Posted on 08/03/2006 4:14:57 PM PDT by Millee
A determined group of Loveland residents vow to knock a nude bronze sculpture off its pedestal - or at least from its location near a busy street.
Supporters of the sculpture wonder if the community debate - and the publicity it has generated - is eroding the reputation of the city and its public arts program that has produced 269 statues.
"People may be thinking that this is a community full of prudes," said Kimberly Kreutzer, the wife of a local artist.
Several critics are pushing to have "Triangle" moved from its location at a busy roundabout on the eastern edge of Loveland to a park where people can choose whether to look at it. Others want the 7-foot-tall depiction of a nude man and two nude women completely removed from public view.
"I don't think it should ever have been produced and I don't think it belongs here in Loveland," said Melissa Morgan, a mother of five.
Morgan and others opposing the sculpture won a victory of sorts this week. The Loveland City Council on Tuesday agreed to study changing an ordinance to allow the council to overrule the Visual Arts Commission, which oversees the city's public art program.
Some supporters of the sculpture worry the council may be taking the first step toward removing the artwork altogether.
"I'm just afraid the council will cave in to the pressure," Kreutzer said. "It's really a form of censorship."
The debate over the sculpture, created by sculptor Kirsten Kokkin, has drawn attention from national media, including The New York Times.
The arts commission approved "Triangle" and its placement at East First Street and Sculptor Drive in Loveland last Friday. Kokkin says the statue symbolizes the interdependence of people and is not intended to be sexual.
Detractors, however, say the artwork is distracting to
motorists and harmful to children. The piece stands in a growing part of Loveland that includes a middle school, high school and a youth sports complex. In any other context, the statue would be considered obscene under city ordinances, said Dan Danowski, who wants it moved to another location.
"If you look at it, it's pretty clear the intent of the statue is sexual," he said.
City Councilman Glenn Rousey agrees with the assessment of another artist who spoke to the council Tuesday. "He said he knows what a sex act is, and this is not a sex act," Rousey said.
He worries the city may be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing specific groups to dictate what art is appropriate for public display.
"We have statues of very heavyset people. Does that mean we worry about offending obese people in the community?" Rousey said.
Unlike the sculpture's critics, resident Judi Schwandt wants the "Triangle" moved so that more people can enjoy it.
"I think it's absolutely beautiful, but people can't really see it well on the roundabout," she said. "This is something everyone should see."
I think it's kind of cool. Better than some junkheap of concrete and steel.
What say you, art fans?
A Michelangelo or a Praxiteles this sculptor Kirsten Kokkin is surely not. They should have gotten it on the artistic merit [or rather lack thereof] instead of nudity.
What is the difference between "nude" and "naked"?
True, but at least from the photo it looks like it's probably better than 90% of what's out there.
"Threeway"
yeah, I want one just like it for my coffee table.
MM
{Bada-Boom!}
( Brittany "Birthing" in Bronze )
You know, after spending all that time posing for that sculpture, I'd hate to see it covered up.
Oh.....my eyes!!
My eyes!! My eyes!!
See, I win...uh, no, what I mean is...
I have wondered about the appropriateness of this sort of thing myself. A town near us, Walnut Creek, California, has a statue of a nude woman standing on a pedestal, reading a book. It is out on a busy street in their new shopping district (very popular and very busy shopping area). My 7 year old daughter sees it whenever we walk past it. I don't like it, but I figure that if I freaked out about it, I would give the thing more prominence in my daughters mind than it deserves. Instead, when she saw it, I made a comment about how silly/stupid-looking the woman is, standing there with no clothes on, like a little baby who doesn't know better (or some such thing like that - I can't remember EXACTLY what I said).
No doubt, some artiste-type on a similar council had it put there under the cover of it being non-sexual, and a "tasteful" nude. That's the "cover" they always use to do something like this. They are being oh-so reasonable, educated, mature, and open-minded about such things. If you disagree with them, you are the opposite.
I love it how these liberals come up with what they consider to be insulting names for anyone who disagrees with them. In case, the word chosen was "prude". It seems that on a social/mental scale, they have never advanced beyond high school, or grade school even.
I do like his buns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.