Ind. Business Told to Hide Nude Statues (Venus de Milo, David "harmful")

AP/SF Chronicle ^ | 3/30/05 | AP

[TFFKAMM]

(03-30) 13:50 PST Edinburgh, Ind. (AP) --

The Venus de Milo had better wear a top and Michelangelo's David should put on some pants if they're going to be seen at a yard art business.

Bartholomew County officials told the business near Interstate 65 that it must move cement copies of the classical statues — and about 10 others — out of public view because they are obscene under Indiana law.

"It's not fair to point out our business, and personally, I don't find them offensive," Ginger Streeval, a co-owner of White River Truck Repair and Yard Art, told the Daily Journal of Franklin for a story Wednesday.

Frank Butler, the county's zoning inspector, disagreed. "They have nudity ... and that should not be in the view of a minor," he said.

Indiana's obscenity law prohibits the display of nudity where children might see it, he said.

The law also stipulates that such material is harmful for minors if, "considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

The sheriff's department and zoning officials cracked down on the business about 25 miles south of Indianapolis after receiving two complaints about the statues.

But Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, said nudity has been part of art for hundreds of years and that using nudity to define obscenity could raise serious constitutional questions.

"Just because something is nude doesn't mean it's obscene," he said. "If that were the case, most Renaissance art

[TFFKAMM]

First the vandalizing of the CMOH memorial in Indianapolis, and now this. Not a good week for public artwork in Hoosier-land...

[RushCrush]

If this doesn't make kids screwed up about their sexuality or their bodies, I don't know what would.

[dfwgator]

Wasn't this in a Simpsons episode?

[SengirV]

I believe that was the Gummi de Milo

[VRWCisme]

This makes me think of something that happened last week while I was visiting the Library of Congress. A young boy (probably about 9 or so) and his mom were walking up to the building, which has statutes out in front. She said something to him about how nice the building is and how much art is included in the design. His response: "Why are naked people considered art? Yuck!" It was pretty funny. Everyone standing near us cracked up, including his mom.

[free_european]

Isn't Indiana the state that once legislated that pi would be equal to 3?

[TFFKAMM]

Take that, Bartholemew County bureaucrats!

[DeFault User]

The law also stipulates that such material is harmful for minors if, "considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

Michelangelo's David lacks serious artistic value, huh? They've got some real tough art critics there in Bartholomew County.

[balch3]

Indecency is indency. Calling it "art" doesnt change that.

[smoothsailing]

Blame John Ashcroft! ;^)

[BikerNYC]

Indecency is indency. Calling it "art" doesnt change that.

The law seems to suggest otherwise:

The law also stipulates that such material is harmful for minors if, "considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

Are you saying that, as a rule, nudity always "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?

[ventana]

The human form is not in and of itself indecent in a representational form when in a classically conceived posed. There is nothing lustful or suggestive in that artwork. Well, perhaps you wouldn't be comfortable with the art at the Vatican. Actually, I am sure you wouldn't be. V's wife.

[SolidRedState]

I think the law needs a bit of tweeking.

[balch3]

It surely shouldn't be out in public. At least put it behind closed doors and if a parent wants to bring their kids, well that's their problem. At least decent people won't have to have their children exposed to it.

[nuconvert]

Hey! Cut that out! ;~ p

[BikerNYC]

Then your answer is "yes." Nudity always "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?

I couldn't disagree more.

[FierceDraka]

Isn't Indiana the state that once legislated that pi would be equal to 3?

(sigh) Yes, yes, Indiana tried to legislate a universal mathematical constant.

We've improved since then, however.

But as far as the concrete replicas of classical statues being obscene, well, you have to remember that it's Batholemew County they're talking about. Not exactly a vibrant hub of cosmopolitanism, there.

But didn't John Ashcroft order a sheet thrown over the statue of Lady Justice because of the naked marble breasts?

Condemning representations of classical and Renaissance art as obscene is ludicrous at best, and displays a totalist-absolutist mindset that should make anyone concerned for liberty suspicious of the motivation behind the condemnation.

[Hank Rearden]

Blame John Ashcroft! ;^)

Ok, fine with me. He's a putz.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Are you saying that, as a rule, nudity always "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?

I think what it is is that the distinction between nude art and soft porn is basically arbitrary.
If the "artist" is "famous" he gets away with anything.
If not, God help him.
Sometimes that isn't good enough.
If "David" had been done by Mapplethorpe, I think most FReepers would unhesitatingly call it obscene.
At least it's hard to think of another under-18 male nude executed in any medium that is commonly held up as pure "art".