Craig Clark on sat 21 sep 02
Ok Earl, ya caught me in full knee-jerk mode. I thought about my Madonna
and Child comment after I'd sent in my rather hasty reply. Your absolutely
right. The sculpture at the front door is titled "Lovers" and the folks are
not mother and child. I didn't really notice until after I went back to take
a closer look and full tour of the sight.
I will however stand by my assertion that the image communicates a
soft,loving type of carress or embrace.
What caused my knee to jerk so quickly was the use of the word
pornographic to describe the site. There is no connection! Unless the
definition used for pornography is virtually any image in which the figures
are unclothed.
I also agree that as care givers we do infact have a responsibility to
shield our children. I also agree that folks who create images ought to give
us caregivers that opportunity, though in this case I'm still left with
mouth wide as to what the tender young eyes would be shielded against. That
being said, it is up to the childrens parent(s) what they ought or ought not
be able to see. God.....I'm getting awfully conservative in my middle age.
I'd have been screaming censorship from the high heavens regardless of the
circumstances 10 years ago.
But there has been no form of censorship here, nor has any even been
intimated. What set me off was the hint of it when pornographic was used as
a modifier. That's what got me to the site to begin with. Come to think of
it, the most difficult thing that a site faces is getting traffic to the
site. Perhaps the whole thing is some type of set up to draw attention. If
that is the case then I'm an unwitting schill.
To conclude, finally, we have had a problem in a rather conservative
county just north of the city where a group of fundamentalist folks want a
number of books removed from the public libraries up there. Both sides have
been lobbing bombs back and forth across the fence.
Today, in the Chronicle (not exactly a bastion of bleeding hearts) an
ex-librarian came up with the best suggestion that I have heard to date. If
the material is somehow deemed offensive by some parents then the material
may be placed in an area that is cordined off for adults. Not a bad idea.
The gate keepers are happy. No censorship.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Brunner"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
> Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I wouldn't
> consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are obviously
> both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is "Lovers".
> It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just randomly, casually
> expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly. There are
> some aspects of life that fit into how, and what, one defines themselves
> as. There are many things that may not be either "good" or "bad" but
> that as caregivers, we should be careful about when we expose children
> to them. To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is appropriate
> for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible. Marilynn is
> responsible for her children; she chooses how and when her children are
> exposed to nudity, the concept of lovers, etc. She doesn't like
> surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if harmless, surprises
> in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
>
> Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level classes, juniors
> and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked from real
> nudes.
>
>
> Earl Brunner
> mailto:bruec@anv.net
> http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On
> Behalf Of Craig Clark
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:07 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
>
> Marilynn, went to the site in search of a titilating or unsavory
> image. Much to my surprise all I found was a Madonna and Child type
> bronze image on the home page. Is that the piece that you are refering
> to or is there another that I overlooked? If it is I suggest that you
> aquaint yourself with the long and expressive history of the nude in
> art. Start with a book titled "The Nude," by Kenneth Clarke. He goes
> into great detail about the importance of the imagery and the difference
> between that which is "naked" and the use of "the nude."
> Is it the lack of clothing that you find pornographic? Perhaps it is
> the embrace? The image speaks to me of soft loving caress or deep care
> and feeling. Perhaps those are the elements that strike you as being
> pornographic. Honestly perplexed on this one (not even a wisp of
> genitalia in sight!) Craig Dunn Clark 619 East 11 1/2 st Houston, Texas
> 77008 (713)861-2083 mudman@hal-pc.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Knik at Kodiak"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: neat website
>
>
> > Hello from Alaska,
> > A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the sites with
> > me. I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the front door.
> > Art is no excuse for pornography. Marilynn
> >
> > Lesley Alexander wrote:
> >
> > >Sculptures that will get you going!
> > >
> > >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> > >
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
