It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Art or obscenity? A nude model is arrested at the Met

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Art or obscenity? A nude model is arrested at the Met


latimesblogs. latimes.com


Venus de Milo, Liberty leading the people, Lady Godiva ... and next?

Nudity has been a staple of the visual arts since time began, but apparently the real thing is still too much for some people to handle.

On Wednesday, a 26-year-old model was arrested in New York after posing for a photo shoot at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Police said Kathleen Neill was posing naked for a photographer
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 28-8-2009 by Aggie Man]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I find this story interesting, as nude portraits & sculptures are a staple in every art museum. As the article states:


"She didn't do anything sexual. She didn't perform lewdly and she made no reference to her genitalia," Schechter said in an interview with Culture Monster.

"There are nude sculptures and paintings all over the museum. It's the height of stupidity accusing a live model of showing the same thing in a house of art."


I find this ridiculous...not just this, but America's obsession with attempting to make something obscene out of the human form. If anything is obscene, it is the thoughts of those who fight to the end to stop stuff like this. Maybe these people need to do some soul searching and reflect inwardly as to why it REALLY bothers them.

Just my 2-cents

latimesblogs. latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Obscene? ...i draw live models all the time, nude models..IN SCHOOL....how is that anymore obscene?

There was once a performance artist who did someting I would consider obscene. I do not know the name of the artist but this is what happened:

The model, a woman, was completely naked, she would crouch in the female pee'ing outdoors stance and she had stuff pages and pages of monologue into her....vagina. Over the passing of a couple hours she would slowly remove the pages and read them as she went. I do not know what she was reading, but I wouldnt be surprised if it was the vagina monologues. pun intended for sure.

to me that is obscene, but a nude model, there is nothing wrong with it, especially when almost every renaissance painting has someones breasts exposed.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The problem was that there was no warning. So families with kids were walking in and witnessing it.

Yes, Americans are still prudes. But parents also have a right to decide what they want thier kids to see. If there had been a warning, it may not have been such an issue. But there wasn't, and it was a shock to many.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The problem was that there was no warning. So families with kids were walking in and witnessing it.

Yes, Americans are still prudes. But parents also have a right to decide what they want thier kids to see. If there had been a warning, it may not have been such an issue. But there wasn't, and it was a shock to many.


No warning? your in an art museum, if you expect to go there and not see nudity, you shouldnt be going. Its not like she was masturbating or doing anything crude. She was simply modeling.
I can understand not wanting your children exposed to nudity, but when there are sculptures of naked men all around you, whats the difference if that sculpture happens to move and is flesh coloured - then it becomes obscene?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The problem was that there was no warning. So families with kids were walking in and witnessing it.

Yes, Americans are still prudes. But parents also have a right to decide what they want thier kids to see. If there had been a warning, it may not have been such an issue. But there wasn't, and it was a shock to many.


BUT, that sounds like the museums responsibility to warn those that would be offended. Not the models.

Also, these parents and kids with "sensibilities" should also find the nude portraits and sculptures obscene then, right? If not, then how do they think those works of art were created? This was an opportunity for them to see and be taught that the human form is art and that there is no shame in it.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I find it ironic that American children can see blood, guts, mayhem, torture, murder and all sorts of violence on the TV/cable/video games;
but somehow need to be protected from the sight of a female body.

Is it any wonder that we are so screwed up?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I agree that this is outrageous.

Nudity in Art, especially in a Museum, is to be not only expected but tolerated. When one is conducting a nude Photo Shoot in a Museum it shouldn't be considered out of place. Granted, the Photographer should have scheduled an after-hours shoot in cooperation with the Museum, but perhaps that was not possible. Still, it seems a little outrageous that nudity for the sake of Art would not be tolerated in the NY Met.

In my town we had a local High School Artist paint an Abstract painting that was titled "Self Portrait - Nude". A local Gallery displayed the piece. Not only did the local High School refuse to allow their students to view the work after-school, off-school premises at this gallery, but threatened any students attending the showing with expulsion. The local Art Walk boycotted the gallery from it's monthly showings for displaying the work. After it got lots of local media coverage, both the Artist and the Gallery owner were brought up on charges of creating, possession, and distributing of Child Pornography because the Artist was a Minor! Did I mention this was an ABSTRACT painting? I'm not quite sure what is Pornographic about some brightly colored scribbled lines and a few brightly colored squares arranged for good measure! But because of the title of the piece, and for no other reason, it qualified as Child Pornography!

