse into the ground but children are
    so easily exploited it's ridiculous. I know they're beautiful, having
    two of my own but whether a photo is beautifully done or not, a child's
    bare bum is a child's bare bum. If someone asked me to pose nude, I
    would need to decide that. I would have to use my adult powers of
    reasoning to determine if I would want my body seen by thousands of
    people. Since this is a very personal decision, I do not see as anyone
    has the right to make that decision for a child. Not even a parent.
    Seeing as a child isn't old enough to consent, let's just not do it.
    I see nothing wrong with nudity and the public display of it but I
    loath the idea of a child being sorry for the decision that was made
    for him years ago by a parent.
    
    I don't mind being the odd-person-in here. It's not the first time and
    I rather enjoy it. 8^)
    
    Kate
                       
    
    

--David

    re: 262.13
/    Of course none of this argument is new. In the mid-late 1800's the
/    French public and the "official" art critics called Manet's painting
/    (something about lunch on the lawn - I can't for the life of me
/    rememeber the French name) obscene because it showed a naked woman
/    sitting with two clothed men in a modern (for then) setting. That same
/    year the picture which won the highest award was by Cabenel. It showed
/    a full frontal nude picture of Venus which could almost have been in
/    Playboy in the early years. Go figure. 
    
    i have read in a book that the reason for the outrage was that manet
    used real people as models (friends of his, i think), people that
    could be recognized on the street.  venus, on the other hand, was
    fictional, no need to worry about embarassment.
    

>Read the reviews of Ibsen or Shaw's plays when they
>    were  first published. Many of the reviews urged that the plays be
>    censored.  

[This has nothing to do with Mapplethorpe, and ties in with the misogyny
in films note, but...]

Yup, like Ibsen's play The Dollhouse. It was about a woman who had lived
all of her life as the picture or the perfect wife and mother who suddenly
realizes that she has no life of her own.  In the original play, at the
end she ends up leaving.  Ibsen intended that as a "happy ending".  But
people got VERY upset at this ending, and forced him to rewrite the
ending so that her husband ends up physically restraining her from leaving
and pulling a guilt trip on her to keep her from going.  This was
the public's idea of a "happy ending".  urg.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

D!

Greetings,

There are several things that make me nuts about the Maplethorp 
exhibit. Before I get rolling with all the stuff I disagree with
about it I believe in the right of the artist to do things that
are offensive. Without that kind of nutty artist things that make 
all us ex-Marines crazy art degrade to New Kids on the Block-like
blandness.  My idea of art is Marine Combat art and pictures
of military aircraft I wouldn't wish that on any of you!

1. One of the advantages of taking 13 years to get a degree is that
one meets all sorts of people. I took one class from a fellow who
worked for NEA as a person who approved projects. This was in 1982
and he was whining then about how Ronald Reagan was slashing the 
NEA budget and how crestfallen all the applicants were. One of 
the projects he talked about was a town in South Dakota got a
grant for a local history. I've always wondered why the townspeople
couldn't get a history made for free from some local thing rather than
getting cash from people all over America?  As long as the NEA is
funded by folks like you and I there is going to be contraversy.

2. Children shouldn't be exploited. I agree with Kate that little 
children can't defend themselves and they depend on us not to 
emabrass them. Also how can we justify not having under-age people 
in porno movies when, in the name of art, children are in these 
exhibits? Is it different if Larry Flint does something like this
because he's a creep? 

3. I have to chuckle over the insulting nature of the anti-Christian 
photos. I am waiting for the couragous artist that does a similar 
picture about some Moslem icon. Its pretty easy to insult a religous
icon of a religon that has forgiveness as a basic tenent.

Oh well,

Fred Mudgett

    re:.18
    
    	� Also how can we justify not having under-age
    	people in porno movies when, in the name of art,
    	children are in these exhibits? Is it different
    	if Larry Flint does something like this because
    	he's a creep? �
    
    No, not for that reason. It's different in Larry Flynt does something
    like this because his intent by doing so would be to appeal to prurient
    interests. The subjects of his photos would be portrayed as sexual
    objects (and the same would, obviously, be true of porno films).
    
    Mapplethorpe is not portraying these children as sexual objects
    in his photos. Was Michelangelo portraying David as a sexual object
    when he sculpted his famous statue, despite the fact that he left
    nothing to the imagination? Nudity is not inherently sexual. And
    perhaps that is precisely what Mapplethorpe is trying to "prove".
    
    --- jerry

    Channel two news at ten aired the Mapplethorpe exhibit last night. 
    They included selections from *all* portions of the show. A large
    portion were still life flower shots -- hauntingly beautiful with a
    suggestion of sexuality in form and lighting.
    
