vince pitelka on fri 20 sep 02
> > >Sculptures that will get you going!
> > >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
Wow. Thanks to Leslie Alexander for pointing us to this website, and I
really feel SORRY for anyone who would see these works as pornographic.
What an unfortunate misinterpretation of these works of art. Marilyn, these
are excellent figurative artworks, and if you think you are "protecting"
your children by keeping them away from imagery like this, you are sadly
mistaken. Education through ignorance and censorship does such harm.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Craig Clark on fri 20 sep 02
Marilynn, went to the site in search of a titilating or unsavory image.
Much to my surprise all I found was a Madonna and Child type bronze image on
the home page. Is that the piece that you are refering to or is there
another that I overlooked? If it is I suggest that you aquaint yourself with
the long and expressive history of the nude in art. Start with a book titled
"The Nude," by Kenneth Clarke. He goes into great detail about the
importance of the imagery and the difference between that which is "naked"
and the use of "the nude."
Is it the lack of clothing that you find pornographic? Perhaps it is the
embrace? The image speaks to me of soft loving caress or deep care and
feeling. Perhaps those are the elements that strike you as being
pornographic.
Honestly perplexed on this one (not even a wisp of genitalia in sight!)
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knik at Kodiak"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: neat website
> Hello from Alaska,
> A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the sites with me.
> I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the front door. Art is
> no excuse for pornography.
> Marilynn
>
> Lesley Alexander wrote:
>
> >Sculptures that will get you going!
> >
> >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
> >
> >.
> >
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Carol Tripp on sat 21 sep 02
I hadn't looked into the web site until the "controversy" flared and I hit
the button fully expecting to have my request for the site turned down by
Etisalat, the UAE phone company which moniters all sites we can access via
their lines. I got in and I can tell you that if this image was printed in
a newpaper or magazine imported into Dubai, the men with the large black
magic markers would have inked out everything below the necks. (They would
do it to the Venus de Milo too. Think about that.)
So, what is viewed as improper by some people is not by others. Personally
I'm still wondering about the covering up of the statue of justice that
Ashcroft didn't like standing near.
Best regards,
Carol
>
> > Hello from Alaska,
> > A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the sites with me.
> > I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the front door. Art is
> > no excuse for pornography.
> > Marilynn
> >
> > Lesley Alexander wrote:
> >
> > >Sculptures that will get you going!
> > >
> > >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> > >
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________________
>___
> > >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> > >
> > >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> > >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> > >
> > >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
> > >
> > >.
> > >
> >
> >
>____________________________________________________________________________
>__
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
Churchill
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Earl Brunner on sat 21 sep 02
Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I wouldn't
consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are obviously
both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is "Lovers".
It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just randomly, casually
expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly. There are
some aspects of life that fit into how, and what, one defines themselves
as. There are many things that may not be either "good" or "bad" but
that as caregivers, we should be careful about when we expose children
to them. To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is appropriate
for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible. Marilynn is
responsible for her children; she chooses how and when her children are
exposed to nudity, the concept of lovers, etc. She doesn't like
surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if harmless, surprises
in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level classes, juniors
and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked from real
nudes.
Earl Brunner
mailto:bruec@anv.net
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On
Behalf Of Craig Clark
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:07 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
Marilynn, went to the site in search of a titilating or unsavory
image. Much to my surprise all I found was a Madonna and Child type
bronze image on the home page. Is that the piece that you are refering
to or is there another that I overlooked? If it is I suggest that you
aquaint yourself with the long and expressive history of the nude in
art. Start with a book titled "The Nude," by Kenneth Clarke. He goes
into great detail about the importance of the imagery and the difference
between that which is "naked" and the use of "the nude."
Is it the lack of clothing that you find pornographic? Perhaps it is
the embrace? The image speaks to me of soft loving caress or deep care
and feeling. Perhaps those are the elements that strike you as being
pornographic. Honestly perplexed on this one (not even a wisp of
genitalia in sight!) Craig Dunn Clark 619 East 11 1/2 st Houston, Texas
77008 (713)861-2083 mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knik at Kodiak"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: neat website
> Hello from Alaska,
> A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the sites with
> me. I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the front door.
> Art is no excuse for pornography. Marilynn
>
> Lesley Alexander wrote:
>
> >Sculptures that will get you going!
