No this is not another article about Dan Radcliffe’s nude scene on stage. This time a group of aspiring artists paid homage to Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam,” with Potter as Adam and Professor Dumbledore. Silly as it sounds, the homage was true to its source and Potter’s parts were in full view. This caused the principal to have the offending panel taken down until they reached a compromise.
Principal Jeff Schlecht had the nearly nude panel of Potter taken down the day the mural was hung, April 11, citing school policies over excessive bareness. Hundreds of students protested on Siskiyou Boulevard two weeks later, and several conferences were held between the artists and administration.
Now even as an artist myself I still struggle with “artistic nudity” in peices. If a teacher was to show hand drawn porn to a school kid they could lose their job. But Michelangelo paints a willie right there, and boom. Its art. But are we to censor these classic works from an era where this was considered acceptable? The debate goes on.
However, in this mural I think it is irresponsible of them to have allowed Harry’s hairy to be exposed to begin with. It is inappropriate and unnecessary. They changed the identity of David and God himself, so why can’t they give Potter some Fruit of the Looms?? Does this somehow affect the integrity of the art if the boy wizard got dressed in the morning?
I can just imagine the “Dumbledore is gay” routine getting abused in light of this imagery.
The funniest part of this story is how the whole thing began over “excessive bareness” in the picture. And now that he is only 99% naked its ok??
That is a really generous margin of what is considered “excessive”.
“Its absurd to assume that the hand drawn porn image I referred to would have to be crude.”
Crude as in badly made, rather then vulgar, but then by your logic I suppose that would be an ‘absurd’ assumption too? I don’t really want to get into an argument over semantics; I enjoy your writing Rodney, I just didn’t think that analogy worked.
Pickle…
I agree with you that the laws affecting the sexuality in the US are a little dated and probably ass-backwards. However, we are dealing with a culture of Christians that think that bombing a nation for their oil is “OK” and “who cares if those bastards die? They’re not here”. So, with that in mind, we have to face facts that their laws about public display of nudity should be obeyed, whether right or wrong.
Rodney…
I see you point about the teacher and the R-Rated movie, however, the MPAA rates R-Rated movies for those over the age of 18, and high-schoolers in the US are 17 or younger, so that teacher is technically in the wrong.
On top of that, the public display of a sexual organ from a high-school art class, is also something that is inappropriate, regardless of how you look at it. There are many people that would see the picture, including children under the age of 12, who may not necessarily understand the significance of art, but believe that it’s ok to suddenly start pulling down their pants and showing their parts to the world. There has to be responsibility for your actions, and I think this rendering crosses a line of decency. BTW, so does Michaelangelo’s work, if kids are allowed to see it.
It’s just a penis.
It’s not being depicted sexually, it’s just a body part. It’s another example of ridiculous prudishness that seems to be prevalent throughout the USA. It’s perfectly fine to show a woman wearing about ten square inches of clothing thrusting around a stage whilst she sings about sex but heaven help her if she shows a nipple.
People need to smarten up and realise the difference between showing body parts showing sexual material. Hiding parts of bodies away and treating them as taboo can only develop a stigma that drowns out any rational worries about sexualising children such as projects like the band “t.A.T.u”
Godfather, this was a Highschool senior class that made this painting. Regardless, the painting is a tradition of the school and is replaced annually by the next graduating class. It is the position of this painting that is more the exposure issue. This is mounted outdoors and faces a public street.
So it isn’t an issue of art hanging in a University Hallway or a gallery. This is public.
Furthermore the comparison I made to a school teacher showing naked drawings that are not classic art pieces to minors is simple policy. I have yet to hear of a school board that would allow a teacher to expose a minor to restricted adult content. He stands to lose his job.
There was a story that hit the news a while back about a teacher who showed a rated R film to students in a classroom and he was relieved of his position.
My whole problem with this is the age range that this “art” targets. First, what type of school is it, and who goes there? If it’s minor, then covering privates is something that should be done. If it’s a college/university, then by all means. If they can rent it, they can see it.
I’m not really sure I agree with you on your teacher statement either, Rodney. It really would depend on who this teacher is showing their drawing to. Remember, there’s a difference between morals and ethics.
Goodfella, Who says all porno is crude? There are plenty of images that fall in the category of pornographic material that is simply a pretty girl with hair and makeup done with no clothes on.
Its absurd to assume that the hand drawn porn image I referred to would have to be crude.
“If a teacher was to show hand drawn porn to a school kid they could lose their job. But Michelangelo paints a willie right there, and boom. Its art”
That’s a really absurd comparison; are you actually suggesting there’s no obvious difference between a crude pornographic image, sketched by a teacher for one of his students, and a Renaissance painting with no sexual connotations?
I really don’t understand why people get so worked up about nudity, illustrated or otherwise, which is why I insist on getting my penis out at every opportunity.
What the f*ck?
Rodney, the headline of this post totally should have been “First teaser poster revealed for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince’ and see how many of us you could have fooled;)