News Review Alpha - Nude art?
Nude art? Not in public area
The Straits Times, Home, Feburary 28th
Whenever the word “nude” enters text or speech in the same sentence as words like “public”, controversy arises. This article, in summary, is a shallow report on an art gallery not being allowed to display a piece of nude art. However, it harbours very many more implications and questions about our society.
Acccording to the Media Development Authority, nude or erotic artworks should not be displayed in venues which are easily accessible to general audiences, including children and youths. The obvious, outstanding question is, “why”? It is understandable for children to be shielded from such art, but what about youths? Is it because the youths of today are so shallow, so unrefined that we cannot understand the history behind it, these paintings for what they are – art? The artist states that the painting carries no sexual connotations, but is that really the kind of light that youths of Singapore, today would view it in? I believe not. Too many times have we heard youths sniggering over some off-colour topic. Surely, this indicates a flaw in the “wholesome education” that we are supposed to have received.
From the government’s view, it is definitely justifiable for them to restrict such art from being displayed in public, but more important is the message that such an act carries, that the government is afraid, perhaps, for these paintings to affect the mindsets of youths. This may indeed be true, but from a different point of view, is it not the fact that we youths cannot appreciate such art that causes such worry on the part of the government, that we would see such art in a wrong perspective?
Of course, this may be simply a further step to discourage such misconceptions. With the rise of the internet, and the fact that much of this kind of art can be found on various public domains, perhaps this is a step forward on the part of the government to quell such bad influence on the youths and teens of today.
Once again, the question of the “youth’s fault” arises. If people of ages past could view it as a kind of art, why is it that we are unable to appreciate it, but instead view it in such a perverse light such that it requires governmental intervention? Perhaps the schools of today could make a move in that direction, to cultivate refined ladies and gentlemen instead of ruffians, with respect to art and culture.
The artist expresses her intentions as a celebration of independence and freedom, that it is a wholesome message. We cannot fault her for that. Perhaps she sees the liberation from material wealth and opulent clothing, to revert back to a biblical Eden of happy ignorance. Perhaps she does not. I do not presume to assume the artist’s message, but I feel that it is most likely a wholesome message. We have to empathize with the artist, consider our education, and at the same time reform our mindsets on this kind of art.
Acccording to the Media Development Authority, nude or erotic artworks should not be displayed in venues which are easily accessible to general audiences, including children and youths. The obvious, outstanding question is, “why”? It is understandable for children to be shielded from such art, but what about youths? Is it because the youths of today are so shallow, so unrefined that we cannot understand the history behind it, these paintings for what they are – art? The artist states that the painting carries no sexual connotations, but is that really the kind of light that youths of Singapore, today would view it in? I believe not. Too many times have we heard youths sniggering over some off-colour topic. Surely, this indicates a flaw in the “wholesome education” that we are supposed to have received.
From the government’s view, it is definitely justifiable for them to restrict such art from being displayed in public, but more important is the message that such an act carries, that the government is afraid, perhaps, for these paintings to affect the mindsets of youths. This may indeed be true, but from a different point of view, is it not the fact that we youths cannot appreciate such art that causes such worry on the part of the government, that we would see such art in a wrong perspective?
Of course, this may be simply a further step to discourage such misconceptions. With the rise of the internet, and the fact that much of this kind of art can be found on various public domains, perhaps this is a step forward on the part of the government to quell such bad influence on the youths and teens of today.
Once again, the question of the “youth’s fault” arises. If people of ages past could view it as a kind of art, why is it that we are unable to appreciate it, but instead view it in such a perverse light such that it requires governmental intervention? Perhaps the schools of today could make a move in that direction, to cultivate refined ladies and gentlemen instead of ruffians, with respect to art and culture.
The artist expresses her intentions as a celebration of independence and freedom, that it is a wholesome message. We cannot fault her for that. Perhaps she sees the liberation from material wealth and opulent clothing, to revert back to a biblical Eden of happy ignorance. Perhaps she does not. I do not presume to assume the artist’s message, but I feel that it is most likely a wholesome message. We have to empathize with the artist, consider our education, and at the same time reform our mindsets on this kind of art.
(500 words)
posted by Josh at
4:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home