> >
> >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> >
vince pitelka on sun 22 sep 02
> Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I wouldn't
> consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are obviously
> both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is "Lovers".
> It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just randomly, casually
> expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly.
Well, Earl, I am sad for you and for your children, because there is nothing
whatsoever wrong with exposing children to images of naked people or to
actual naked people suddenly or otherwise, as long as it is treated as a
perfectly natural and ordinary thing, which it is. It is not nudity that is
the problem, it is all the irrational fear and bigotry tied up in paranoid
religion-based responses to nudity in our culture. If we do not teach our
children that irrational fear and bigotry, then there is no problem.
Fortunately, I think we are getting past the fear and bigotry, however
slowly, and one of the best ways to facilitate this is to teach children
that the human body in all it forms is beautiful, and that there is nothing
shameful or indecent about nudity.
OF COURSE children and everyone else must learn when and where nudity is
okay, and to learn about good taste and discretion, but to "protect"
children from non-pornographic images of nudity is completly absurd, and IS
censorship.
> To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is appropriate
> for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible.
Oh Earl, quit lecturing. You're being pompous. The above has nothing to do
with this discussion.
> surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if harmless, surprises
> in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
Yes, but the unfortunate truth is that it shouldn't matter a bit what the
parents like or dislike. The only thing that matters is what is good for
the kids, and censorship of images like these accomplishes nothing positive,
and denies children the opportunity to learn a healthy appreciation for
tasteful renditions of the nude figure in art. Tasteful images of the nude
human body are not inherently sexual in any way unless we impose purient
interpretations. Kids know better unless we polute them with our own
paranoia.
> Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level classes, juniors
> and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked from real
> nudes.
That frightens me. Where was that? I taught beginning drawing classes to
students of all levels, including lots of freshman and sophomores, at
Northeastern University in Boston and at North Dakota State University in
Fargo, and we always had a two-week component of figure drawing working from
nude life models. I never had ANY kind of problem with this, and the
students did fantastic work from the life model.
I get the impression you are intelligent and open minded, and thus your
views on this matter surprise me.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Eric Suchman on sun 22 sep 02
Can any one please send me the original URL of this very neat site? I think
I deleted it in error and wish to pass it on to my friends.
claybair on sun 22 sep 02
How sad it would have been if, for fear of exposing me to viewing nudes, my
mother had not taken me to the Philadelphia Art Museum, Rodin Museum and
numerous other wonderful museums when I was a child. I grew up appreciating
the beauty of the human body. Silly... give kids more credit... they will
not think it bad or pornographic..... adults are the ones to do that!
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Brunner
Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I wouldn't
consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are obviously
both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is "Lovers".
It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just randomly, casually
expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly. There are
some aspects of life that fit into how, and what, one defines themselves
as. There are many things that may not be either "good" or "bad" but
that as caregivers, we should be careful about when we expose children
to them. To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is appropriate
for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible. Marilynn is
responsible for her children; she chooses how and when her children are
exposed to nudity, the concept of lovers, etc. She doesn't like
surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if harmless, surprises
in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level classes, juniors
and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked from real
nudes.
Earl Brunner
mailto:bruec@anv.net
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
-----Original Message-----
From: Of Craig Clark
Marilynn, went to the site in search of a titilating or unsavory
image. Much to my surprise all I found was a Madonna and Child type
bronze image on the home page. Is that the piece that you are refering
to or is there another that I overlooked? If it is I suggest that you
aquaint yourself with the long and expressive history of the nude in
art. Start with a book titled "The Nude," by Kenneth Clarke. He goes
into great detail about the importance of the imagery and the difference
between that which is "naked" and the use of "the nude."
Is it the lack of clothing that you find pornographic? Perhaps it is
the embrace? The image speaks to me of soft loving caress or deep care
and feeling. Perhaps those are the elements that strike you as being
pornographic. Honestly perplexed on this one (not even a wisp of
genitalia in sight!) Craig Dunn Clark 619 East 11 1/2 st Houston, Texas
77008 (713)861-2083 mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knik at Kodiak"
> Hello from Alaska,
> A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the sites with
> me. I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the front door.
