:eyes:
<snip>
For generations, Laguna Beach has cultivated its reputation as an art colony. It hosts three major art festivals every year. Its streets are lined with studios and galleries. Even the mascot for the local high school — at least until students voted to dump it three years ago— was an artist.
But at a recent City Council meeting, officials did what some considered blasphemous in the town that hippie Timothy Leary once called home: They suggested nixing nudity from public art in front of City Hall.
For some, the mere mention of restricting art has ruffled feathers. Said former Arts Commissioner Bruce Hopping: "It's certainly not representative of what an art colony should be…. It's imprinting youngsters to think there's something unnatural or nasty about nudity. If you're going to go to extremes, we better start putting panties on dogs and cats and everything else."
That may sound crazy, but when it comes to nudity, it's entirely a matter of opinion. All over the nation, officials are debating what is appropriate for public art — and what exactly constitutes nudity.
In New York, United Nations delegates were offended by a bronze sculpture of an elephant described by the New York Times as looking as though "it has an appointment with a lady elephant, and she's just around the corner, with Sinatra on the boom box and a bucket of martinis."
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-me-nonudes6mar06.story
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
