There's a war a-brewin' in suburban Kansas City. Depending on who you ask, determines what the war is about. According to the American Family Association of Kansas and Missouri it is a war on family values and decency. According to a contributor to the Kansas City Star it's a war on artistic expression and free speech.
The cause for this brouhaha? A statue in a botanical garden. This statue, to be precise.
There are signs warning parents of statues “depicting the human form” in the garden, but that's apparently not good enough for the AFA.
According to the artist, Yu Chang, the statue “symbolizes our loss of identity when we only take pictures of bits and pieces for people to see.” Basically, a symbol of the human tendency to dehumanize others and make judgements based on incomplete information. All this fuss seems to prove the point the artist was trying to make!
The AFA is trying to claim that the statue is in violation of Kansas anti-obscenity laws and are trying to get signatures on a petition to take to court to get the statue removed. The same thing happened a while back, and failed, so I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish by doing the exact thing again, considering the court threw the suit out. I made a cursory review of Kansas' anti-obscenity law, and as far as I can see, there is no violation.
All of this makes me wonder, what makes this statue so much more obscene than, say, that super famous statue of David? You know, the one with his teeny little manhood hanging out. Is it because there is *gasp* a nipple? Or is it because it's “modern” art instead of “classical” or “Renaissance” art?
I have to conclude that the AFA group has not spent very much time outside of whatever little sheltered circle they call home. The Kansas City metro area has many statues and fountains that are just as, if not more so, “risque” than the one in the botanical garden. On the Plaza alone, in plain view of the public, with no signs warning parents, there are multiple fountains and statues depicting various states of nudity.
According to the artist, Yu Chang, the statue “symbolizes our loss of identity when we only take pictures of bits and pieces for people to see.” Basically, a symbol of the human tendency to dehumanize others and make judgements based on incomplete information. All this fuss seems to prove the point the artist was trying to make!
The AFA is trying to claim that the statue is in violation of Kansas anti-obscenity laws and are trying to get signatures on a petition to take to court to get the statue removed. The same thing happened a while back, and failed, so I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish by doing the exact thing again, considering the court threw the suit out. I made a cursory review of Kansas' anti-obscenity law, and as far as I can see, there is no violation.
All of this makes me wonder, what makes this statue so much more obscene than, say, that super famous statue of David? You know, the one with his teeny little manhood hanging out. Is it because there is *gasp* a nipple? Or is it because it's “modern” art instead of “classical” or “Renaissance” art?
I have to conclude that the AFA group has not spent very much time outside of whatever little sheltered circle they call home. The Kansas City metro area has many statues and fountains that are just as, if not more so, “risque” than the one in the botanical garden. On the Plaza alone, in plain view of the public, with no signs warning parents, there are multiple fountains and statues depicting various states of nudity.
There is the Pomona fountain, which happens to be on a corner at an intersection, with her boobs & butt hanging out. There's the fountain by Starbucks with a frog spitting water on to a little naked boy's crotch. And those are just two of the fountains on the Plaza with nudity. Is that some how less offensive to the AFA, or do they not care because it's in Missouri?
And then, of course, there's the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, a place where children go on field trips, that is packed to the gills with nudity!
There is this
on the outside of the building.
This statue
is on prominent display in middle of the museum.
An entire exhibit is dedicated to sketches of nude figures with no parental guidance suggested.
And, let us not forget, the tribal fertility statues or the Roman and the Renaissance nudes.
Pretty much since the beginning of art, the human form, in all it's glory and imperfection, has been depicted in various mediums. I find it depressing that so many people in the Midwest, instead of appreciating art, and the beauty and variety of humanity that it can depict, automatically jump to the “Sex, porn, indecent and obscene” mindset when they see a sculpted boob.
No comments:
Post a Comment