> Art is no excuse for pornography. Marilynn
>
> Lesley Alexander wrote:
>
> >Sculptures that will get you going!
> >
> >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> >
Earl Brunner on sun 22 sep 02
Vince, I thought that I presented my position well. For many people,
whether you chose to agree or not, religion is at the core of their
belief system, it forms the basis for all of their value system. When
you denigrate the basis for someone's value system, you denigrate them
personally at the core of their whole system of beliefs. Some people
may not be very satisfied with organized religions. But without a
belief in something of a higher nature and everything that comes with
that belief, without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
human soul. There can be neither right nor wrong. People are then free
to do ANYTHING they desire or have an appetite for. Arbitrary rules of
society have no meaning. We have life such as existed under Stalin or
Hitler. Godless, brutal, empty lives.
Not everyone on this list has had a college art background and been
exposed to the human figure in the same way that an artist with formal
training has. They have not all been trained to look at the human form
this way. I simply suggested that instead of putting someone who you
don't even know down, that you (and I'm speaking figuratively) all use
gentler words to disagree.
Please read what I have said within the context of my other messages.
1. Good art evokes a response (not the SAME one for every person)
2. I liked the sculptures
3. Just because someone is disturbed by a work of art doesn't mean we
have to speak disdainfully and "down" to them. I would submit that how
we treat others and their ideas speaks to our own personalities.
Earl Brunner
mailto:bruec@anv.net
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On
Behalf Of vince pitelka
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:06 PM
Well, Earl, I am sad for you and for your children, because there is
nothing
whatsoever wrong with exposing children to images of naked people or to
actual naked people suddenly or otherwise, as long as it is treated as a
perfectly natural and ordinary thing, which it is. It is not nudity
that is
the problem, it is all the irrational fear and bigotry tied up in
paranoid
religion-based responses to nudity in our culture. If we do not teach
our
children that irrational fear and bigotry, then there is no problem.
Fortunately, I think we are getting past the fear and bigotry, however
slowly, and one of the best ways to facilitate this is to teach children
that the human body in all it forms is beautiful, and that there is
nothing
shameful or indecent about nudity.
OF COURSE children and everyone else must learn when and where nudity is
okay, and to learn about good taste and discretion, but to "protect"
children from non-pornographic images of nudity is completly absurd, and
IS
censorship.
> To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is appropriate
> for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible.
Oh Earl, quit lecturing. You're being pompous. The above has nothing
to do
with this discussion.
> surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if harmless,
surprises
> in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
Yes, but the unfortunate truth is that it shouldn't matter a bit what
the
parents like or dislike. The only thing that matters is what is good
for
the kids, and censorship of images like these accomplishes nothing
positive,
and denies children the opportunity to learn a healthy appreciation for
tasteful renditions of the nude figure in art. Tasteful images of the
nude
human body are not inherently sexual in any way unless we impose purient
interpretations. Kids know better unless we polute them with our own
paranoia.
> Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level classes,
juniors
> and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked from real
> nudes.
That frightens me. Where was that? I taught beginning drawing classes
to
students of all levels, including lots of freshman and sophomores, at
Northeastern University in Boston and at North Dakota State University
in
Fargo, and we always had a two-week component of figure drawing working
from
nude life models. I never had ANY kind of problem with this, and the
students did fantastic work from the life model.
I get the impression you are intelligent and open minded, and thus your
views on this matter surprise me.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
________________________________________________________________________
______
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Earl Brunner on sun 22 sep 02
BTW Vince, You don't know my children, they are mostly in their 20's
(the oldest just turned 30). I couldn't be prouder or happier with the
way they have turned out. They are bright, apparently happily married,
successful individuals. We have been blest and privileged to have and
raise them. I give most of the credit for the way they have turned out
to the incredible woman that is their mother.
Don't feel sorry for them.
Earl Brunner
mailto:bruec@anv.net
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On
Behalf Of vince pitelka
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:06 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
> Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I wouldn't
> consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are obviously
> both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is "Lovers".
> It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just randomly, casually
> expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly.
Well, Earl, I am sad for you and for your children, because there is
nothing
whatsoever wrong with exposing children to images of naked people or to
actual naked people suddenly or otherwise, as long as it is treated as a
perfectly natural and ordinary thing, which it is. It is not nudity
that is
the problem, it is all the irrational fear and bigotry tied up in
paranoid
religion-based responses to nudity in our culture. If we do not teach
our
children that irrational fear and bigotry, then there is no problem.
