tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8889376615661525922.post3377870855649606236..comments2023-03-23T23:18:18.683-05:00Comments on TITLES ARE FOR PEOPLE WITH IDEAS: CensorshipJP Morrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09523981346727432463noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8889376615661525922.post-46500777990611657932012-01-18T14:57:20.309-06:002012-01-18T14:57:20.309-06:00Here, here. I've had spaces either reject or ...Here, here. I've had spaces either reject or "hide" pieces in less visible locations of a gallery space simply due to nudity. The nude figure in art is like a steak in a butcher shop... it's intrinsic. It's studied by artists for its beauty, and its direct connection to the human form, to our lives and to life itself. Nudity is way over-rated in the U.S. to start with. This harsh puritan influence has stripped away artists' right to expression (in all media) and to the study of the human form as our creator made it, a beauty that's inherent at nature's core. Those who do not wish to view nudes are more than welcome to pass it by move along to the paintings of some inanimate object. However, just because the nude is somehow (an most often incorrectly) found offensive to some doesn't mean that it is so to the rest of the audience or the industry a work is intended for. So if you don't want to see it, keep moving, and let those who appreciate the beauty of the human body do so, including all those parts that every human has. How can something so common be so offensive? It would seem to me we should all cherish this skin in all forms and representation. This skin enables the miracle and the genesis of life itself... without which, none of us would exist.<br /><br />A fellow artist... <a href="http://www.artisticperson.com/" rel="nofollow">www.artisticperson.com</a>Davehttp://www.artisticperson.comnoreply@blogger.com