    Comments on the "controversial" shots:
    
    
    
    didn't believe me? second warning:
    
    
    
    Many of these photographs are designed to be shocking.  They are often
    normal, unremarkable shots with something in them that deconstructs our
    normal sense of reality.  Example:  a close shot of a polyester suit
    with a black man's penis hanging out of the fly.  Another example is a
    shot of two men almost but not quite engaging in oral sex.  Another
    shot of a different type shows a black man and a white man
    embracing...is it a hug of affection? of two lovers? The viewer is left
    ot decide that on his own.  One shot portrays a man in a bent over
    posture...with a bullwhip up his rear end while another haunting photo
    is a self portrait with the artist wearing enough make-up on his
    already delicate features to suggest a strong aura of femininity to an
    obviously male subject.
    
    One two shots involving children.  one is of a male child about five
    years old.  He is completely nude and standing, leaning slightly back
    on a rockk behind him.  The other shot is of a five year-old girl who
    is clothed.  She is sitting on the ground with one leg up that lifts
    her skirt and exposes her vagina.
    
    What Mapplethorpe did here is undoubtedly designed to play with our
    perceptions.  The photograph of the boy is an innocent (re: young)
    celebration of the human body.  The photograph of the girl is more
    complicated because many people would find that posture erotic if the
    subject were an adult female, but because the five year-old is
    supposedly devoid of sexuality, the photograph sends conflicting
    messages to the viewer.
    
    Mapplethorpe's "controversial" shots are essentially deconstructionist
    in nature.  That is, they take what we normally would see in one fixed
    way, and then force us to reassess our evaluation of that image.  They
    also, in a less subtle way, portray a world about which the mainstream
    is generally ignorant. I think this may be the center of the
    controversy -- people not wanting to see things that make them
    uncomfortable.
    
    I've described some of them -- you be the judge! 

    I got my Mapplethorpe tix in the mail yesterday....
    
    
    
    They say "NO ONE UNDER 18 ADMITTED"!!
    
    Ouch!
    
    Lisa

re: Lisa

I heard on the news last night that the reason they did that was because they
were not unaware of the political climate.
	Mez

    
    In a story on the upcoming exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe's  
    'The Perfect Moment' show in Boston and the growing opposition  
    to it (sigh), yesterday's (7/31) New York Times quotes M. Rita      
    Burke, president of the Massachusetts branch of Morality In     
    Media, a national organization that opposes "obscenity" in the  
    press:                                                          
                                                                    
    "People looking at these kinds of pictures become addicts and   
    spread AIDS", she said.                                         
    
    Yup, looking at flower photographs does that to me everytime! :-)
    More ignorant ravings from the uninformed religious right...  :-(

>    "People looking at these kinds of pictures become addicts and   
>    spread AIDS", she said.                                         
    
 If statements like that weren't so hateful, they'd be
 funny!

 Kathy

        I don't think that there is anything obscene about pictures of
    naked people, including naked children, acting naturally.  I think 
    the obscenity is in what the observer brings to the viewing.  I don't 
    like the idea of a child exposed, even through the distance of
    pictures, to such people.  If people are so worried about
    obscenity then why aren't they protesting down in the Combat Zone?  
    Do they consider it obscene that human bodies are being displayed 
    naturally as if there isn't something inherently obscene about them?
    
       The funding of Arts by the government can be compared to the funding
    of science and medicine.  The government spends the money, but they
    rely on experts in these fields to decide what is a good use of
    it.  Does the government get involved in actual decision making
    around science?  To an extent they probably do, because I bet any
    research that would help us militarily gets funding easily.  In
    the past governments have commisioned works of art.  I think art 
    is as important to our culture in the long term, as medicine; maybe 
    it never saved a life, but it is part of what glorifies human life.
    I don't think that government officials are qualified to make
    decisions about it, unless it is going to have a serious effect
    on society, such as releasing bioengineered organisms into the 
    environment.  I expect government to protect the environment, but I 
    prefer to make my own decisions about what ideas are bad for me to 
    be exposed to.
    
       The real problem for alot of people with the exhibit seems to be
    that it in part celebrates homosexuality.  I don't see how the Embrace
    can be considered offensive or controversial by anyone.  Would they
    prefer photographs of people ravaged by AIDS?

        	Linda

    I briefly  saw a book of Mapplethorpe's work yesterday. His use of
    contrasts  is  wonderful, and there's a tremendous precision about
    his  work.  I  find  much of it too cold, and am bothered by other
    works.

    I'm convinced that his work is "art" in any reasonable definition,
    and is certainly "speech" for the first amendment definition, so I
    strongly  believe  that it should be possible to show all his work
    in public.