Philip Poburka on sun 22 sep 02
The damage as result from either pretexts of 'protecting',
or presumptions of protecting Children from 'seeing'...I
think are far worse than the effects of the 'seen' may have
been.
For millions of years...Children 'saw'...Life going on...saw
sex...saw death...saw predation...saw cycles of things...one
may only suppose them to have made, and evolved with the
accrueing experiences, their own judgements in these
matters...or nurtured their own hurts for having seen an
unhappy thing...
One may indeed 'see' the occasional unhappy thing...and
there is benifit to have done so.
What 'damaged' (confused) me most as a Child...was 'seeing'
the reactions (and 'over-reactions') of my parents 'to'
Life...or to things people may do or have happen...or
moreso, to things as pestered them in their own 'heads'...
I could and would have preferred to make...my 'own'
opinions.
And bye and large, I did.
But only amid a climate of their inimical interference.
I did not like being disrecpected with their imposition,
presumption and 'charged' emotionalities and reactions as
complicated matters unduely and unnecessarily.
What I would have benifited most to have been 'protected'
from...was 'them'.
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "claybair"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
How sad it would have been if, for fear of exposing me to
viewing nudes, my
mother had not taken me to the Philadelphia Art Museum,
Rodin Museum and
numerous other wonderful museums when I was a child. I grew
up appreciating
the beauty of the human body. Silly... give kids more
credit... they will
not think it bad or pornographic..... adults are the ones to
do that!
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Brunner
Come on Craig and Vince, While I like the piece, and while I
wouldn't
consider it porn, it's hardly a Madonna and child, they are
obviously
both relatively young adults, and the title of the piece is
"Lovers".
It is a nice sculpture though. Still, I don't just
randomly, casually
expose young children to "nudes" especially unexpectedly.
There are
some aspects of life that fit into how, and what, one
defines themselves
as. There are many things that may not be either "good" or
"bad" but
that as caregivers, we should be careful about when we
expose children
to them. To suggest that in the name of "art" everything is
appropriate
for children, or for everybody, is irresponsible. Marilynn
is
responsible for her children; she chooses how and when her
children are
exposed to nudity, the concept of lovers, etc. She doesn't
like
surprises, most responsible parents don't. Even if
harmless, surprises
in this area are uncomfortable for most parents.
Shoot even when I was in Grad school, only upper level
classes, juniors
and above (the supposedly really serious students) worked
from real
nudes.
Earl Brunner
mailto:bruec@anv.net
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
-----Original Message-----
From: Of Craig Clark
Marilynn, went to the site in search of a titilating or
unsavory
image. Much to my surprise all I found was a Madonna and
Child type
bronze image on the home page. Is that the piece that you
are refering
to or is there another that I overlooked? If it is I suggest
that you
aquaint yourself with the long and expressive history of the
nude in
art. Start with a book titled "The Nude," by Kenneth Clarke.
He goes
into great detail about the importance of the imagery and
the difference
between that which is "naked" and the use of "the nude."
Is it the lack of clothing that you find pornographic?
Perhaps it is
the embrace? The image speaks to me of soft loving caress or
deep care
and feeling. Perhaps those are the elements that strike you
as being
pornographic. Honestly perplexed on this one (not even a
wisp of
genitalia in sight!) Craig Dunn Clark 619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas
77008 (713)861-2083 mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knik at Kodiak"
> Hello from Alaska,
> A little warning please. My children enjoy looking at the
sites with
> me. I didn't enter the site with a scene like that on the
front door.
> Art is no excuse for pornography. Marilynn
>
> Lesley Alexander wrote:
>
> >Sculptures that will get you going!
> >
> >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
> >
____________________________________________________________
__________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Pottery by Dai on sun 22 sep 02
Earl said:
> 3. Just because someone is disturbed by a work of art--
Earl, for Pete's sake, nobody was reacting to the fact that the viewer was
"disturbed" by the sculpture, but by the fact that the word "pornographic"
was used in describing it (and it really IS too bad she didn't look at the
others in the site---it may have put the first one in context for her;
however...)
and, also:
>without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
> human soul.
