Nude painting's return to window fuels debate
By: PAUL EAKINS - Staff Writer | ∞
ESCONDIDO ---- Is it art or pornography, and does it belong in downtown Escondido? Many Escondido residents, artists and city leaders have been considering this question since the North County Times reported Tuesday that a downtown art gallery owner removed a nude painting from her second-story window after someone complained about it.
The debate has focused countywide attention on Escondido's growing arts scene, with other local newspapers, television and radio stations picking up on the story.
Meanwhile, Melissa Inez Walker, the owner of Distinction art gallery at 317 E. Grand Ave., has returned the painting by local artist Bob Ferguson to her window, saying she was prompted by an outpouring of support since Tuesday's article.
And that move, in turn, has spurred the original complainants, Angelica and Jeremiah Vignali to file a request at City Hall for an investigation. Their complaint declares "it is inappropriate for this painting to be displayed publicly."
All of which adds up to a boon for the local art business, said Susan McLaughlin, owner of the Lillian Berkley Collection art gallery at 128 Grand Ave.
"This controversy is the best thing that could happen to the arts district in Escondido," she said Friday.
McLaughlin said she thinks Ferguson's painting is art, not pornography, and should be displayed any way the gallery and artist wish. McLaughlin has displayed nude paintings at her gallery, even in the front window, without complaint, she said.
Although McLaughlin has displayed nudes of both men and women, she said the female form tends to be more accepted by the public. That seems to be the case in downtown Escondido, where several statues of nude women have been displayed in the front window and outside of Architectural Relics, 158 E. Grand Ave. for weeks.
Strolling down the sidewalk with her 2-year-old daughter on Friday, Valley Center resident Angela Hansen said she had no problem with artwork of nudes being displayed for pedestrians to see.
"I don't think that there's anything wrong with that whatsoever," Hansen said. "I actually think it's a good thing. I think people need to be exposed to nudity as something that's beautiful."
At City Hall, city officials have taken a more middle-of-the-road position.
While city officials have said the visibility of Ferguson's impressionist painting doesn't break any laws, City Council members said Friday they have mixed feelings about it in a city known both for its art and its conservatism.
Mayor Lori Pfeiler said she supports Walker's decision to display the painting again.
"Escondido has been trying to attract galleries and have galleries open and have art in our downtown," Pfeiler said. "And when you're going to ask art to come, you're going to get some different kinds of art, and that's what we need to celebrate."
Councilman Ed Gallo said he doesn't personally agree with Walker's decision, although he wasn't sure what action, if any, the city might take.
"I think it's inappropriate. If someone wants to go into an art gallery and see art, that's their choice. But if a person's walking down the street, I don't think it should be shoved in their face," Gallo said.
While Councilwoman Marie Waldron said she didn't know a lot about the issue, she said that on a personal level and as the owner of a downtown business, she thought displaying a nude painting was inappropriate.
Similarly, Councilman Ron Newman said he didn't know a lot about the issue and didn't want to see the city get involved unless there were a clear legal question. But, Newman said, "if it's nudity and some people are offended by it, it shouldn't be in an obvious location."
Bob Wright, owner of the Robert Wright Fine Art Gallery, which has displayed Ferguson's landscape paintings for 10 years, said he doesn't display the artist's nudes mainly for one reason.
"I'm there to sell art, and I don't think nude art sells, and therefore I'm not going to put something in my gallery that doesn't sell," Wright said.
However, Wright conceded that another consideration was the location of a dance studio attended by many young girls next door to his gallery.
"But I don't think there's anything wrong with his subject matter of nudes," he said.
Contact staff writer Paul Eakins at (760) 740-5420 or peakins@nctimes.com. To comment, go to nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Denise wrote on Jan 14, 2006 8:47 AM:I too believe that a nude painting can be art. However, I do not want to be confronted with a painting of a nude male while walking down a city street with my 8 year old son. There probably is no law on the books prohibiting this because Escondido never dreamed this issue would come up. It would be interesting to find out how other, "more sophisticated" cities regulate this type of artwork. If we were a society of teenagers and adults only, I would say go ahead and display it, we can then discuss its attributes and whether we appreciate it or not. But we are not and it is getting harder and harder to protect the innocence of children these days. Knowing that this piece of art is downtown makes me less willing to shop and eat there with my family. Display the nude art work inside the gallery, not in the front window.
