Home › News › County News
Nude art pieces are pulled from exhibit
Work was shown at government site
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
Three nudes have been pulled from an art exhibit celebrating passion after officials determined the pieces were too racy for a gallery in a government building in Ventura.
The Ventura County Arts Council rejected "Euterpe," a painting showing a nude woman and a fully clothed man, before the 40-piece exhibit went up Feb. 7 in the county government's Hall of Administration. But the nonprofit group decided to see whether the public would fuss over a few other pieces of nude art in the building where people go to pay their taxes, record deeds and get married.
An undisclosed number of complaints started coming in within a couple of hours over two of the pieces, so they were pulled within days, said officials for the council, which supervises the exhibits.
In an interview Thursday, Arts Council President Monica Nolan said callers were particularly incensed over "Luscious," a sculpture of a woman's buttocks in Italian marble. Including its pedestal, the sculpture stood 6 feet tall. They also complained about "Ambrosia," a tile mosaic showing a Roman nymph's breasts.
Nolan said this is not a case of censorship but of whether the art was appropriate for this particular space. Under a statement of the public gallery's purpose, the art placed there must be "suitably appropriate" for the space to which 3,000 people come daily.
"People are coming here not to see art, they are coming here to work and do business," Nolan said. "This is a public space. Because it's a public space, we have to be aware of the public's attitude."
Still remaining is a black-and-white photograph of a nude woman, but her form is clouded. Also remaining is another photograph that shows a partially clad woman.
The council invited the artists whose works were pulled to submit substitutes.
Paul Zanotti, who made the mosaic, submitted another piece. But G. Ramon Byrne, who made the buttocks sculpture, said that would have been meaningless.
He said the purpose of the exhibit is to showcase pieces being auctioned at "A Night of Passion," a fundraiser on March 29 for the Ventura Music Festival. This year's festival, which runs from April 30 to mid-May, has been named "Appassionata!" an Italian word for passion.
"For me to substitute a piece that wouldn't be part of the show and has nothing to do with it made no sense to me," Byrne said Thursday.
Byrne, though, said he could understand why county officials would not want to anger citizens going to the government center to conduct business.
"Apparently that's not an appropriate site for art without having some sort of censorship," he said. "It's the Music Festival's responsibility to find a venue that absolutely embraces the artist as opposed to filling a slot."
Cheryl Heitmann, executive director of the festival, said whoever is in charge of a venue has the right to decide whether artwork is appropriate.
The rest of the exhibit will remain at the government center until March 12.
— On the Net:
http://www.vcmfa.org/special_events.html
Posted by freethought on February 29, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a bunch of right-winged so-called Christians (I say "so-calles" because most who fall into this group do not hold the true prinicples of their religion's teachings). It's just nudity, for goodness sake. I don't get why people are so hung up over that which is simply flesh. In fact, it's not even flesh, it's sculptures and paintings of flesh - and tastefully done at that. The Ventura County Atrs Council should take the word "Art" out of their title and replace it with "Right Wing" or "Gestapo".
Posted by freethought on February 29, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the misspelled words above - typing too fast.
Posted by narc121 on February 29, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree freethought to a certain extent. When those pieces of "art" are put up in a general public place where children are present, I don't think it's appropriate. I wouldn't appreciate coming into the Hall of Administration with my child to pay taxes and having him/her exposed to nudity (whether it's a sculpture or painting of flesh). If this art gallery was somewhere else where people voluntarily went, show all the nudity you want. However, I think the right decision was made here since it is a public venue.
Posted by Jacksprat on February 29, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A Child has never see a nude person? Come on what world do they live in. I am sure that these would have less effect on a child then on the closed minded adults. The child goes to the beach,pool and watches the people walking around in som eof these thing that the call bathing suits, maybe the adult might just wear one. What is the matter with people that they are so afraid of their body. God made us and we came into the world with out cloths so what is wrong with seeing some thing that has nude people in it.
Posted by Truth_Hurts on February 29, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a time and a place for nudity...the place where I have to go serve jury duty, or get a business license ...ain't it.
Shall we pile copies of Playboy on the coffee tables in the waiting areas at the government center too??
Those are also tastefully done...OH NO...that would be innappropriate....right???
I'm not afraid of my body or anyone elses...and I publicly nurse my son where ever I see fit...so clearly, I have no problems with nudity...actual, carved or otherwise...
But I do believe that there is a time and a place for everything...
If the scultpure had been of a giant penis...I'd bet you'd all be changing your tune...lol
Posted by BookEmDano on February 29, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let the nudes remain!!! Then drop charges on anyone that is going to trial on indecent-exposure violation(s).HE HE HE....I love Ventura County!!Wheres' Mr. Bradbury when we need him?? (miss you Mike!)
Posted by spokenit on February 29, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe if there would have been some nude figures of males???
