Just another example... wrote on Dec 22, 2007 10:37 PM:of the Gay agenda in America to stick our faces in their disgusting lifestyle. I shouldn't have to see nude art in a public place.

Prude.... wrote on Dec 22, 2007 11:54 PM:I sure hope they don't bring that filthy statue of David by Michaelangelo to town. That's really dirty!

Observation wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:19 AM:This article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Stark Naked".

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:42 AM:They're at it again -- the religious extremists can't tell the difference between pornography and art. Sex and the natural human form are a natural, normal part of most people's lives, and it is important for people to be comfortable with their own sexuality. In contrast, mayhem and violence should not be accepted as normal dimensions to a healthy life, but which is allowed to be flagrantly and openly displayed in movies, comics and video games, and which is paranoically banned? Instilling this paranoid fear of anything related to natural biological processes and normal human relationships is as abusive as prematurely oversexualizing childhood. The Playboy philosophy and the Puritan preoccupation with sex are opposite sides of the same unhealthy, extreme, exaggerated obsession about sex. It is just like the panic so many uptight parents are now dealing with trying to explain Jamie Lynn Spears' teen pregnancy. Spears should have quietly just had an abortion, then the uptight religious extremists would have been happy not having to talk to their kids about natural biological processes. All I can say to the uptight religious extremists: if you can't tell the difference between art and pornography, don't ever take your kids to the Vatican.

I'm with Mr. Stark wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:49 AM:I agree. My children should not have to see this. There's a time and place for this.

Stark Reality wrote on Dec 23, 2007 8:18 AM:Are you ashamed of your body? There is nothing wrong with the human body. Art is not separate from family, neither is "family" community separated from the rest of the world. God forbid you take your children to museums, or see statues in public places. This isn't Disneyland.

Nadine wrote on Dec 23, 2007 8:25 AM:Art should not be censored! Art should be free expression. If you don't like it, don't look!

Experience wrote on Dec 23, 2007 8:36 AM:When my kids were young, I struggled a bit with this, but came to the decision that nudity, especially in art, was just not that big a deal, and if I dealt with it that way, then they would too. Now they are older, and I'm hoping (you never know what they are really thinking) that when they see art that includes nudity, they see the ART, not the nudity (or at least see some of the art, hey, we all like a enjoy a little nudity, right?; even the prudes :-) ). The point is, if you make a big deal about it, then they'll think it is a bid deal. And it's not like you can avoid it. Just my opinion anyway.

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:04 AM:The posted response from "Experience" (8:36am) is right on the mark. He/she said: "if you make a big deal about it, then they'll think it is a bid deal." So true! But that "big deal" can swing either way -- they may be enticed toward "forbidden way" is ways that are destructive and harmful to serious, mature, adult relationships, or they may become so intimidated and terrified by these normal relationships and processes that they can never enjoy the warmth of tender, caring, committed romantic intimacy the way it should be. Either way is abusive. In the meantime, let 'em practice killing each other with lifelike video games that simulate murder and mayhem and the more blood the better, but if they get a peek for a fraction of a second at Janet Jackson's nipple or a mother openly breast-feeding or a piece of ART, they are scarred forever. What have we turned into?

Way To Go wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:14 AM:Robert, loved the bronz nudes in your window the other night. That was a really classy way to display the human body and I just do not think Escondido is ready for the high level of art.You are a tremendous artist and one that should be recognized for the incredible work you do.

Of this world wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:20 AM:The Christian Taleban at it again.

Bo wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:47 AM:American children see scenes of extreme violence daily; body parts fly in the name of entertainment and parents pay big bucks for their children to see it. But put a painting up showing the human body as God made it and the same parents scream that their children are harmed by viewing it. Maybe the gallery should have the painting re-done to show a gruesome murder scene to save our children from being traumitized by God's work? We tell our children that nudity and sexuality are disgusting and we raise them on a daily diet of violence; it's no wonder we have so many sex offenders and cold-blooded murderers in this country!

Judging by the comments . . . wrote on Dec 23, 2007 10:21 AM:it is clear that based on the comments here AMericans are not hung up on genetalia, they are completely obsessed with the issue. It is a penis people. looking at it will not make you gay.

Who's at my door! wrote on Dec 23, 2007 10:22 AM:Maybe the thumpers who knock on people doors should all be arrested. I know where you are and if I want to hear what you have to say, I'll come to you!

to:I'm with Mr. Stark wrote on Dec 23, 2007 11:50 AM:''it's called internet''

Much adoo about nothing . . . wrote on Dec 23, 2007 11:58 AM:As a child, I was sometimes "exposed" to nude paintings and sculptures when visiting museums and galleries, either with my parents or with school groups. None of these sightings damaged me in any way. My parents simply reacted to these works of art as they did any others and didn't make a big deal over them. But I remember a classmate on a school field trip who had to be escorted from a museum in hysterics after seeing a nude; she was convinced we would now be going to hell for having seen a naked body. (I can't even remember if it was male or female.) Clearly she had been taught, at home and/or by her church, that the human body was shameful and she was traumatized by this viewing. If Mr. Ferguson is no longer going to display such art work outside, that seems a fair compromise. If parents don't (over)react to such displays, I don't think it's going to damage any children.

