Randy Cassingham's Blog

The Chrysler Museum official is correct, there's nothing showing. I mean ok sure you can see part of her butt but good grief, it's not much more skin then you'd see on a woman in a skimpy bikini. Her breast isn't even showing. Sounds like the staff at the paper are nothing but prudes.

You know, that painting is a quite a bit more provocative than your story led me to expect. An identifiable minor child stark raving naked? I'm not sure I'd be publishing it around town, either. Surely you'd concede that it's a gray area.

I wonder: If it had been a photograph, rather than a painting, would you still think the newspaper staff had made a "stupid" decision? How about if the 50-year-old lech next door were the photographer and you were her dad? I don't know that I have a firm opinion on the subject. I'm just curious about where YOU'd draw the line.

The kids look as dumb as their actions sugest.

The art looks to be an excellent work of art well worth the $1,000 price paid for it.

Re: Expose Yourself to Art

Maybe Beth refused to cede them the right to sell her image in The Virginian-Pilot Photo Store.

Or perhaps they only permit images of near-naked men.

You really do have to wonder about the inside of the mind of people who act this way over what is obviously art. Good luck and thanks to the museum bosses.

In the art contest story 1) If I remember right the newspaper referenced in the story is owned by the family of the late Jerry Falwell.

2) It looks like something out of Hustler magazines 'Beaver Hunt' section. Maybe the problem is they need better judges.

3) SEVENTEEN!!!? Congratulations on your entry into the world of kiddie porn Randy

---

Perversion is in the mind of the beholder. Your reaction says a lot about you, and nothing about me. -rc

good for the Chrysler Museum! thank god artistic talent did not go unrewarded. it's a triumph of common sense over absurd stupidity!!!

Kudos to the Chrysler Museum and to Beth! I don't really know anything to speak of about art, but even I can tell Beth depicted the human body with obvious talent and skill. You can see the definition of the muscles in the legs and back of the "model" (yes, the artist). The detail in her left foot, for instance, is very nicely done. As for her being "identifiable", we don't know that the image of her face is accurate enough for that. People who object to this probably would object to Michaelangelo's "David" as well - and because it is 2-dimensional, Beth's painting shows considerably less.

I do not believe in child porn under "any" circumstances, but I think the 17 yr old self portrait was done in good taste considering nudes weren't forbidden. The press thinks real highly of a lot trasher painting than this so who are they to deny the girl her prize money. Evidently her parents approved of the painting!

---

Finally! I've been waiting for someone to bring up that point. And that indeed is the point when no rules have been violated. -rc

As a mother, I am the first to get on the warpath against the exploitation of women and children. I am a conservative mother of four, a Christian, and a republican. I am also an artist, and the photo of the three crooks was more disturbing to me than the 17 year olds self portrait. I'd be a lot angrier with my kids for ripping someone off than for expressing themselves artistically. There was nothing sexual in that painting, unless the beholder themself is a pervert.