Art or obscenity? A nude model is arrested at the Met

Venus de Milo, Liberty leading the people, Lady Godiva ... and next?

Nudity has been a staple of the visual arts since time began, but apparently the real thing is still too much for some people to handle.

On Wednesday, a 26-year-old model was arrested in New York after posing for a photo shoot at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Police said Kathleen Neill was posing naked for a photographer in full view of visitors at a gallery in the museum's arms and armor department.

Neill has been charged with two crimes: endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness, according to her lawyer, Donald Schechter. She was released from police custody Wednesday and is scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 22.

"She didn't do anything sexual. She didn't perform lewdly and she made no reference to her genitalia," Schechter said in an interview with Culture Monster.

"There are nude sculptures and paintings all over the museum. It's the height of stupidity accusing a live model of showing the same thing in a house of art."

The photo shoot was conducted by Brooklyn-based photographer Zach Hyman for an upcoming art show. (Hyman has not been charged with any crimes so far.) "It's a project I've been working on for three months now -- it's the idea that nudity isn't necessarily perverse or sexual," he said in a phone interview today.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/art-or-obscenity-a-nude-model-is-arrested-at-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

Wonder if this is anything like sending nudes to minors on the net...for the sake of art.

No, it's not like that.

And where is Chris Hansen when you need him :rofl:

I've taken all my kids to multiple art museums, and they are filled with nudes. Many are highly realistic. Many are photographs. And I was in control of the situation. If I stumbled upon a gallery with a live model, I'd assess its appropriateness for my kids and make a decision to enter or not.

Sending naked photos to my child's email account is not even similar because it bypasses the parents.

we seem to be A-OK with showing the most vile acts of violence to pretty much anyone, but photos like these: http://www.universdartistes.com/?zx=cea09f494883033a make some people squirm. Seriously; :wtf:

that has been a question of mine for years. WTF is right.

and I'm in love with Fabba and Julie Montana :loveya:

I'm perfectly fine with women being allowed to run around nude if they are not fat and/or ugly. Under no circumstances would I be fine with men running around nude.

sneer at the overly plump woman that dares to bare her arms or shows her wrinkly belly.

this isnt about maturity in nudity, it is about the male entertainment of the young and beautiful

i think the poster was right on.

have the men swaggering around in nudity and i bet there would be a different perception of allowable. just listen to people when seeing a guy on the beach in a speedo suit

people on these threads yell grow up with nudity but are the first to be immature about the nudity.

breast, breast, breast.... lookie there

so grown up

some fat, some thin, tall and short,
you might see, they are all equally beautiful. the perfect ones don't particularly stand out. what stands out is just the life in all of them, and the beauty of skin in all its changing ways.

about nakedness of women. and if it is about the "beauty" of a naked women in all form, then arent you exactly making the point that there is more in this naked thing instead of just being comfortable in nakedness. if it is a maturity about nakedness the "beauty" of it wouldnt even be a part of the equation cause the people are simply being, not there for anyones entertainment.

but still

you bring it to an entertainment

but i still argue, and one male poster honest enough to admit what we in reality know.... it isnt even about the appreciation and beauty of ALL forms. it is a particulary young and beautiful naked they restrict it to

Quit pretending you know what's in the hearts and minds of people you don't know. You assume too much.

with the enlightenment meter.

Not 100% positive, but I bet that is the case.

I do agree about the young and perfect being most celebrated. It's all subjective though. I look at a young beautiful woman or man and recognize they will likely grow old, and may grow fat, or scrawny, or become deformed; or simply lose the beauty because they become ugly on the inside.

who allow everyone and anyone who wants to to disrobe and swim and play. When one is in a group of naked people of this sort, the sexual part of it becomes muted--more of a "hey, I didn't know those parts could look like that" sort of thing.

