showcases photo of naked woman
University of Wisconsin-Stout leaders recently relocated two historical paintings they deemed “harmful” to “controlled access” rooms – but administrators have not placed the same restrictions on a large photo of a naked woman openly displayed on campus.
With that, the university allows a level of nudity to be viewed without “controlled access,” but not paintings commissioned during the 1930s by the U.S. government – artwork Wisconsin taxpayers paid $26,000 in 2012 to restore.
The nude photo – an image of a woman bent over backward in a yoga pose with the words “Unrestricted” – hangs today in the university’s Communications Technologies building.
It is the cover photograph of a senior’s capstone portfolio submitted to complete a photography and video minor, campus spokesman Doug Mell told The College Fix via email, noting photos from other students’ capstone projects have also been hung.
“Unrestricted” has been on display since the spring and will continue to be showcased until Spring 2017, when new student art will be hung, Mell said.
(At Left: A student at the school took a photo of the artwork on display on behalf of The College Fix.)
UW-Stout was thrust into the national spotlight over the summer after two 80-year-old historic paintings were deemed to have a possible “harmful effect” on students by Chancellor Bob Meyer, who ordered them to be moved from hallways in the university’s largest building to areas on campus where they can be viewed by appointment.
One painting depicts Native Americans canoeing in a river alongside French trappers, and the other shows a fur trading fort and Native Americans. Both were painted by Cal Peters in the mid-1930s as part of the Depression-era federal Works Project Administration. In 2012, they were restored at a cost of $26,000, according to campus officials discussing the artwork in emails obtained byThe College Fix through a public records act request..."
2 comments:
So basically, we're comparing neat but historically inaccurate paintings that were officially commissioned for display in a high-traffic area...to a student capstone art project displayed in the context of other student capstone art projects. If a university acted as a single individual, and all art were displayed for the same purposes under the same criteria, then sure, this would be questionable. But that is a wrong interpretation. Granted, I'm not a fan of the first decision, because I think it just needed a disclaimer that the painter was clueless along with a description that matches history.
Agreed. A disclaimer, and or even a contrasting depiction. Something that shows an alternative to the stereotype being displayed.
Post a Comment