How on earth did God get into this??? We were talking about an overreaction
to a nude sculpture! Nude paintings, sculptures, etc. have been part of
many cultures for centuries, both in and out of religions. We have no idea
what the Alaskan woman's relationship is with God (and which God would that
be, anyway?); we only know that she viewed this particular sculpture as
pornographic, and that the rest of us do not (or so it seems by the mail).
Personally, I don't think "being religious" means we can't appreciate and
celebrate the human body, whether it's in a lovers' pose, or, as further
into the site, a mastectomy victim/survivor's representation. These
sculptures are full of life, ordinary life, and I don't think "God" would
frown on any of them!
Dai in Armstrong, BC
potterybydai@telus.net
nightfire@telus.net
www.potterybydai.com
Take your work seriously---take yourself lightly. Unknown
Catherine White on sun 22 sep 02
Earl,
You state that if I do not believe in god, then I cannot know right from
wrong, that I would do anything I desire or have an appetite for, that I
could not follow the rules of society, that I would be a Stalin or Hitler
type person, living a brutal empty life.
How dare you make such an ignorant statement? Ignorant in the sense
that you know nothing about what you are condemning. And how dare you
condemn others? Your prejudices are not only sad, they are frightening. The
Hitlers and Stalins came from the closed minds that allowed for no other
beliefs than their own.
There is a saying about looking into the abyss..............
Catherine from Yuma, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Brunner"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
Some people
> may not be very satisfied with organized religions. But without a
> belief in something of a higher nature and everything that comes with
> that belief, without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
> human soul. There can be neither right nor wrong. People are then free
> to do ANYTHING they desire or have an appetite for. Arbitrary rules of
> society have no meaning. We have life such as existed under Stalin or
> Hitler. Godless, brutal, empty lives.
vince pitelka on sun 22 sep 02
> Vince, I thought that I presented my position well. For many people,
> whether you chose to agree or not, religion is at the core of their
> belief system, it forms the basis for all of their value system. When
> you denigrate the basis for someone's value system, you denigrate them
> personally at the core of their whole system of beliefs. Some people
> may not be very satisfied with organized religions. But without a
> belief in something of a higher nature and everything that comes with
> that belief, without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
> human soul. There can be neither right nor wrong. People are then free
> to do ANYTHING they desire or have an appetite for. Arbitrary rules of
> society have no meaning.
Earl -
I am not going to proceed further along this line other than this one
comment. Some people believe in moral behavior and respect towards others
because of their religious beliefs. Others believe in moral behavior and
respect towards others because they believe in humanity and nature and the
power of doing good. To imply that belief in a god is NECESSARY to know the
difference between right and wrong or to keep society on an even keel is
inappropriate. I do not deny anyone their own belief structure, and I would
never denigrate another's beliefs. I did not do that in any way in my
response to your post, and you would do well to read people's posts much
more carefully before you get on your high horse and start preaching.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Earl Brunner on sun 22 sep 02
I'm using MS Outlook on my laptop and I don't handle quotes with
comments well in this program
How did God get into this?
From Vince:
"Well, Earl, I am sad for you and for your children, because there is
nothing whatsoever wrong with exposing children to images of naked
people or to actual naked people suddenly or otherwise, as long as it is
treated as a perfectly natural and ordinary thing, which it is. It is
not nudity that is the problem, it is all the irrational fear and
bigotry tied up in paranoid religion-based responses to nudity in our
culture. If we do not teach our children that irrational fear and
bigotry, then there is no problem."
ME
Let's see, "irrational fear and bigotry tied up in paranoid
religion-based responses to nudity in our culture. If we do not teach
our children that irrational fear and bigotry," (and I assume the
religion that Vince apparently thinks goes along with it) Vince brought
God up, I didn't.
Earl said:
> 3. Just because someone is disturbed by a work of art--
Dai said,
Earl, for Pete's sake, nobody was reacting to the fact that the viewer
was
"disturbed" by the sculpture, but by the fact that the word
"pornographic"
was used in describing it (and it really IS too bad she didn't look at
the
others in the site---it may have put the first one in context for her;
however...)