    The NEA  is  more troubling. Having decided that art is important,
    it's  not  clear  to me that government funding of art is good. We
    wouldn't  be  having  this  whole  ruckus  without the NEA, and it
    threatens   to   censor   all  sorts  of  artists.  Since  art  is
    controversial,  it seems to me that government funding will always
    lead  to  censorship, either explicit, or internally by artists in
    order  to  get  grants.  That's  a  very  high  price  to  pay for
    "supporting"  something  we all feel is good. I'm not sure if it's
    worth it.

    If the  NEA  is  going  to censor this exhibit, it should close up
    shop.  Having it around to entice artists to be less controversial
    in the hopes of getting a government grant is destructive.

--David

    "Censoring" means prohibiting the exhibition.  Just refusing to pay for
    it is not censoring, as long as other avenues are open.

    I went to a Composers in Red Sneakers "Concert for Free Speech" the 
    other night.  (The Composers in Red Sneakers is a collective of 
    musicians who wear trade mark red Converse All-Stars high top 
    sneakers.  They sporadically give concerts in the Boston-Cambridge 
    area, charging an admission of $5.00, unless you are wearing red 
    sneakers, in which case, admission is free.  They have a raffle at
    every intermission and the prize is a "life-time subscription to
    Sneakers' concerts"  -- a gift certificate for a pair of red Converse
    All-Stars high tops.  They're a lot of fun.)  Each piece performed 
    at this particular concert "...was guaranteed to offend someone."  

    So, if you're going to be offended by commentary on some of the more 
    controversial photos in the exhibit, go to the next note NOW.

    
    From "Dangerous Beauty: Commentary on the Art of Robert Mapplethorpe" 
    by Jeffrey Fischer.  All were sung by S. Mark Aliapoulios, baritone; 
    accompanied by Herman Weiss on piano and Jeffrey Fischer on Timpani.

    1.  Popeye's Forearm
    
    "It's the same type of case, only smaller and simpler, used to 
    display documents at the National Archives: you must file past the 
    Pix shoulder to shoulder with strangers.  This is OK when you and the
    person next to you are sharing a glimpse of the Constitution; it's a 
    bit embarrassing when you make accidental, brows-raising eye contact 
    after seeing a pe*is the size of Popeye's forearm."
        Alex Heard -- "Mapplethorpe of My Eye."  The New Reupblic, 
                      8/21/89
                                              
    2.  Catholic/Symmetrical

    "I was a Catholic boy.  I went to church every Sunday.  The way I 
    arrange things is very Catholic.  It's always been that way when I 
    put things together.  Very symmetrical."
        Mapplethorpe to BBC, Joan Didion -- "Some Women," Esquire, 9/89

    3.  Rock'n Helms

    "It seems to be if someone wants to write nasty things on the Men's
    Room wall, the taxpayers do not want to provide the crayons."
        Jesse Helms quoted in MACLEAN'S, 8/15/89

    4.  Art Above the Law

    "I cannot bring myself to describe the pictures in all their gruesome
    particularities and it is doubtful that this newspaper would agree to
    publish such a description even if I could bring myself to write 
    one."
        Hilton Krammer -- "is art above the laws of decency?" 
        New York Times, 7/2/89

    5.  Man in a Polyester Suit (Four Descriptions)

    "Man in a polyester suit.  Revealed here, from to chest to kneecap, 
    is a slender male attired in a threepiece polyester suit.  
    Apparently, however, the poor man had to dress hurriedly, because his
    zipper is quite conspicuously ajar and a prominent component of his 
    anatomy awaits retrieval."
        Fred Bruning -- "Jesse Helms on the meaning of art."  MACLEAN'S, 
        8/14/89

    "...man in a polyester suit has, as we used to say, unleashed his 
    trouser trout."
        Alex Heard -- "Mapplethorpe of My Eye."  The New Republic, 
        8/21/89

    "Man in Polyester Suit is the kind of picture you could warn your 
    children against: Out of anonymous, unzipped fly comes a brutally 
    surprising pe*is, like the life force erupting in the midst of a 
    Victorian garden party."
        Kay Larson -- "Getting Graphic," New York, 8/15/88

    "In Man in Polyester Suit of 1980, the subject, in his threepiecer, 
    again cropped at the shoulder and knee, has an open fly through which
    an elephantine ph@!!us hangs heavily down, shaped like a fat integral
    sign, a thick S of flesh."
        Arthur C. Danto, Nation, 9/26/88

    6.  Browsing at the Whitney

    "The crowd at the Whitney did not appear in the least disturbed as 
    they browsed among the buttocks and the flowers."
        Mark Stevens -- "Direct Male," The New Republic, 9/26/88

RE: .28

    Censorship can be accomplished in many ways. If we have a publicly
    funded  organization  that funds "non-offensive" art, it creates a
    strong  pressure on all artists to avoid "offensive" work. If that
    organization  is  a  major source of funding for the arts, it will
    get harder to display "offensive" art.

