Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Patricia, Dearborn Heights, MI on April 22, 2008:

17-years-old with that kind of talent is extraordinary! She is amazing! Now let's think... 17-year-old "tasteful" artist (much less "offensive" than some Great Masters) versus 21-year-old Yale student Aliza Shvartz's true/fake "Abortion Art"... hmmm... this is tough... I'm thinking the 17-year-old has much more class AND talent AND taste... Good for her and I'm so very thankful that the museum had such great sense!!! Bravo for reverse ZT!!!

Posted by George, Washington on April 22, 2008:

In Victoria did you say? Did you notice that the two girls had US dollars tucked into their garters? Probably the Canadian loonies (one dollar coins) would have fallen out?

Posted by Karen, Mountain Home AR on April 22, 2008:

Reminds me of an Art Show in Missouri my grandmother entered. The application said "no nudes." Fine, grandmother usually did fruit and such. But there was a painting causing a stir - A painting of the crucifixion after the removal of Jesus's clothing. When grandmother inquired about why that painting was allowed, she was told, "But Ma'am, that is a HOLY nude!" I guess its all in how you skew, umm, look at it.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on April 23, 2008:

Thank you, Karen, that was the point I was just about to make. Has the newspaper now decided that the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is pornographic and that Michelangelo was nothing more than a pervert?

Posted by Rollie Rankin Peoria AZ on April 24, 2008:

Well, accepted as the winner or not, she got great coverage for her artistic abilities and free advertisement like this is well worth the pinchmouth's 'rejection'. She has talent!

Posted by Dave Tucson on May 31, 2008:

I can see it being considered -- very, very, technically, as a nude. No clothing is visible, nor is anything else.

What I can't see is the art. Composition is nonexistant, exposure a bit off, focus looks to be off. This ain't the Sistine Chapel ceiling, it's just a second rate snapshot.

In the heyday of real film, this would have a Kodak Brownie moment.

Chuckle about holy nudes. Read The Boomer Bible. Its explanation for the Renaissance is that painters found out how much fun it was to paint naked women. But until then all painting had been religious, and painting naked saints was apt to draw a quick visit from the Inquisition. So instead they began painting naked pagan godesses, which could not excite the authorities. And in the course of that, discovered a few other things that had been forgotten. Such as art, science, mathematics, medicine, sculpture, drama, comedy....

The Reformation was what England had instead of a Renaissance. Because there it was too cold to take your clothes off, and looking at naked women wasn't kinky enough.

Posted by Joe, Lake Orion on June 4, 2008:

Dave: She submitted a painting, not a photo. You are viewing a snapshot of her painting, that's why the exposure and focus looks off. I'm sure if you viewed the painting in person it would look "in focus".