I'm glad you added the last part as I was concerned about anyone who
would go to such lengths defending such behavior. Just keep in mind
that conventions are derived because they fit the needs of society...
they change when needs change, not just because of malcontents.
Having lived through the sixties and seen the damage done by the 'love
generation', I am wary of people coming along saying they have a 'better
idea'.
The point of freedom is that we can do pretty much what we want, but
still don't have the right to mess with the people around us.
Larry Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Vince Teachout [mailto:teachv At taconic .DOT net]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:11 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [OT] : Art in the buff
At 02:33 PM 7/31/2005 -0400, Larry Miller wrote:
>
>Well, I'll type real slow.
No need. I read pretty quickly. :)
It's kind of like someone insisting on
>smoking a foul smelling cigar in a small public place. What they do
in
>their own places is their business... and if it is publicized
>sufficiently and I don't have to deal with it... MAYBE an art museum
is
>workable.
I disagree that this is the case. Yes, if stinky cigar lady showed up
puffing at the library, she'd be inflicting something on the other
patrons
that many people would find disagreeable. However, if the library, for
whatever reason, decided to have "Stinky Cigar Day", in celebration of
obtaining a set of unusual tobacco books, and invited patrons to smoke
stinky cigars, then stinky cigar lady would be perfectly correct in
enjoying the luxury of puffing away in a place she usually couldn't.
There
would also be enough notice to warn away the people who don't enjoy the
smell of cigars. The Museum both invited and publicized the nude day.
>But the conventions of our society tell us that polite company is kept
>with our clothes on... most people just don't look good enough to get
>away with it.
I think the "most people just don't look good enough naked" is simply
our
conditioning. I actually agree with you, to be honest, but wish it
were
otherwise. ie, I wish we could accept an "ugly" body as easily as we
accept an "ugly" face. I think this is a problem, not a virtue, of our
society. And you certainly can't posit, given some of the more unsavory
"conventions" of our country's past, that conventions are always
right. *Sometimes* they need chucking.
> And, we have enough people imposing themselves on people around them.
They were not imposing. The were invited by the owners of the museum.
>If their purpose is just to destroy conventions... who cares what they
want anyway?
Who cares what YOU want? *
Sounds kind of harsh, doesn't it? Conventions are nothing more than
what
the majority of people want at a given time, and are subject to
change. And the changes begin with people bucking conventions.
*(PS, I DO care what you want! :-) I'm just trying to make a point.
)
I honestly believe that the human body *shouldn't* be "disgusting", even
though I'm often one of the worst offenders of the "Cover it up,
Granny!" camp.
In summary, I don't think these people did anything wrong, especially as
they were invited, and I'd like to see a world where A) all God's
children
have shoes, and B), being nude is no more odd or disgusting then wearing
purple. (which IS obnoxious, IMHO.) And I think that B) is as about as
likely to happen as A) :-)
I've enjoyed yanking your chain, Larry. :-) Can we agree to disagree?
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005
©2005 Larry Miller |