    We've already  seen  this  happen  with movie ratings. There is no
    "censorship", but no major movie house will show an X-rated movie.
    This  has  been  written  into their leases in some cases, and all
    major  studios  require directors to produce "R" or lower ratings.
    (This  is  in the contract.) In this way, a voluntary agreement to
    help   parents   control   what  their  children  saw  has  become
    censorship,  and  prevents  certain  films  from being made. For a
    while  there  were some "serious" X-rate films such as "Last Tango
    in Paris", and "Fritz the Cat".  That is no longer possible.

    Anyone who reads this conference must by now be familiar with ways
    of  restricting  behaviour  without  being  blatant. The important
    thing is often what effect the rule has.

--David

    
    
    Question: Who has the right to give consent for the children that were
              photographed nude?
    
    Kate

    I don't know how long ago the photos were taken, but for about the last
    10 - 15 years, a photo can not be displayed or published if there's no
    legally accepted model release.
    This release is valid only for the purpose stated in it, and has to be
    signed by the photographer and the model. If the model is a minor, a
    parent or guardian has to sign.
    I can imagine that in the case where the release was signed by a
    parent, and the photographed child is off age at the time of the
    exhibition, a new release could be required.
    
    If the photos are from the times where a release wasn't required it's
    still common practice not to display untill permission is given by the
    model.
    
    Charles

	Re Releases

	As far as the current exhibit goes - both the children 
	photographed are now adults and have signed releases for
	this show.  I don't know what the original arrangement was
	when the photographs were taken.

						clb


				

>    Question: Who has the right to give consent for the children that were
>              photographed nude?
 
The children do, and they have.  What's the problem?

Frankly, I was very surprised to see parents in here saying Oh no, they
would NEVER take a picture of their child nude.  Sheesh, parents lets
little kids run around nude all the time!  If you are going to let you
four year old girl go running through the supermarket topless, what's
the big deal with taking a picture?  My parents tooks lots of pictures of
me when I was a kid - some clothed, some unclothed.  Nudity is a natural
state, especially for a child who hasn't absorbed the ridiculous
societal taboos on showing the human body.   It's a natural, nonsexual
state - it's the silly adults who are turning the children's bodies into
something to be ashamed of and embarassed by.

D!

    RE: .34
    
    D!, I have pictures of all three of my girls that prove they are
    female...  Taken in the bathtub when they were infants... taken when
    they decided to take off their bathing suits outside, etc..  I agree...
    something as innocent as that should not be viewed as child pornography.

    I too have bathtub pix of my offspring.  I didn't get them to sign any
    kind of release either, but then neither my plans nor my [practically]
    non-existent photographer-skill (no art there at all) encourage
    display, other than in a family album.
    
    As I've read this string, I've wondered at the comparisons to family
    photos.  My feeling is that such shots aren't usually displayed to
    large audiences and that is one primary difference between family pix
    and the Mapplethorpe exhibit.  If, as has been said, the subjects of
    the nude child pictures have given adult, informed consent, that's
    that.
    
    aq
    

    
    There's a note on Mapplethorpe and the exhibit in AFVAX::PHOTO, note
    1393.
    
    CQ

    There is also a string on the Mapplethorpe Exhibit in Mennotes.
    
    I think there are two main things being debated in both the Womannotes
    and Mennotes Mapplethorpe Strings:
    
    1. What IS pornography?  (That is a typical question) and in many 
    borderline photos pornography is in the mind of the beholder.
    
    2. Were the nude children in the exhibit capable of giving 'informed
    consent', at the time the photos were taken?
    
    I think there is a sub question to number 2, and that is should there
    be a difference between a childs consent being photographed in the nude
    for public display or simply being photographed nude by ANYBODY for
    ANY reason?  If the answer is photographed by anybody for any reason
    (however innocent, such as a family album) then of course it would not
    be appropriate to take the photo in the first place.
    
    I think some common sense must be applied here.  Common sense to me
    would indicate that the intent of the use of the photo(s) should be
    the determining factor. Family photos for family albums which simply
    show a few nude photos would be ok. "Artistic" photography such as in
    the exhibit would be ok if the photos were held until the child was
    old enough to give informed consent, and there was no sexual activity
    involved.
    
    I do think society makes too big an issue of non sexual nude photos of
    people.  Geeez, one would think that viewing the naked human body would
    turn ones head to stone from some of the attitudes people have, and, I
    think the undercurrent attitude that the nude body is bad contributes
    significantly to many of the sexual hang ups people develop.
    
    I think getting upset at violence if far more appropriate.   

    the Mapplethorpe exhibit is also being discussed at:
    
    Mennotes:
    479 - Mapplethorpe Revisited
    
    -Jody