BTW, I was an art student in college, and, as a 17 year old, took a class in drawing that involved nudes--men, mostly. Have seen nude statues and paintings since I was very young.

which i think is the visual in the difference of what i am speaking of when people on this board yell out grow up with nudity, yet.... any mention of a naked young female is

i could do her
or any number of controlling or degrading comments

i grew up in the 70's in calif. was on a swimteam a lifetime. (might as well be naked in those suits). it was really a time of the naturists. skinny dipping, hot springs. i know the difference in the feel of it. and i miss those times. i miss those times for the youth growing up today.

It sounds like something that was a really wonderful experience. Hopefully we'll see it happen again.

But it's the truth about how I feel, and I'd wager that is something that most would agree with, if they truly examine their own feelings.

For the most part, it's the whole naked-men-and-children thing that I can't get past, and I don't think very many are interested in seeing unpleasantly distorted naked women either.

If the body is attractive I don't care, but if not, I'd prefer it covered up. This is a normal, healthy reaction to public nudity.

If you're a superior being capable of fully distinguishing between nudity and sexuality, congrats to you. Do I think it would be good for society for everyone to let it all hang out? No. I know human beings and I know the people letting it hang out the most would be dirty old men hanging it around kids, absolutely 100% guaranteed.

And with such a huge proportion of this country obese (not just overweight, but actually obese)... it's just a yuck situation.

So I am perfectly comfortable with my biases, I freely admit them. Among men, I would wager quite a bit, this is a pretty darn common point of view.

It's deeply neurotic, actually... but it's a neurosis that most of our sick society seems to enjoy, so...

I'll take the deletion.

>And with such a huge proportion of this country obese (not just overweight, but actually obese)... it's just a yuck situation.<

Fuck you.

I'll bet you're less than dazzling disrobed as well, but you demand perfection in everyone you see?

I feel sorry for anyone you're involved with IRL.

So unladylike!

One thing I have learned is that ugly in the heart and ugly in the soul ALWAYS eventually come out as ugly in the body. Dorian Grey, nice fantasy, but opposite of reality.

Look in the mirror. There - you see it... that vicious reaction to an idea you don't like, the easy resort to profanity and hate, the fake sympathy you couldn't have if you tried, the false bravado of what you do with anonymity, the dubious courage of risking - gasp! - message deletion.

That's the ugly nobody wants to see. I'd ask you to cover up the face, too, but I'm a reasonable and open-minded guy and am willing to tolerate some level of ugly for the sake of social cohesion.

I feel sorry for anyone you're involved with IRL.

I might also mention that you've got a pretty good case of the uglies going yourself. :woohoo: Then again, it's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

No, I'm going to stop right there. :nuke:

I wonder how sore his knuckles are?

If the person is not doing anything sexual, being nude itself should not result in an arrest.

I'm sorry, if the photographer wanted to use the armor exhibit for his shot, either with a nude model or a model in a nun's habit, he can first of all get permission from the museum and second of all do it when the museum decides to let him do it.

Maybe the photographer should have been cited (not arrested).

Who knows, maybe this was a publicity stunt by the photographer to get their name out there.

And I just read a little more closely and YES the photographer intentionally wanted to make a fuss.

:blush:

And don't be sad. People like me really really enjoy pissing off people like you.

Like the dumbasses who think it's provocative to ride the subway without pants, then blog about it.

*Yawn*

I wonder if the cops realize how many other nude people were walking around that museum? I'll bet practically every one of them was naked as jaybirds underneath their clothes. (Not me, naturally, as I always wear an extra pair of underwear so that doesn't happen.)

...just not in public. Look, when you are nude in public, you subject your own beliefs on others whether they like it or not. There are places for those of us who advocate nudity to congregate. They are out of the public eye and do not subject our beliefs on others unwillingly. The artist and model both should have known better. It's not about whether it's art or not, it's about the methodology used. The shoot could have been done in private. Short of that, signs could have been placed warning the public that "live public nudity" was involved, and that would give people a choice of whether or not they wanted to be subjected to it.

