KimberlyAnn wrote:Many years ago, when I was a young, new mother and working in Young Women's, I had a sleepover at my home. Everything went well until Sunday morning when the mothers of a few of the girls pulled me aside in the hallway. They wanted to speak with me privately in one of the classrooms.
Several of the young women who stayed at my home told their mothers that I had naked people on my living room wall and, naturally, those mothers were quite concerned. I explained to them that the naked people were in a framed poster of Matisse's The Dance with Nasturtiums! I couldn't believe those young girls couldn't distinguish between a beautiful piece of art depicting the human body and base pornography!
As it happened, one of the mothers looked up the artwork later, and also believed it was inappropriate for her daughter to see. So I agreed to take it off the wall if the girls came to my home again. It was ridiculous.
Yes, if you start your own school you can pretty much do what you want.
But... BYU agreed to show the entire exhibit. This was stated in their agreement two years before it hit the campus. They knew every piece that was in the exhibit. If they had not agreed to every piece they did not get the exhibit.
They agreed to show it per the signed agreement... and then censored the exhibit.
I was surprised at the decision myself, and might still not agree with it. However, I was told by someone I know in the Museum of Art--someone exceptionally well placed--that there were some considerations in the case that made the decision quite a bit more comprehensible.
It's been years, though, and I'm unsure of the details. It wasn't, as I recall, mere nudity. In fact, that wasn't the issue at all.
This statement is true only to the extent that the following statements are true:
"It's a free country, I can do whatever I want."
"It's my business, I can do with it whatever I want."
Do I really need to explain to you why these statements are not true and why your statement that a private university can do whatever it wants is also not true?
I gave pretty much the only regulation you'll run into. Heck, just put a sign above the door to your room. Perhaps your problem is you want to force everyone to view the art you like.
Brigham Young University administrators probably reasoned that exhibiting Rodin's The Kiss, could have lead the over stimulation of the students "Little Factories". In addition to which, they would have to answer to murmurs of the surrounding community who would be certain to notice that the stone figures did not seem to have any clothes on.
The Thinker was another matter. The shrewd minds of the Brigham Young University administrators must have noticed the resemblance of its pose to one that humans assume during a bowel evacuation. An alternate explanation is that they suspected the symbolism of The Thinker posed a subversive threat to the values they espoused on a daily basis.
This statement is true only to the extent that the following statements are true:
"It's a free country, I can do whatever I want."
"It's my business, I can do with it whatever I want."
Do I really need to explain to you why these statements are not true and why your statement that a private university can do whatever it wants is also not true?
I gave pretty much the only regulation you'll run into. Heck, just put a sign above the door to your room. Perhaps your problem is you want to force everyone to view the art you like.
WTF????
If you don't like the art, don't go to the exhibit. I couldn't care less one way or the other.
If you're too prudish to display it, don't request it.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Of course art has potential of being dangerous. My curiosity was piqued a bit with the suggestion that the Rodan has some other problem than nudity. Would it be clarity intensity and a passion for the ordinary human? Though for danger it would be hard to compare with the Matisse. Truly dangerous. Can you imaging sitting in meeting with the fellow in front of you slipping into sleep and have the memory of that picture come sneaking into your imagination? Kimberly, look what it has done to you.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I was surprised at the decision myself, and might still not agree with it. However, I was told by someone I know in the Museum of Art--someone exceptionally well placed--that there were some considerations in the case that made the decision quite a bit more comprehensible.
It's been years, though, and I'm unsure of the details.
LOL,
This post is is so "archetypically" Daniel Peterson.
I love it.
What considerations? Jee, we are left wondering. :)
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
huckelberry wrote:Of course art has potential of being dangerous. My curiosity was piqued a bit with the suggestion that the Rodan has some other problem than nudity. Would it be clarity intensity and a passion for the ordinary human? Though for danger it would be hard to compare with the Matisse. Truly dangerous. Can you imaging sitting in meeting with the fellow in front of you slipping into sleep and have the memory of that picture come sneaking into your imagination? Kimberly, look what it has done to you.
I'm sure the nudity in that Matisse contributed partially to my apostasy, Huckelberry! It was early evidence of my wickedness. ;)
huckelberry wrote:Of course art has potential of being dangerous. My curiosity was piqued a bit with the suggestion that the Rodan has some other problem than nudity. Would it be clarity intensity and a passion for the ordinary human? Though for danger it would be hard to compare with the Matisse. Truly dangerous. Can you imaging sitting in meeting with the fellow in front of you slipping into sleep and have the memory of that picture come sneaking into your imagination? Kimberly, look what it has done to you.
I'm sure the nudity in that Matisse contributed partially to my apostasy, Huckelberry! It was early evidence of my wickedness. ;)
KA
I might suspect a minor influence from the nudity. But gee for nude those figures are very little naked. But that spectacular blue. Now that's an invitation to wide awake to wonder.