The Point is Choice! wrote on Dec 23, 2007 1:17 PM:Stark's point seems to be that HE should be the one to decide what is appropriate for his children to see in regards to nudity. The sidewalks of Escondido are not a museum, a theater, nor the Vatican.

jvc wrote on Dec 23, 2007 1:52 PM:WHAT IS REALLY OBSCENE IS HOW WE TREAT ONE ANOTHER!

Curtis wrote on Dec 23, 2007 2:14 PM:"We're not downtown San Diego or Hillcrest," said Stark. "While we are growing as an art community, we are still primarily a family community." Those are also family communities, but apparently Stark thinks he should decide what a family community looks like.

Thanks Lenny wrote on Dec 23, 2007 3:01 PM:Lenny Bruce did a good job of satirizing our puritanical hypocrisy. Lenny pointed out that it is not ok to allow your kid to see a man and woman making love on tv or in the movies, or even to see naked human bodies making nice, but it is ok to let your kid see a (fully clothed) man or woman shoot, stab, strangle, or otherwise brutalize a (fully clothed) man or woman on tv or in the movies. Censorship, puritanical or otherwise, stinks.

only wearing a smile wrote on Dec 23, 2007 3:19 PM:I have not seen this, but am now inclined to investigate. I read the story and immediately presumed... oh... must be a penis involved - nobody ever voices such concern about all the nude female stuff everywhere. Subsequently reading the comments, my presumption is confirmed. Nude is not Lewd.

Protesting Censorship wrote on Dec 23, 2007 3:30 PM:Has anyone ever steaked a city council meeting? I think that would be hilarious and poigniant. Or legally... simply let everyone (regardless of gender) show up with socks rolled up in their pants! LOL

Mike G wrote on Dec 23, 2007 4:18 PM:Gosh, if this art is so inoffensive and appropriate for all occasions, then why doesn't the North County Times show detailed images of the paintings to prove it to us?

Too Religious wrote on Dec 23, 2007 4:29 PM:This just confirms what most people already knew about communities like Escondido, San Marcos and Vista...noth'n but a bunch of ignorant naive, conservative, Bible-bang'n Christian-Coalition mentality idiots. Next time you travel the I-78 corridor, take a minute to observe all of the friggin churches along both sides of the freeway, all the way from Oceanside to Escondido. Why is anyone surprised at all the negative reaction of a reclining nude man in non-erect state?

Art is so subjective wrote on Dec 23, 2007 4:59 PM:If a woman taking her clothes off in a nightclub is "free speech", then the line has already been moved beyond local control. And BTW just slapping some paint on a canvas doens't make it fine art. I haven't seen this painting, but wonder if the art is so great, why is it being used as a sensation-header in a small town side street art gallery.

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 23, 2007 5:03 PM:The posted response from "Mike G" (4:18pm) asks, "if this art is so inoffensive and appropriate for all occasions, then why doesn't the North County Times show detailed images of the paintings to prove it to us?" Excellent point! I think it is shameful and immoral that the NCT has been intimidated by the Christian Taliban to the point they are afraid to show art in their pages that the vast majority of us would have no problems with. And actually, it is the Christian Taliban who is doing more than everyone else combined to PROMOTE PORNOGRAPHY. By this perverted obsession about sex, sex, sex, they are the ones who create the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. Trying to outlaw porn and, especially, trying to outlaw ART (since they can't tell the difference) is ten thousand percent counterproductive. The worst thing that could possibly happen to the porn industry would be for everyone to be comfortable and satisfied with normal sexuality and intimacy. When people are comfortable with their own sexuality, they don't need or want porn. Have you noticed how many times it is the conservative preacher types who get caught trolling for same-sex encounters in bathroom stalls, or paying for hookers? How it is priests who get involved with small children? Jesus said, "suffer little children to come to me." The priests just cause little children to suffer. As I said earlier, the Playboy and Puritanical philosophies are flip sides of the same perverted coin.

Malcolm wrote on Dec 24, 2007 5:01 AM:The research evidence is quite clear. Prudery is harmful to children. If they know more then there is less underage sex, less teenage pregancy, fewers STDs, fewer abortions and so on. Don't believe me? Nearly every town square in Denmark has anatomically correct nude statues and nudity is common place on beaches and gardens. Now compare the teenage pregnancy rate with that of the USA. That is not coincidence. Either be open and honest about the human body or young people will find out by experiment. Anyone who denies that should stand in front of a group of pregnant teenagers and explain why it is that in countries such as Denmark or the Netherlands most of them would not be expecting. Pornography must not be the only way that young people can find out what people look like.