Earl:
I will take the point because I agree that she should have seen the
rest. But she has a right to her opinion, whether the "the rest of us"
or not agree. You can use your delete button as well. Censor clayart
and I'm out of here.
and, also:
>without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
> human soul.
Dai wrote:
How on earth did God get into this???
Earl:
God got into it because we were talking about beliefs and values.
Earl wrote originally:
"Vince, I thought that I presented my position well. For many people,
whether you chose to agree or not, religion is at the core of their
belief system, it forms the basis for all of their value system. When
you denigrate the basis for someone's value system, you denigrate them
personally at the core of their whole system of beliefs. Some people
may not be very satisfied with organized religions. But without a
belief in something of a higher nature and everything that comes with
that belief, without a belief in a "God" there is no rudder for the
human soul. There can be neither right nor wrong. People are then free
to do ANYTHING they desire or have an appetite for. Arbitrary rules of
society have no meaning. We have life such as existed under Stalin or
Hitler. Godless, brutal, empty lives.
Dai wrote:
We were talking about an overreaction to a nude sculpture!
Earl:
No we are talking about a reaction that you and others disagree with. By
labeling it an overreaction, you seek to dismiss the reaction. It's a
valid reaction for her.
Dai wrote:
We have no idea what the Alaskan woman's relationship is with God (and
which God would that be, anyway?); we only know that she viewed this
particular sculpture as pornographic, and that the rest of us do not (or
so it seems by the mail).
Earl:
Doesn't matter which God that would be. It's her belief system. And I
didn't know that we were voting on what was "true" or not- the rest of
us? Give me a break.
Dai:
Personally, I don't think "being religious" means we can't appreciate
and celebrate the human body, whether it's in a lovers' pose, or, as
further into the site, a mastectomy victim/survivor's representation.
Earl:
In some religions being religious might mean that.
Dai:
These sculptures are full of life, ordinary life, and I don't think
"God" would frown on any of them!
Earl:
And which God would that be Dai?
Chris Clyburn on mon 23 sep 02
I don't know about this recent series of posts. I am new to the list
granted, but it seems to me that the originator of this entire string
merely made a request to have warning of any nudity a posted site contains
because she wishes to prevent her children from seeing it.
I think everyone knee-jerked one way or the other in response to the term
pornographic. Regardless of our personal feelings or beliefs on this
matter, we should honor the beliefs of others.
I personally love art that shows the beauty of the human body, but that
doesn't matter, because "degustibus non est disputandum" you can't dispute
taste. I feel bringing beliefs, religion and all that into this string is
just asking for problems and taking us away from the discussion of
ceramics.
Why don't we all just agree to disagree, unruffle our feathers and get
back to clay. Now about the soak times on crystalline glazes........
Respectfully,
Chris Clyburn
Morris, Marlene F. on mon 23 sep 02
I can speak from personal experience that keeping things from your kids
doesn't protect them -- it just makes them more vulnerable. Mom thought she
was doing the right thing, and I love her dearly but she was wrong.
Marlene
-----Original Message-----
From: vince pitelka [mailto:vpitelka@DTCCOM.NET]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: neat website:How is this pornographic???????
> > >Sculptures that will get you going!
> > >http://www.alittlecompany.net/
Wow. Thanks to Leslie Alexander for pointing us to this website, and I
really feel SORRY for anyone who would see these works as pornographic.
What an unfortunate misinterpretation of these works of art. Marilyn, these
are excellent figurative artworks, and if you think you are "protecting"
your children by keeping them away from imagery like this, you are sadly
mistaken. Education through ignorance and censorship does such harm.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Shirley Tschannen on mon 23 sep 02
Yes, I've shown it several friends...it is
alittlecompany.net/clay.htm
On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 11:52 PM, Eric Suchman wrote:
> Can any one please send me the original URL of this very neat site? I
> think
> I deleted it in error and wish to pass it on to my friends.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
Elizabeth Hewitt on tue 24 sep 02
I just happened onto this discussion after being away on vacation. I
haven't read all that was said about it so I might repeat what someone
else has already said. I'd like to add my thoughts though about all the
art on this site.
I would LOVE to know the couple who has such exuberance and love of life
in their hearts that it would take to create art such as this. It made
me smile all the way to my toes!!! And our society needs more of
anything that says it's okay to be "old, fat and poor".
Elizabeth
| |
|