Sara wrote on Jan 14, 2006 3:23 PM:Folks, it's ART, not erotica, ART. If you can't stand seeing what we humans really look like, perhaps we should also outlaw mirrors. What the heck, let's outlaw eyeballs as well since they're the parts actually committing the crime. And while we're at it, let's also ban the North County Times since they ran this salacious story! The fact that some members of City Council are confused about the First Ammendment is disturbing.
Dan wrote on Jan 16, 2006 7:24 AM:I really don't understand why people get so worked up over simple nudity. My wife and I have three children, all under 10 and for them to see nudity is no big deal. The human body is a very natural thing, and it's a moral matter of honesty about the body.
Curtis wrote on Jan 16, 2006 8:43 AM:Denise is concerned about protecting the innocence of her 8 year old son, does he never change clothes? What is she trying to protect him from? reality?
Al wrote on Jan 17, 2006 7:05 PM:A store owner that shows such disregard towrds th4 people and children walking down the sidewalks in view of this nudity is not a store I will visit and spend my money in in the future.
Martin wrote on Jan 18, 2006 9:23 AM:Interesting! Nudity has been around in the arts for millenia. So I guess if there's a Greek or Roman guy nude as a statue (or David?) or a Renaissance painting of a nude guy, its OK, but if it's a contemporary painting, it MUST be pornagraphic:-) HMMMMM!
Randy wrote on Jan 18, 2006 8:30 PM:I hope none of the distractors win a trip to Europe. They would have to wear a blindfold.
Ben wrote on Jan 20, 2006 5:05 AM:The human body is nude. Period. People are born that way. People do things in the nude all the time. Why do folks get so uptight about simple nudity? If they are afraid of sex, I say that any implied sexual overtones they might perceive is purely in the eyes of the beholder. If you are hung up about nudity, simply look away. Please don't deprive the rest of us of viewing art, whether it's public or otherwise. Get over it.
Bill wrote on Jan 21, 2006 1:08 PM:All you liberal-minded folks can move to Europe or down the road in Hillcrest. I don't want my family forced to see naked folks if I don't want to. Period.
jacqueline wrote on Jan 26, 2006 1:30 PM:Hey Bill, Why don't you just not come down town instead of telling others to move away. Control your own destiny. You can dictate in your home with your family, but you can not dictate to my family. Perhaps you should walk down the street with a blindfold on.
Steven wrote on Jan 27, 2006 8:01 AM: I take offense to the attitude of "offense" by the "offended" people because the offended people do NOT KNOW WHY they are offended. If you ask them WHY the painting offends them, the conclusive answer WILL be, "I don't know". Don't settle for an answer that would satisfy a 3 or 4 year old. Get in there and ask the questions that will settle this! In over 50 years NO ONE has given me an answer as to what is nasty or indecent about simple, non-lewd nudity!
Heather wrote on Feb 12, 2006 12:12 PM:I have 5 children: boys - 14 & 10, girls - 12, 8 & 4. In a park downtown in the city we live in, there is a Statue of David. It is art. It is there for all to do. Totally nude. None of my children have ever thought anything odd of it. It's ART. Now, I don't allow my children to see "naughty" pictures and/or paintings. But, if it is tasteful art, I have no problem with it at all. Nor do my children. When faced with questions about the art, I am open and honest with my children - about all aspects in a way that is age appropriate for each of my children. Better that they learn these things from parents than to learn them from friends. It is never to early for children to learn about the birds and the bees. As for adults... we ARE adults. Aren't we?
Den wrote on Feb 1, 2008 3:35 AM:I really don't see anything wrong with it, its fun and I think everybody enjoys it.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement