I found the below article on artnet. Isn’t it bizarre how much difference there is between perceiving a female or a male body? This has to change!!
Nude Photo in Gallery Window Gets a Rise Out of Neighbors
Lower East Side gallery Rivington Design House is in hot water with its neighbors over a photograph of a nude man displayed in its front window. Despite the fact that the image is not sexual or vulgar in any way, neighbors accused the gallerists of being unaware of or indifferent to the fact that many children pass by the Kenmare Street storefront every day.
The nude photo is the work of artist Bek Andersen, and is part of a show entitled “Clothed Female/Naked Male,” which seeks to shift the paradigm of nudity in art. “There is nothing pornographic or offensive happening in that photo,” Andersen told Gothamist. “It’s a portrait of a man. He is naked, but doing nothing indecent. We see naked women all the time in photos where they are highly sexualized and people don’t notice because they are desensitized.”
The backlash from community members only confirms Andersen’s point—that we are so accustomed to artistic nudity being limited to portrayals of women that we find it offensive when the male body is put on similar display.
Despite the wave of complaints, there are no reports that the work in question has been removed from the storefront. You can see the photographs, as well as the offended passersby, until August 15.
5 thoughts on “A nude photo in a gallery window”
I am so pleased to see people challenging of our society, particularly when things don’t make sense. We need to be challenged to think and question. Our nonprofit is planning to do a public art event called “The Celebrated Nude” on Miami Beach in 2015. The artist will likely be controversial but very important to move people to experience innocent nudity and its harmless beauty on the public nude beach and not shame or sexual exhibitionism. The thought from this judge is key and my mantra:
“One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that ‘public sensibilities’ grounded in prejudice and unexamined stereotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government.”
– Judge Vito J. Titone, New York Court of Appeals
July, 1992 Decision, “Rochester Top-Free 7″ case
That’s fantastic! The event you plan as well as the words of that judge!
Everyone around the world needs to realize the difference in natural nudity vs. what we see each and every day in the media and porn. The first one is reality and the others are means of exploiting the human natural form for profit. Has anyone challenged the “profit” motive? If they can show a sleazy out some female is wearing or a male for that matter, then why are we offended with nudity in its natural form? Could it be that media people are not getting our money from it?
You make a good point here. So much is ruled by money these days that our normal nudity could even be threatened by it.
As Americans and anyone of the free world, we do not have to worry about being threatened at all. If we only come together as a human race, then we can threaten the ones that attack our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When government fears the people; it is liberty.” Right now in everyday politics, the rich (i.e. Koch Brothers) wants to tell us how to think, do, or whatever. It does not have to be this way. Law abiding citizens should not have to fear what they do, their gender role, their gender preference, or their lifestyles no matter how exotic it may be. Religion does not rule us either under Liberty or Law. Either the free world is going to say “ENOUGH,” or they are going to sit in their comfort zones and watch their liberties fade away. We can fight in a very peaceful manner and win.