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 24, 2007 8:40 AM:The posted response from "Malcolm" (5:01am) makes a very important and valid point. The Health section of this morning's Los Angeles Times (p. F4) reports that a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, came to the conclusion that teenagers who received full and accurate sex education, not just "abstinence only," were 71% less likely to have sexual intimacy before age 15. Seventy-one percent less! In addition, those who did engage in sex were far more likely to successfully use birth control, resulting in far lower rates of unwanted pregnancies, meaning both fewer teen pregnancies and fewer abortions. This is directly opposite what is claimed by the mostly Puritanical proponents of "abstinence only." These extremists give lip service to lower rates of sexual activity, teen pregnancy and abortion, while promoting habits that are completely counterproductive. As I stated previously, people who can't tell the difference between porn and art are the best friends the porn industry ever had. Same for the abortion industry.

Zachary S. wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:01 AM:I think that many of you are missing the point of why I raised the issue. It is not about religious extremism or being anti homosexual. I have reported a female nude to code enforcement as well. The issue is ability to choose. I agree, the streets and sidewalks of Escondido are not an art gallery. If I choose not to see it by not looking at it, I have already seen it. My children have already seen it (this is horrendous logic). I am not afraid of art, nor do I plan to shelter my children form it forever. But, before we go into the gallery, we will have a conversation about what they are going to see. Also, this is not about being afraid of sex. I think sex is great! Also, TALK TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT SEX! Better you than their friends. Last, in response to too religious, North County is a conservative group of cities. This is why I live here. This is why most of us live here. It is a good place for families. I would like it to stay that way. Please don�t forget how important and fragile the formative years are.

Public Art?? wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:39 AM:What about public art? Are we supposed to stop this as well because we want to protect our families from exposure to the art community?

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:47 AM:The posted response from "Zachary S." (9:01am) expresses his opinion that many of us (probably including me) are missing his point. No, I think he is missing ours. He notes that, in addition to this complaint to code enforcement about a male nude, he has also reported a female nude as well. To Zachary: if you are going around filing multiple complaints to code enforcement about nude art, you have a serious problem with being obsessed about sex. You talk about the "ability to choose." You sound like the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Wahabbi Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia, who permit wives dress (or undress) however they want (in private with their husbands only, of course), but require wearing the burqa while out in public. Were you also one of those who freaked out about the fraction of a second that those who didn't blink might have barely glimpsed Janet Jackson's nipple? Who wants breast-feeding women locked away in closets? If not, understand there are many who are, and normal people are fed up with having to kow-tow to extremists who are so paranoid about normal, natural, beautiful practices. While the most extreme, in-your-face stuff can be restricted, normal, natural modest appreciation of what is natural and beautiful should not have to be completely hidden away out of terror that somewhere someone might be offended by God's gifts.

DD Wiz wrote on Dec 24, 2007 10:03 AM:The posted response from "Zachary S." (9:01am) makes a further statement that begs response: "Please don't forget how important and fragile the formative years are." As a man who was a single father who raised a daughter alone from when she was a 3-month old infant until I remarried during her teenage years, and now as the grandfather of a lovely 12-year old, I do understand that what is fragile is how easy it is to instill irrational fear, to break their joyous curiosity and inquisitiveness about the world, and to destroy their confident ability to question and examine and grow strong and independent. Seeing body parts in a natural, normal context demystifies it. It makes them stronger, and more open to expressing honestly their concerns when such material is encountered in an inappropriate way that is not so innocent. It gives them the ability to tell the difference (which the Puritans lack) and the openness to talk about it when they have to. Perhaps some of the fragility "Zachary S." has observed is the result of being cultivated.

James wrote on Dec 24, 2007 11:22 AM:I could not agree with Zachary Stark more completely and without reservation. When the constitution mentioned the right of free speech it clearly was meant to be determined by great men in our society, religous men, enlightened men, like Mr. Stark to interpret what is harmful for all of us. It seems that most men are incapable of determining how to apply the first amendment, even the local police for heavens sake. So, lets just skip the legislation to overturn the first amendment and just skip to the end and let Mr. Stark protect us all from, gasp, the sight of a nude in a painting. Or, Mr. Stark could tell his kids, yes kiddies sometimes art will have a nude person in the picture, it is O.K. and some of the greatest art in the world is like this. Whem you get older kids we will go to a museaum and see great art.Grow up Mr. Stark, please.

To Zachary S. wrote on Dec 24, 2007 11:42 AM:Don't waste your words here. The article very clearly presents your point. Some people just choose to ignore it. They would prefer to rant and rave about religious extremism (even though you said religion had nothing to do with your actions), rather than try to understand someone else's point of view. They don't see the irony of accusing some of overreacting while engaging in such hyperbole themselves. On the other hand, Ferguson saying he will be more cautious shows consideration and respect for others.

