> Are you saying that paintings of nude women from the Renaissance period
are
> also all pornographic because they involve nudity?
        That's very true.  Nudity has been considered an art form for MANY
years, and I don't see why the IRTC should be any different.

> It can't even be considered perverse, after all, the two people in the
image
> are LIVING TOGETHER.  He is not stalking her or spying on her.  I don't
know
> how many people mustn't have picked this up, but the two rooms are JOINED
by
> an opening in the wall at the back.  You can see that light flows in from
> the TV in the left to the room on the right, casting a green-blue haze on
> the toilet and the far wall, and the ceiling, and also if you brighten the
> image a bit, you'll notice that the room on the right casts a pale
yellowish
> shadow on the far wall and ceiling of the left room.
        I don't think your point here is very well represented.  The problem
with nudity in images lies not in the relationships of the characters to
each other, but our relationship with the image as voyeurs.  It obviously
isn't a problem for him to see her naked, but perhaps it is wrong for US to
see her naked.
        That said, I thought that this was a very nice piece of artwork, and
unless the IRTC decides to change it's policies regarding nudity it should
stay right where it is.  At any rate, I respect your opinion, David, and I'm
glad you had the guts to start a conversation of this nature.

Stephen Bell
http://students.oc.edu/stephen.bell

Post a reply to this message