Letter: Whatever it shows, art is still art

Sunday, Oct. 17, 1999 | 10:33 a.m.

That would be wonderful for the viewers and their children, but what about the artists? By separating their work into a room just for "nakedness" labels their pieces as pornographic. This would mean that Michelangelo's "David" should not be shown. Maybe the Sistine Chapel needs to be repainted. Let us be rid of Rodin's "The Kiss," or perhaps Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" because parents don't want their children viewing such radical pieces of art. Let us throw Toulouse Lautrec and Matisse in the garbage, for they depict naked women. What makes contemporary artists of today different from those of the past? If we demand culture and expansion of our thoughts, we should be exposed to arts of all forms, media and concepts.

The real question lies in whether the government's intent is to improve or dumb down society. Controversial art is not bad; controversy isn't bad. America is about different opinions and ideas. The beautiful ideal of this country is its ability to make room for creativity and freedom. There is no need to baby-sit the people of the United States. Restricting what art we see or telling us what is pornographic is like installing a V-chip into our brains.

If Americans want to go into a museum to gaze at flowers and pictures of happy people frolicking in the meadows, I suggest taking a trip to the children's section of their local library. Until we have made the decision to understand and respect other people and art as a whole, we will be forced to stick to the cradle of our padded lives.

RENEE BRNA