" When asked for a comment, the museum issued the following statement: "As a nonprofit institution on city-owned land, the Met, like all other individual and institutional citizens, is subject to municipal laws, rules, and regulations." "



If he had asked permission first, the museum might have given approval and informed its employees of the shoot beforehand, probably cordoned off certain areas where the shots were being taken, allowing the artist and model to work in piece as well as avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of morons.

but he was trying to make a "statement." Oooh.

I just don't care. However, other people have different sensibilities, and it seems to me that acknowledging those is hardly prudish.

No doubt some arrangement could have been made with the museum to do this photo session during closed hours, or that room could have been closed temporarily while the photos were taken.

I see no good reason to cause a conflict in this situation, unless the goal was specifically to cause that conflict. Nobody's going to jail, in any case...it's a minor thing...but using common sense is always a good idea.

That said, I wish public nudity was such a commonplace thing that nobody would even notice it. That's unlikely to ever be the case, but I wish it were. We'd have a lot less fascination with the naked human body if it were.

Where the subjects to be drawn are always nude models. Both sexes, all ages, all body types. Do you think that's the same as porn? I sure don't.

So they could just get over their infantile reactions to the human body.

Infants are not offended by naked breasts.

for some who've already posted on this thread to get over their "infantile reactions".

I vote for intensive therapy.

Of course, I'm sure every last one of them makes Matthew McConaughey/David Beckham/Johnny Depp or whomever look ugly. Of course. :eyes:

And the idea that someone could have even a basic understanding of Western art without some significant study of the depiction of the human nude is frankly laughable.

I am not the most beautiful genotype on the planet, but it didn't matter, because I really was just the bowl of grapes for the day. I am an artist too, and people willing to pose are hard to find. I did it to get past hang-ups I had about my appearance which while not revolting ain't exactly model-esque either.

I especially enjoyed modeling during my two pregnancies. As a result of this, there are gorgeous pregnant nudes of me all over the central US, since the artists who drew me were selling every sketch they made.

Non-sexual nudity don't generally bug me, and in the context of the museum, I would have found it amusing.

to see the beauty of the body, not the way its degraded in this culture. They were little boys, and they laughed and danced in their seats to the beat.
Nonetheless, there was a lady 2 rows ahead of me with her child, and she had her hand over his eyes.
you know, the europeans laugh at us a lot for this.

on ny streets and getting the shot as fast as possible to avoid arrest?

Attention whore

OMG, a kid saw some breasts, he's gonna be scared for life, I bet! :eyes:

We are a nation of neurotic prudes. Christ, mothers can't even breast-feed their babies without the prudes coming after them. :banghead:

Unless proof can be obtained that said minor was delivered via Caesarian section or some other means, that minor entered the world by passing through his mother's vagina. Perish the thought.

I remember watching a Sesame Street episode back in the 70s where a mother breastfed her child and nobody made a stink about it. Come on, museum curators!

i could run up on a mother feeding a baby at any given time. i would glance and see what she was doing, and go on to talk about what i ran up on her for. not a care, not a thought, totally natural and happened often.

it is today there is an issue with breast feeding.

i dont know it is so much about the "prudes" that have issue with it.

which shows young adults being horribly mangled and killed is of course good old entertainment.

Seeing a nude person = scared for life.


People grind them up in an escalator I want entertainment.

My parents took my sister and me to Paris often. Every trip we always saw nudity in art at the museums.

have a youtube video of this?

to do than strip down in a museum. Get a job, hippies.:rofl:

Sure, now its "art" and "natural beauty," but if you age her 40 years, add 50 lbs, add a but load of wrinkles, then you'll hear cries of obscenity.

I'd like to think that people would defend this as art would do so no matter the age or sex or physical condition of the subject.

And why the assumption that they're hippies?

this nation of uptight morons really need to get over themselves.

That shit is the cause of so many of our problems

:hide:

If everybody agrees that it doesn't need to be obeyed right now,then's it's ok to not follow the law.
Think of a law as a flexible guideline.