[southern rock]

No, I do not beleive children belong in art museams where nudity is on display. At least not until they are old enough or curious enough to have snuck a peak at their first girlie mag. :) I must be a regular barbarian at the gate. An old fart at 31. Oh well.

Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked. Why? I wish I had the talent to create such a thing, but I would sculpt it with clothes on. Sorry.

[zoyd]

No, I do not beleive children belong in art museams where nudity is on display. At least not until they are old enough or curious enough to have snuck a peak at their first girlie mag. :) I must be a regular barbarian at the gate. An old fart at 31. Oh well. Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked. Why? I wish I had the talent to create such a thing, but I would sculpt it with clothes on. Sorry.

Pal, you've got some major issues.

I guess I can consider myself lucky that I wasn't permanently scarred from visiting the Louvre with my family when I was 10.

You might wanna change your name from "Southern Rock" to "Southern Dork".

I cannot believe you think the first exposure kids should have to nudity should be from 'sneaking a peek' at a nudie mag, as opposed to viewing great Art. Your priorities seem a little odd.

[BikerNYC]

Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked.

Since we are all born naked, don't you have to "deliberately decide" to put clothes on a statute, rather than the other way around?

Now, this may not apply to your body, but many of us find the human body quite beautiful and are happy to occasionally see it unadorned with all the cultural trash that passes for clothes.

I still think that concealing a statue of justice is just too much to bare (teehee).

[Stone Mountain]

Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked. Why?

Can you see no beauty in the naked human body? Do you think the only reason that an artist would render a nude is to arouse others? Do you think Michaelangelo's David would be the same work of art if he were wearing a cloak or shorts?

[Stone Mountain]

No, I do not beleive children belong in art museams where nudity is on display.

Why? What do you think will happen to them?

[bokonon]

Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked. Why?

I often ask the same thing of God almighty, but alas, he never responds.

[Chess]

"Still, my point is, as stated above, I do not understand the mentality of someone who goes through all the work and trouble of creating a statue, and then deliberately decides to make it naked. Why? "

Some of us believe that the body is beautiful as God created it. It is a work of art. Still this is not a nude statue. Only one breast is shown. There is nothing sexy about these statues.

Still you are free to feel as you do, but most people do not find anything wrong with these statues. They belong to the people, not the current AG.