Paul,
(and others) It's good to have civil dialog with disagreement. Here we can get
things done.
It's not simple nudity that I've objected to. Rather the sensual character presented.
As excellent as they are,
having that over-riding theme is the issue.
Much (obviously not all) of the art done during the
Renaissance, using the human form as the ultimate expression,
was done as an assult on the RC church. That's especially
true of later enlightenment depictions. They exalted human
above God. (that was an expression of early Humanism.)
Collin
--------- original ----------
From: Paul Stenquist
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:06:31 -0700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't receive the first message in this thread. However, I feel I should respond.
First, I don't equate nudity in a photograph or painting with pornography. If this
were the case, much of the art in Vatican City would have to be considered
pornography. Michaelangelo's sculptures reveal far more of the human form than do my
photographs. I'm not saying that my work is artful, but it is an attempt at art, and
the human body has always been considered a fit subject for artistic representation.
Perhaps more importantly, the link in the PDML contained a specific warning for those
who would rather not see an undraped figure. I don't intend to leave the photos in my
folder for very long. However, some may still wish to view them. But at the end of
this day, I will remove them. By the way, I am a practicing Christian. My wife,
incidentally, found the photos quite beautiful as did the mother of the young lady who
modeled for me.
Paul Stenquist
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
