Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Duane - Idaho on April 19, 2008:

Here's what the young artist herself had to say in the Pilot about whether her painting was perverted or pornographic -

"Beth said she loves art history and appreciates the nudes she has seen in classical art. 'It's not perverted at all. Now, it's almost like if you see a naked person it's pornographic, and that's not true.'�"

Posted by Shelly from Faiview, Ut on April 19, 2008:

I think the piece is a fabulous work of art and study of the human body. I am so against kiddie porn and sexulizing kids that I still will not buy Calvin Klien because of his sexualizing of children for his advertising--but nudity does not equal sexual unless your mind is in the gutter--that painting is beautiful and I'm grateful to the museum for encouraging a young artist who is sure to go places with her work. Thanks for a good story that makes us think!

Posted by Gaye ...Australia on April 19, 2008:

I see here that most of these comments are in favour of showing this art, it is not a matter of what is in the mind but what is correct and what is not, we have some sick people out there and they don't need encouraging, this is a young teenager for goodness sake.

Whilst I feel that her painting is fantasitc, I gather that the papers aim was to protect siblings and other from seeing someone so young in nothing at all, I can only applaud their common sense.

Just because a peice of art is fantastic does it mean that it is correct to show. We can say that art is art, but is that just an excuse to show porn.

If in an art show someone paints a fantastic award winning peice of art of a nude man and woman having sex, do we show it???

I would hate to go back to the Victorian days but from what I hear the American society has already almost reached rock bottom morally and should be doing something about fixing it.

There are many beautiful paintings of nude women around but this is of a young teen.

Posted by Randy in Seattle on April 19, 2008:

About the art contest: I can see several sides to this, which is part of what makes it a great story.

Now, the newspaper really should stick to the rules of the contest. The person who submitted the best work should get the prize (...and clearly this artist has more brains than all 3 of the kids in the 1st story...). The fact that the paper may be unwilling to print the entry is its problem, not the artist's (although hopefully this is a useful lesson to her about dealing with problem customers).

The paper should change the rules for next time, but not retroactively.

At the same time, I understand the paper MAY have concern because, although I don't consider it pornographic, SOME people might, and that "some people" may include a prosecutor. Her consent to the depiction would probably not matter if she's a minor. The paper should have a loooong talk with the ACLU before printing it, and also talk to its circulation manager about how many dropped subscriptions they can afford.

Hopefully, the paper could avoid punishment on 1st Amendment grounds, or perhaps the relevant community standards would give them a pass at trial (I don't know). But in any event, few papers are in business to hire defense lawyers.

I must congratulate you for resisting the temptation to observe that the paper's owners were just thinking of the Bottom Line.

Posted by Alice, California on April 19, 2008:

Is it just me? -- appears that the torso from waist up is distorted, not normal. What is the background? It looks like a cave writing in a primitive site. Perhaps there is more symbolism here than can be deciphered.

Posted by Dana, Evans on April 20, 2008:

The intent of the artist/model(s) should be considered. Those students at the photo shop could just as easily dressed up as upstanding citizens in period costume. That they didn't speaks to their mindset (similar to the "Pimp & Ho" kids Hallowe'en costumes that made a splash a few years back).

In contrast, Beth strove to capture the body in its native form, and also strove to keep its depiction rather chaste, all things considered.

That this caused a stir is more a sign of the times than anything. (I had pictures posted to my website of our newborn-minutes old baby granddaughter that I took down for exactly that reason. No one in their right mind would have considered them porn, but "right minded" seems to have a different meaning nowadays...)

The newspaper was perhaps being sensible on the one hand, but senseless on the other. They should have at least acknowledged the fact the museum thought she had done the best and awarded the prize, and kept up their end of the bargain.

Incidentally, Rick Steves (of the PBS travel show) often faces this conundrum himself when filming on location, where much of the art is public art, and is often unabashed in its showing of the human form.

---

You're right: it is a sign of our prudish times. That's why we need to rail against those who insist on injecting perversion into the human form. (The pimp/ho costumes you referred to are discussed here. -rc

Posted by Neil, UK on April 20, 2008:

I know everyone's talking about the second story, but I'd like to disagree with the tagline of the first: The girl's actions may have made her a crook, but it was Bonahan's publication of the photos that made her feel like a crook.

Of course, making her realise what she was was a good thing.

Posted by Linda, CT on April 20, 2008:

The image of the three teens is more provocative than the art that was denied first place in the newspaper. Drinking, cash in garters, and fishnets compared to leg skin (visible in shorts) and back skin (visible in a bikini). I actually had to look a third time to realize you could see some of her rear.

I can understand not wanting to show her art because of younger siblings (I wouldn't want to see my sister naked either, if I had one), but she still should have won the cash prize.

Also, to those that are saying "she's a young teen" and that if she was an adult, then the artistic nudity would be "alright"- this girl is seventeen. In a year or less, she will be considered an "adult." She's a mature young woman that understands the naked body is not automatically pornographic, not some little kid.

Posted by Marie,CA on April 21, 2008:

I agree with Alice in CA. The upper torso looks odd to me too. That being said, the rest looks well defined.

Bravo to the photographer for showing the kids' picture.
Maybe they will think twice before running out on another commitment.

Posted by Nanci, Presque Isle, Maine on April 21, 2008:

There's a poignant Gollum-like quality to the 17-year-old's self portrait. Anatomically, it's outstanding. Art in my book.

The kids--well, they watch too much damn TV.