Posted by mikesbosox on February 29, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The county shouldn't knuckle under to the loonies who raised a ruckus over legitimate art pieces. They are imposing their lack of taste on the rest of us. No one is forcing them to look at art; they have just taken it upon themselves to act a censors in the public interest. I urge them to stay home and make sure their windows are covered with thick enough aluminum foil to protect them from truth and beauty.
Posted by narc121 on February 29, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally a person with common sense...thanks Truth_Hurts!
Posted by kristinppl on February 29, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alright Ramone! All of the great and famous artists have stirred up passion in people. You are a true artist. I respect you for standing up and not backing down! These people know nothing of passion for life or anthing and by the way, I loved your butt!
Kristin
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on February 29, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The show’s organizers most certainly knew (or should have known) that the venue was not well-suited to the show’s theme. Art for art’s sake is not a good philosophy when it comes to exhibitions in open locations where there is no option to avoid the art, especially when the venue is paid for by the public. Installing erotic visuals in a government administration building is just as inappropriate as hosting a public gun show there.
Every art genre and theme has a proper venue. If the Ventura County Government Center hosted a literary event, for example, Charles Bukowski poems would most certainly not be forcibly delivered over a public address system to an unreceptive audience.
There is a difference between Art and Public Art. One has no constraints, the other does.
The problem occurs when Art is placed into a Public Art venue where an audience has no choice whether to view it or not. When the context is inappropriate and does not fully support the creative expression of the particular art, it results in an unfair slap to both the artists AND the audience.
Posted by freethought on February 29, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth_Hurts - Why did you choose that name? What's with the whole "giant penises" thing? Tasteful art is just that - tasteful, whether the subject is a woman or a man or a junk yard dog. Just because you are uptight doesn't mean the general polulation is just like you.
narc121 - I also have kids. They have seen nude art. They have seen nudity on television (was common overseas, but never sexual). The problem here is we make a big deal over something as benign as a nude body. Yet, I'll bet anyone uptight about their children seeing that which is completely natural will have no problem with thier kids seeing someone get shot or worse on television, or listen to uncensored (or even censored) versions of rap "music" that accurately and crusely describes acts of sex and violence. We're talking about scuptures and paintings of breasts and buttocks. If the subjects were spread eagle, grabbing each other's or their own genitals, or actually engaged in sex, then I'd agree with you.
Wendy_Halderman - I guess I must say that I understand your point. However, it simply points out how uptight this society of ours has become, since a breast - something all female mammals have - is considered offensive when exposed. I guess we need to start dressing up our pets (some of you already do that to those poor animals).
spokenit - "Maybe if there would have been some nude figures of males???" Sure, as long as it's tasteful. I don't discriminate. I leave that to the right-wingers.
jmcgaw3046 - My thoughts exactly.
Posted by freethought on February 29, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, "crusely" should have been "crudely".
Posted by star on February 29, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess this is why some folks call it Ventucky.
Posted by rebel123 on March 1, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How very provincial of Ventura. As to children seeing this art.....I just went to LACMA and saw dozens of children viewing works of art that included unclothed people. My father was an artist. A friend visiting his studio (in our garage) once remarked that she was shocked at studies of nudes he had on the walls and asked "what if your children see them?" His response was that his kids were aware that when people take off their clothes they are naked. In other words....so what? Neither my brother or I grew up to be deviant, warped or disturbed by it.
Posted by CamarilloMan on March 1, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a huge difference between art and playboy, the difference is pornography. I wonder how people would react if "David" were placed for display as in Florence. People, we need to get a grip here, we are becoming too "beige", colorless. This was an opportunity for people to embrace art but we are trying to hard to be PC to recognize the opportunity.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on March 1, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The headline of this article is misleading. At least one of the "nudes" in question (I can only speak about the one I have seen) is not a "nude" in the sense of being sexually neutral, Life-Drawing-101, Michelangelo's-David style nude. It is decidedly erotic; or, at the very least, highly sensual.
I don't think most people in Ventura County are opposed to nudes per se, or even erotic art, IF it is presented in the proper venue. Art Which Can Not Be Ignored must not be forced on viewers. It must come with the option to view it, lest it be perceived as an arrogant sensory assault.
Bottom line: A lobby in a government center is a poor venue choice for artwork created for the theme, "A NIGHT OF PASSION."
Posted by fdsa on March 1, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the problem with this country. It's full of prudes too stubborn to comprehend their own downfall. First off, I see no problem with a sculpture of this sort in any venue. Secondly, how can artwork, which is pinned down in a building that nobody ever really wants the need to visit in the first place, be any more "offensive" and "gratuitous" than an ever-so-common "erectile dysfuntion" ad which happens to nonchalantly enter it's way into my home every 5 minutes through the television... or on the radio in my car... or on an entire page in a publication - daily.
