This censorship seems very silly to me, but here's a possible explanation: when I used to model for a figure drawing class, there was a rule that nobody could take a photograph of the model unless he or she explicitly gave his or her consent. But people were busily drawing the model all the time! I think the reason was that a drawing or painting of a nude figure is not easily pinned down as to who the model is. But a photograph is much more obviously of a certain individual.
Could this have had anything to do with the case in point? --shannon On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, B P wrote:
There are two photographers who do silver-gelatin prints who had their prints removed from a show after they had already past through a jury and were hung. The artists are, David Schroeder, a local Psychologist and Lee Bailey, the lab tech and teachers assistant at the Jr. College that I attend. I saw the images and there were beautiful images of beautiful figures. They were not distasteful in the least bit. I went to the show and it's full of nude paintings. The paintings were just as nude as the photographs. The only images that were taken down from the show were photographs! It's my opinion that the body is artwork in and of itself. That viewing a beautiful human form would cause such discomfort for someone says troubling things about that person, not the artwork or the artist. Should we not see the human form as artwork unless it looks 'less real'?Have any of you had this kind of trouble showing your photographs of the figure?You can read the story at modbee.com you just scroll down a bit and you will see it.I think I'll go write a letter to the editor. Becky Lynn
============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