The rest of the world (except Singapore) laugh at how Puritanical American Culture is. Our laws forsake common sense and reason for some anachronistic, out-dated 16th century Puritan values that were considered laughable even in the 16th century (which is why they left Europe and came here!). When are we going to catch up to the rest of the world and join the 21st Century?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There is nothing obscene with the nude body.

But that doesn't mean that you have the right to drop your pants anyplace you feel like.

She got naked and was arrested. Big deal.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I agree with nixie_nox.

Some have pointed out that kids are exposed to blood and guts all the time.

Not all of them are. Some parents don't allow their children to view things like that.

A sculpted piece of granite is differant then a person sitting there naked. Some see that piece of granite as art and they see the person sitting there as nudity.

Then you have those who dislikes art that shows nudity.

Bottom line, there should have been some type of warning stating that a paticular piece of art maybe offensive to some people.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
There is nothing obscene with the nude body.

But that doesn't mean that you have the right to drop your pants anyplace you feel like.


A long, long, long time ago, people in this country used to talk about "freedom," and having as much of it as possible.

If there is nothing wrong with something, you should NOT be arrested for doing it!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


But, we have laws on the books against nudity.

The people can change the law.

I say it's up to the people.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this is plain, straight, and simple, BS.

People do worse things on the streets of NYC, and no one cares. Some artsy nude photoshoot happens in a museum, with paintings and sculptures of nude people, with nothing sexual going on?! WTF people?

Here's a thought to anyone who complained, define art for me, and then explain to me that this so called crime, was any different than what is on the walls of that museum, without contradicting your answer to my first statement.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
If you read the article, the photographer did not even have permission to do the shoot. He has an upcoming exhibition and was doing this for publicity by the look of it, knowing full well it is controversial to start filming a nude model in a public place. Can't say I want to see nude models at an art gallery...although I would be all for locking up some ridiculous artists...lol



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I think a lot in this country needs urgent change. Maybe when we finally get around to it, we can remember to make sure nudity won't get you arrested anymore.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Just a question, not an arguement.

does that mean none of you would have a problem with your significant other standing nude in public? Especially for display?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Just a question, not an arguement.

does that mean none of you would have a problem with your significant other standing nude in public? Especially for display?


My SO has a beautiful body and she is free to do anything with her body that she wants.

I damn sure wouldn't want her to put restrictions on mine.

But we are children of the 60s and don't have the emotional constipation that others want to lay on us.

We also know the meaning of discretion. And would never go out of our way to offend anyone.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
If you read the article, the photographer did not even have permission to do the shoot.


I missed that part. Thanks for bringing it up.

A lot of Amateur and Independent Artists, Film Makers, and Photographers resort to Guerrilla Art. That is where you don't get proper permission and pay the site fees, file the proper permits, and get insurance. Why? Because most Amateur and Independent Artists, Film Makers, and Photographers can't afford those things!

However, when one partakes in Guerrilla Art, getting caught, fined or arrested is a calculated risk that the Artist (and in this case Model) must face.

If the Model and Photographer (and Crew) were kicked off the premises and charged with Trespassing, then that would be one thing. However, Indecent Exposure hardly seems to fit the crime if they didn't have proper permission from the Met to conduct the Photoshoot.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Ironic is this:

In the MET there are paintings of fully nude people hanging on the wall .. we bring our kids and admire the works of art ourselves and declare it art for all to see....

A Model stands nude in the same building where the nude art is displayed and she is declared obscene.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Just a question, not an arguement.

does that mean none of you would have a problem with your significant other standing nude in public? Especially for display?


This is a valid question... which I would extend to parents regarding their own children.

Oddly, the thought of my spouse doing this does disturb me. Not sure if it's a cultural thing or maybe just my own insecurities. As far as one of my kids, I would have to say I would need reassurances regarding the environment and circumstances of the modeling. I would be generally inclined to resist the notion - but for some strange reason, I wouldn't be as apprehensive as if my spouse were doing it. That merits some introspection... thanks for the question....




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join