Loveland recognizes naked truth
By Jim Spencer
Denver Post Staff Columnist
Loveland
No pillars of salt surround the three bronze nudes in the sculpture "Triangle." So it's pretty certain that Loveland is not turning into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Mayberry, maybe. But not Sodom and Gomorrah.
Tuesday, the City Council wisely chose not to immerse itself in the politics of prudery, much to the relief of locals proud of their long tradition of public art. A few complaints about naked figures cast in bronze had turned into a full-blown culture war. It left the city's elected leaders pondering passage of a new law that would let them overrule a well-respected arts commission and order public art moved or censored altogether.
*****
The two measures debated and defeated in Loveland on Tuesday would have made that possible. The first would have let any registered voter appeal any piece of public art and make politicians the final arbiters of its appropriateness and placement. The second would have let the city manager prohibit placing objects that create visual distractions within roundabouts.
The bureaucracy of the appeals process aside, the city's reputation as a nationally recognized public art center was on the line. The city was just named the second best public art town in the country, behind Santa Fe. "We've been doing something right," Rousey said.
"We have a community built around art," explained Irene Thomson, a Loveland resident for 30 years. "If they pass (the new law), I guarantee you I won't vote for any of them again."
The art object that started this fight is a bronze statue of a naked man and a naked woman holding aloft a second naked woman. Objections came from religious fundamentalists because the sculpted figures are naked. Not salaciously posed. Not touching each other intimately. Just naked.
*****
As she entered the Loveland Public Library with her three young daughters Tuesday, Jennifer Thye called the proposals an embarrassment.
Thye, who said she usually falls "to the right of center politically," recently showed her 5-year-old daughter, Isabella, a photo of "Triangle."
"Some people are mad because they don't have clothes on," Thye told the little girl.
"There's a sculpture of a woman without clothes in the sculpture park," Isabella replied. "I think it's beautiful."
Those who can't see that are usually uncomfortable in their own skins. If that's true, no law will make them feel better.
I wish I could've found a photo of the sculpture in question, but no luck so far. Maybe later.
Again, I'm bringing this up because I feel it's important to highlight a little good news, once in a while. This goes back to my last post, where I brought up the point that it's refreshing to hear people say, "What's the big deal?" when it comes to images of naked people.
However, another reason I'm bringing this up is to raise an issue I find a little troubling. From the article, it's clear that to most of the people of Loveland, the statue in question is of naked people, but that there's no sexual element to its artistic value. That makes it okay. At least, in the eyes of the conventional art world.
If the image is moving or inspiring or simply beautiful, then it's art and that makes it okay. But what if it induces sexual arousal?
Well, then it's bad because it's porn.
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment