Contemplating Nude Artworks
A fifth-grade teacher in Texas, Sydney McGee, was suspended and ultimately lost her job because she took her students on a fieldtrip to the Dallas Museum of Art. The museum contained nude sculptures, and one of the students complained to their parents, who in turn complained to the school.
So what do you think of nude works of art? Beautiful, culturally relevant, or offensive? What do you think about exposing children to them?
It is my belief that all people, including children, should be exposed to fine works of art. All types of art--including paintings, sculpture, and music--can be very moving and inspiring, and can help a person gain insight into their own aesthetic senses and feelings as well as the feelings and emotions of others. If a child is taught to appreciate art, including the human form that has been so beautiful and inspiring to artists for centuries, I believe that they would not be offended by the nude form represented artistically but instead learn to be moved by its perfections and imperfections alike--in a sense, to see the beauty in ourselves, which is a true intent of many artists.
If a child--or person in general--is taught to understand and appreciate art and respect it for what it is, they would be, in a way, reverent toward it and not see it as something to be embarrassed about or be offended by it. We should teach our children respect for all forms of expression, lest they grow up to be intolerant of the feelings of others and not recognize their own.
So what do you think of nude works of art? Beautiful, culturally relevant, or offensive? What do you think about exposing children to them?
It is my belief that all people, including children, should be exposed to fine works of art. All types of art--including paintings, sculpture, and music--can be very moving and inspiring, and can help a person gain insight into their own aesthetic senses and feelings as well as the feelings and emotions of others. If a child is taught to appreciate art, including the human form that has been so beautiful and inspiring to artists for centuries, I believe that they would not be offended by the nude form represented artistically but instead learn to be moved by its perfections and imperfections alike--in a sense, to see the beauty in ourselves, which is a true intent of many artists.
If a child--or person in general--is taught to understand and appreciate art and respect it for what it is, they would be, in a way, reverent toward it and not see it as something to be embarrassed about or be offended by it. We should teach our children respect for all forms of expression, lest they grow up to be intolerant of the feelings of others and not recognize their own.
posted by Anonymous at 10/03/2006 08:55:00 AM
4 Comments:
I think some parents don't want their kids looking at naked people, or pictures/sculptures of naked people.
All people are entitled to their opinion of what art is. People are not entitled, however, to decide what art is to other people. It is not up to the teacher to decide what art is to a child.
The parent is responsible for the child. If the parent doesn't want a child looking at nude sculptures, then the child shouldn't be looking at it, and the teacher shouldn't be forcing the issue "because it's art".
This teacher should have known better. How can she expect someone to respect your beliefs when she don't respect theirs? She expected the children (and parents) to have the love and passion for art, but she didn't show love or passion for her kids or their parents.
I come at this from a somewhat unique perspective having taken many an art class, and many an art history class. I have seen many a nude piece of art, and I can tell you how I feel about many a them, but not how you should feel ('many a' is a great form of speech). My feelings are a two-pronged beast, thusly written:
The female figure is the MOST beautiful creation in the entire world, bar-none. The pinnacle of creation is also the most beautiful. When you enter a museum you know that you are looking at works designed to be two-dimensional stories where the words are replaced by form. If you look at a piece of artwork which contains a nude form it helps to look at it from a purely design perspective. How do the foreground and background work together? Look at the contours, planes of color, and asymmetry. It's really quite beautiful. Obviously, I can't speak for every painting, but on the whole it's true.
Having said that, I find that most, if not all people (men) are simultaneously titillated at the sight of this beautiful form. This, when put in a gospel context, is not healthy. For members of the church, the concept of nudity, and consequently intimacy, is reserved for one person, and one person only: a spouse. When you put a human spirit into each one of those static images, you feel for that woman. I, for one, can not seperate the art from my feelings of: "Who is this woman? Where is her husband? I shouldn't be seeing her like this. My wife is very beautiful to me, would I want others to see her this way?" I've been to many museums in the world, and this feeling always accompanies a nude form, however beautiful or tasteful. Obviously I don't know where they'll pop-up, but when they do, I try not to look again out of respect for that woman, and my wife. It's quite a battle.
There's no question about the artistic value of a human body, nude or otherwise.
The question is this: Should a teacher decide what art the kids should be able to look at?
In this case, the teacher is under the impression that she can be "intolerant of the feelings of others" because it's art.
These are all great points said by all. I think that there should have been some sort of permission slip about what the children were to be viewing. If there was, then there wouldn't have been such a problem, and the blame would rely solely on the parents.
My other thought is this. I too have taken many a art class in my time. From commercial art, to art history. There are always going to be nude forms in art. Male and Female. The artists did not make those for pornography's sake, but to show the complexities of the human form. The way a person moves and what the muscles look like is hard to see through a layer of clothing. I would add the exception of commercial art, that is an etirely different standpoint in that sex sells.
I do agree with what Sam has said in relation to the gospel. We actually had this discussion a short time ago. I agree if you look at it through the immature eyes, and see it as porn, then it is very detrimental to ones being, especially that of a child, who does not know any better. Nudity does have it's place in the sanctity of the marriage bonds. I don't think that it is neccesary for me to show off anyone that I care about nude. Nor do I want to make art in that way. Nor do I personally try to seek out and find that sort of art. Just my personal preference.
Post a Comment
<< Home