06/28/2006: "The naked truth part II"

Dear Elise:

The State has a strict rule that none of their web sites may be linked to any site that includes nudity in any form. As many of your paintings are of nudes or semi-nudes we will not be able to link your site to our Made In Alaska web site.

Please call should you have any questions.

Thanks,

Bill Webb

===

I know I've bitched about this before but it seems to be a wall I keep running up against. In the above case, I paid dues months ago to belong to this program promoting business that make their goods (including fine arts) in the state of Alaska and being featured on their websites is part of the deal. It doesn't seem fair!

There are also the places that won't show my work, or even hang my invitational posters...restrictions on which images can be printed in the newspaper, my ISP refused to register my domain name because of the reference to "colorful nudes", and then there are the Internet filters...

Which reminds me...I had a roommate from BYU during my Hawaiian conference and I have to admit I was a little worried about that at first; I don't think I've met anyone who has never taken a sip of beer, or a single puff from a cigarette...and doesn't even drink coffee! But despite the vast chemical gulf that separated us, we really hit it off. She turned out to be smart, interesting, and more importantly, a lot of fun! She recently emailed me to let me know that she's tried to access my site from campus (including the library where she works) but it has been blocked...I have heard from several people that filters have eliminated this site, I'm assuming due to the dreaded mention of (shhhhhh) nudity!

I guess it's OK to see people getting blown up on the evening news but a little skin (especially *female* skin) sends the morally courageous running for the hills.

Replies: 14 Comments

on Thursday, June 29th, Daniel said

They took your due $, they either have to honor the contract or give a refund. It breaks my heart to learn that Alaska is as closed-minded as the rest of the country.

The best way to approach this is to put them on the spot... write (or e-mail) them and ask if they consider your work pornographic, when they reply (in writing) "of course not but this is our policy..." you have some legal ammunition.

You found my button with this subject. Nothing burns me more than government agencies or politicians deciding the merits of art. Reminds me of the film "Bean" where the Modern Art Museum director kept cowboy art in his own office, so he wouldn't have to see the contemporary work, which he did not understand. Maybe you should ask if they would consider your work less offensive if it was painted on saw blades or old pieces of driftwood.

on Thursday, June 29th, Elise said

I did find some of the state's policy regarding their web filtering software "WebSense" which defined adult material as nudity with a sexual content...I did email them back if there was additional written policy about linking and I'm waiting to hear back from them. I'm not trying to be an ass hole but how are artists supposed to promote their work if the one egalitarian tool at our disposal (the Internet) starts throwing up the same barriers as everywhere else?

on Thursday, June 29th, petergander@gmail.com">Peter Gander (UK artist) said

Hi Elise, Just wanted to sayhow much I love your figurative work. Under the 'in progress' gallery, the first two, especially. They are so striking and for me are of the highest quality in terms of skill. What a shame about all of the nudity filtering nonsense - it wouldn't happen in the UK! Many sites offer the viewer censoring options such as minigallery.co.uk This seems to be a far fairer way of allowing nudes to be viewed. I find it rather archaic to impose such restrictions on art. What if your local county wanted to advertise an exhibition featuring some great classical nude masterpieces? Perhaps then they might put logic before blind conservatism.

on Thursday, June 29th, Elise said

I moved the above comment over from my guestbook because I wanted to respond to it.

It makes me curious what kinds of policies other artists (from different states in the US or overseas) have run into.

In the above case, the Alaska State Museum has a website, I'd be curious to know if they are aware that they could never post an image of a nude on their site, even of a classical sculpture?

Maybe I should tell them?

on Thursday, June 29th, holly said

*small cranial explosion*
*spittle*
What the hell is wrong with people? I bet your pal from BYU can access CNN, which is (IMO) far more disturbing than a tasteful nude. Why are Americans so afraid of the human body? There was a guy nearby (nearby my home, not nearby here France) who sold concrete lawn sculptures and was issued an ultimatum to move his cement Venus di Milos (di Milii?) into a enclosed space where children could not see them or be fined a hefty sum. I'm afraid I've not seen that kind of idiocy over here and I'm not looking forward to that aspect of "home" when I come back. I'm the biggest prude in the world, but hell, if I don't want to look at nudes, I don't look at nudes! I'm not going to inflict my own neuroses on people who enjoy nudes and I wish to hell the gubment would do the same. What happened to you sounds just like something that would happen in Indiana.

on Thursday, June 29th, Elise said

That's funny Holly, I'm a total modest prude when it comes to my own nudity or seeing nudity in real life situations like locker rooms, nude beaches, and the like.

I guess I'm a product of my American upbring in that regard. But in art it's different, at least for me, and at least in my paintings...I'm thinking about form and all the millions of positions and shadows the human body can create.

Anyway, I can't believe that happened with the lawn sculptures...or...maybe I can. This world is so messed up.

on Thursday, June 29th, holly said

So I was just re-reading what they sent you and noticed that they specify "nudity in any form." I would really like to see a formal definition of this, because when you stick in that "in any form", I'm thinking no bare feet, no shirtless men, etc. So any sort of site that features, oh say, a fisherman without his shirt should be in violation of this stipulation-- or are they just being totally sexist and targetting nude women (or "art")?

on Thursday, June 29th, holly said

I would also just like to add that the bear on their (very badly designed) website it completely nekkid.

on Thursday, June 29th, Elise said

heh heh, yah, I don't know the specifics, he hasn't responded to my email but I'm guessing topless men wouldn't

on Friday, June 30th, Judy Vars said

Alaskans are really uncomfortable with nudity. To enter one of my nude angels in the Alaska State Fair I draped clothes on her. It won second place,Yay. But I always felt cheezy about changing the original painting just to fit in.

on Friday, June 30th, Elise said

When a chance came up to exhibit in a coffee shop that gets a lot of traffic, I took it. I ended up having to "dress" several of the figures because of it but I never felt good about the decision and I can promise you I won't ever do that again...anyway, congrats on the award!

on Saturday, July 1st, RR said

Jeeeeeeeeeesss, what a policy. They are not "nudity" it is art. Don't these guys know the difference!!!! Beaurocracy gone bananas. I'm with you on prudish stuff when it comes to real life situations and hate to show my body but art is art not porn! :crazy:

on Saturday, July 1st, Elise said

You know RR, I never did hear back that guy, but I'm not going to let this thing go without a fight.