Is the mere suggestion that changing the notion of sex from artistic to medicinal the solution? I suggest that the artwork be moved from the building to the park... where everyone can see it. And change the notion of art to medical, by proving that such sculptures reduce stress and anxiety.
This pent-up frustration has obviously taken its toll recently, and I only need to mention school violence, from high school to college, as a mere introduction to the hurdles that the next generation of humankind must face... simply for the "purity control" of some "offended" individuals due to "art" in a location of which these people will only see once.
Posted by sarababe on March 2, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is pretty pathetic! This is a classic example of a victimless crime. It is also, unfortunately, an example of what happens when someone tries to cater to the neurotic idea that there is something wrong with nudity: A tube sock? Gad, that's not even sexy; that's just obscene.
This is supposed to be a free country, and in a free country one cannot be prosecuted for the choices of another. Sure, many people who have something better to do than think are offended by nudity. Many others are not. Clearly, being offended is a personal choice, and people have a right to make that choice, but no one should be required to cater to that choice as a matter of law.
I think nudism is just natural and I think it's horrible that it's so frowned apoun, hidden, and outlawed in the majority of places.
I am always naked when I can be and when I can be is only when I’m alone in my room. My family doesn't allow it in the rest of the house and the law doesn't allow it outside. I think it has nothing to do with sex, when naturists want to appear more sexual they change the way they are acting and you view them in a whole different way. Imagine a place like http://www.naturistspace.org where you can Get Away from it all. Relax and Unwind in a Serene Setting and Have Fun!
Posted by Localguy on March 2, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this verifies the saying" The squeaky wheel gets the most grease" meaning, I had been to the goverment "Hall" and saw the pieces being discussed. I was there conducting business like about a hundred of other people during just that day. I thought the pieces were nice, nothing I hadn't seen at public galleries, or art exhibits, but didn't think a whole lot about them because I had business to attend to. I can only imagine that the government Hall, has hundreds of people filing through there everyday the pieces were on display. I am wondering if there were hundreds of complaints? The article only specifies there were "An undisclosed number of complaints ". I know I wouldn't have called to say how nice it was to see the art pieces there, if I didn't happen to read the article. What would have happened if all the people that went to the hall, that didn't complain, called and voiced their approval? Where would the grease have gone then?
Posted by Spinocity on March 3, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember that all this happened in the COUNTY of Ventura's little island on Victoria. Not the City of Ventura, the County Government Center has their own rules.
Posted by Truth_Hurts on March 3, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought - If I qualified as "uptight" would I "whip em out" to breastfeed my son, when ever the need arrises? I think not. I just think that is a time and a place for everything and while nudity is just fine and dandy...it is not always appropriate. And as far as the "Giant Penis" thing...exploitation of the female form is regularly far more accepted than the male form...so I believe (and I think you're a fool if you disagree) that if it were obviouly male art...more of you out there would have taken offense...
CamarilloMan - i don't know if you've cracked open a Playboy as of late...but there is no "pornography" in it...just airbrushed photos of nude women...what's the big deal...it IS a form of art...lol Who's "uptight" now? And incidentally, I do believe that "David" is housed in a museum...and not in a government building...little different. Goes back to the whole "time and a place" thing.
JMO
Posted by larrymu on March 3, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am vary upset when my government is to protect freedom of speech and to keep separation from church and state. There will always be exposition. Yet a few has been allowed to dictate what can be seen and what cannot be seen based on a vary small amount of the population. If this is allowed then what is to say Islamic law with women requiring burqas that cover face be the guide as well, when it comes to exhibiting art. I'm sure if it worked with a few opinions they should have there's as well. We shall have no freedom at all, no free speech, art will no longer be art but smut. So we have it then! Michelangelo gratified smut on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with male's and female's nude all over and other churches as well. We are becoming more prudish then the dark ages. Good heavens the nude form equates to sex and pornography? Us men should never undress in the men's locker room lest we have unwed gay encounters. Doctors,massage therapists, oh my! The nude form in public and government places date back beyond BC Greek nude male statues, cherubs nude, it is endless why are we starting now to say it is corrupt and where does this all end? We are in a vary strange times! Our bodies are the art work of God not dirty filth! Stop the body slamming and have body esteem. Porn is sex. Nude is not A knife is not murder. But killing someone with it is. It was man that tried to hide in the garden with fig leaves God let us hide but showed us what we were trying to hide by covering us with animal hides a sacrifice for our sin but now we are no longer wearing the animal hides. What then back to plant covering? Like cotton etc. There is nothing that says we have to cover up, art is wonderful and our bodies are just that as well. Larry
Posted by larrymu on March 3, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well that's just dandy! I spelled oppositions not exposition. So it should say "there will always be oppositions." So we should not let the few run the world for us. I think it is a good thing for children to know what art is. That the body is the best art of all, our creator the artist. Body put downs originate perverted disorders, defacing it and not taking care of it.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.