David

Michelangelo’s David is my favorite statue. In my opinion it is the most beautiful statue in the world. There is a story that goes with it. The marble block from which it is carved was flawed and lying on its side. No other sculptor wanted anything to do with it because of the flaw. But Michelangelo (my favorite artist) stood the block upright and created the most magnificent statue. Thus, the David became the stone that the builder’s rejected! (Ps.117:22, Lk.20:17)

I have seen reproductions of Michelangelo’s David with a fig leaf – or some other kind of leaf – covering his genitals. I believe that such a “covered” statue totally destroys it. It is not what Michelangelo intended. In fact, in my opinion a David with covered genitals is a pornographic statue. I believe this because to cover the genitals manifests sexual inhibitions.

Those who cover the genitals obviously believe that there is something wrong with nudity and sex. But such is not what Michelangelo wanted to manifest. He did not see anything wrong in the nude human body. Because there is nothing wrong with being nude! Since there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity, then to cover the statue’s genitals is to destroy it, to bastardize it and to make it pornographic.

As far as I am concerned to put a fig leaf over the genitals of Michelangelo’s David, a fig leaf on Francisco de Goya’s Naked Maja or to alter any work of art that has nudity or sex in it is to rape that art work.

It is to take that piece of art and make (a) the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, to appeal to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material will then become patently offensive to me because it will affront my contemporary standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is then utterly without redeeming social value to me because it has been altered.

But this is just a paraphrase of what the U.S. Supreme Court said of pornographic material in John Cleland’s “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” et al v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966).

I’m a average person, but after applying contemporary community standards to a fig leaf covered David, a fig leaf covered Naked Maja or any other altered work of nude art, I find that such work, taken as a whole, to appeal only to prurient interests; it is patently offensive; and it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value to me.

But this is just a paraphrase of what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Some might argue that the U.S. Supreme Court was talking about pornography in these cases, not art. But that is just my point! What some consider art, others consider pornography and vice versa. As far as I’m concerned, any nude work of art that has been altered to cover the sex, I believe such to be pornography.

I know of two New Orleans ladies who went on a vacation to Europe. Neither had ever been there before and both had been wanting to go for quite a while. So, they went together on a tour that took them to several European countries, including England, France, Switzerland and Italy.

When they came back one of them said that she could not wait to get back to see the many beautiful statues, paintings and mountains of Switzerland. The other said that she did not like the tour because there were too many statues and paintings of naked men and women. She did not ever care to go to Europe again.

This is my question: Which of them is correct? What do the museums of Europe have, art or pornography? I have never been to Europe but I have looked at many art books from the various museums all over the world and I agree with the New Orleans lady who saw art.

Picture a completely nude man and a completely nude women engaged in sexual intercourse. She is on top of him, straddling him. He is thrusting his hips up into her, completely penetrating her. Their pubic hairs are a black jungle of entanglement. The sweat is dripping off her nipples and splashing down onto his stomach. His muscles are hard with tension. His hands grip her sides while her arms thrash wildly about. Both are riding a roller coaster of emotions.

Now picture them both at the moment of sexual climax. Visualize their orgasm. Their muscles are tense and their faces are contorted in ecstasy. Her back is arched. He thrusts up. She pushes forward. Together they explore the ocean depths and rise to the pinnacle of the mountain. Yes! Yes! The valley is crossed! The rocket soars to the heavens! Both then plummet into oblivion and bliss.

Is this art or is it pornography? . . . I call it art!

What the U.S. Supreme Court tried to do was to define pornography. But that is something that cannot be defined! Because to define pornography is to define art, and to define art is to pin down the proverbial elusive butterfly. Nor can a person claim: “I cannot define it but I know it when I see it,” for the same reason.

What some people call art other people call pornography. Thus, we are left with the problem of defining art, pornography, free speech, freedom of expression, to name just a few civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as soon as we allow someone (either conservative or liberal) to begin to limit our rights, then we begin to destroy the Bill of Rights. Then the only thing we will have in the end is ersatz freedom.

On the other hand, we cannot allow the liberals or the conservatives to exploit the Bill of Rights for their own selfish desires, for then we will end up with no laws at all to protect us. We must find the proper road to follow and we must work together to find it. That road cannot be the oppression of the conservatives, nor can it be the exploitive road of the liberals. The road to truth and peace is long and winding.

What we are faced with is what I delineate in Advanced Citizenship. Thus, if we want to maintain our rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, then we all have to be willing to accept that there are those who hold different opinions. We all have to be willing to defend another person’s right to do something that we find offensive, to believe in something that we do not believe in, to advocate something we have spent a life time opposing. If we cannot do that, then we do not have freedom. We have slavery!

But surely, some will argue, we cannot allow pedophiles to abuse our children. This is true. We cannot allow those who are sick and those with extreme beliefs to dictate our laws. We cannot allow our children to be abused by pedophiles. Thus, we cannot allow our children to be put in any type of compromising sexual depictions; whether this be literally or virtually.

But what about art? What about those who would innocently depict children in art? It is sometimes impossible to draw a line between innocent nude children in art and children who are being abused in pornography. A classic example of such is Paul Emile Chabas’ (1869-1937) September Morn. This painting is not pornography; it is art. Another classic example was that of billboard add of a suntan lotion a few years ago. It depicted a small child on the beach with a suntan and a dog pulling on the child’s bathing suit. This was not pornography.

I believe the answer lies in how the work was created and how it is being used. For example, if there is no evil intent by the creator or the user, then there is no pornography. But if the persons involved are using it for sexual gratification, if the persons involved are using it for their own greed and selfish sexual desires, then even if they were using genuine works of art, such would be pornographic.

Therefore, we must have laws that will protect our children from all literal and virtual abusive situations, (especially sexual abuse) and there should be no exceptions to these laws. For if we do not protect our children, then it is only a matter of time before pedophiles and others with evil intent misuse the work for their own wickedness.

Michelangelo’s David