Xmas wrote on Dec 24, 2007 2:37 PM:It is interesting that the holiday being celbrated is about the greatest man being born without the use of a penis. How strange is that? It is so dirty and evil that it could not be part of this picture. I wonder how this affects men and how they think about themselves. More oppression? More guilt for having one? Merry XXXmas!

To To Zachary S. wrote on Dec 24, 2007 3:31 PM:Each one of us has a right to our point of view. What you and Zachary do not want to hear is that your point of view has been listened to, heard, understood and been judged to be overly sensitive, prudish and wrong by many others. I would suggest that you never take your children to Europe or Las Vegas. If you shelter them from reality until their own inquisitive nature has them experimenting and suffering the consequences of not knowing enough, then you'll find someone or something else to blame instead of yourself and your failure to do your job as a parent, to educate.

Nick wrote on Dec 25, 2007 8:24 AM:I have to totally agree with Experience and DD on this.

Roberto1 wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:22 AM:If its done in good taste no problem...even though art is in the eye of the beholder, There is nothing sexy about a hairy butt!

inky wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:29 AM:We often see nude females in art and media, but rarely males. Women enjoy scenery too!

Richard - UK wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:24 PM:Could someone please explain to me in what way the mere sight of a naked body (painted or real) is harmful to children? I just don't get it.

Wow! wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:49 PM:To To Zachary S.: So what you are saying is that you know what is best for my children. That's a mighty bold statement considering you know absolutely NOTHING about me or my children. Please tell me where I expressed disapproval of the paintings being exhibited on the sidewalks. You can't because I never did. But I know it's a lot easier to "win" a point when you make up your own assumptions about the other person.

Congratulations! wrote on Dec 26, 2007 6:13 PM:Congratulations and thank you for assuring me that there is intelligent life on the Planet Earth, here in San Diego and even more specifically and hopefully here in Escondido. Especially DD Wiz and Malcom.
Thank you for making the effort to enlighten this moron who thinks that the world revolves around him, who is plagued by penis paranoia and who thinks that art corrupts families. Escondido is going to become an art community Zach so get over it. Art enlightens and enriches those who are intelligent enough to understand it. Read some books, go to some art galleries and museums. Take your kids and if you see a penis in a painting or on a statue explain to them what it is. If there are nude statues outside then take an overcoat or a pouch to place over the offensive area, similar to the way our politicians have done in the past. If you feel you need an outlet for your paranoia go hang out at F Street and make sure they aren't trying to sell dildos on the street and while you are there take a good look around so that you might understand the difference between that which is offensive and that which is not.

body parts wrote on Dec 27, 2007 11:05 AM:some of our plants have shapes that may or actually do look like body parts. some of our tools, toys, etc. look like body parts. body parts and how the body works is wonderful and amazing. some minds are worried too much or actually ugly. let us not burn art nor books.

chris wrote on Dec 28, 2007 10:34 AM:Kids don't have problems with nudity. They very clearly understand that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. What's most difficult is explaining why people (some adults) are ashamed of it, why we have to hide it away, why it is illegal or wrong for someone to be nude. It is most obviously the adults who have the problem with nudity. There is also a very big difference between nudity and sexuality. A nude body is unclothed. A individual decides wether it is sexual or not. I don't believe that most nudity found in art is sexual (or child nudity or nudity in childbirth) but obviously there are those that do. I recommend therapy if it continues to upset you or, how about this...stay away from art with your kids.

To chris wrote on Dec 28, 2007 10:32 PM:You wrote "stay away from art with your kids". Hello!!!!!! That was the whole point!!! The art is exhibited on the sidewalk!! Stark was not given the choice to stay away from it. There's no issue when the art is on display INSIDE the gallery.

dougie_fresh wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:24 PM:I filed the original complaint on this. I met with the store owner and asked him to remove the painting for the sake of those not old enough to speak for themselves. since my complaint and these many articles on the subject the owner of the studio has decided its good business to be contraversial and returned his painting for view, if only to anger some but to get publicity for his shop. Art is a good thing, but opting on the side of our children is the best move. Perhaps he has his first ammendment rights.. but we have the second and will protest " the F' Street on Orange Street if necessary. Art guy .. dont be cute.. be responsible please.

Richard wrote on Dec 30, 2007 12:42 PM:dougie_fresh wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:24 PM:
" I filed the original complaint on this. I met with the store owner and asked him to remove the painting for the sake of those not old enough to speak for themselves."

Then please explain what harm you think will befall children who see nudity - whether in real life or in art?

Richard wrote on Feb 6, 2008 11:11 AM:Well you've had a month to think of an answer but I guess, from you silence, that you can't.