AFA strikes in Kansas!

[teddybear]

The Overland Park Arboretum (really nice park, by the way) has all sorts of art works on the grounds. There is a statue there that the local AFA (American Family Association) deems to be obscene and they are trying to get it removed. So far, the Arboretum board has resisted their efforts.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/06/36 ... folly.html

Posted on Wed, Jun. 06, 2012

Exposing another round of folly

By MARY SANCHEZ

The Kansas City Star

The nudie statue in Overland Park’s arboretum has spoken.

“I survived narrow minds,†was the wording on a sign that appeared around her bodice.

Not so fast, Ms. Semi-Nude.

Maybe the tall bronze is unaware that her detractors have launched a petition drive. They plan to force a grand jury to decide if the statue violates a state law against promoting obscenity to children.

She’s also had her exposed breasts covered recently by two T-shirts (removed, as was the sign).

I say we name her. “Prudence†might work. Feel free to make a suggestion.

But brace yourself.

The hoopla will surely brand the metro area as a backwater, wouldn’t-know-art-unless-it’s-painted-on-the–side-of-a-barn kind of place. National media will swoop in with ridicule. And as flyover journalism goes, don’t expect a fair view of our area’s wonderful amenities.

They won’t mention the world-class Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, or the Nerman and Kemper contemporary galleries. All show that many people here appreciate art that challenges, and are comfortable analyzing an artist’s intent.

One point that keeps being missed is what’s being photographed. She’s being accused of promoting sexting because she’s holding a camera.

But the camera is pointed at her head area, not her breasts. And she’s headless. The piece is intended to speak about not valuing your whole self.

That said, it is understandable why the statue would be too much for some people. She’s rather well-endowed.

Still, objectors might want to study the obscenity laws they wish to invoke.

This lady just might have to be, shall we say, more engaged, to be prurient.

Statutes include “offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse or sodomy; masturbation....†She needs to be doing more than standing on her pedestal.

Also,“taken as a whole, a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value.†Obviously, some disagreement there.

This point seems to be missed by the statue’s objectors: NO tax dollars were used. The statue was donated, along with the other pieces on the pathway.

Besides, people can enjoy the arboretum and avoid the statue.

There are miles of trails to ramble without viewing anything offensive. Although I guess at the right time of day, during the right season, it might be possible to happen upon some wildlife doing what animals sometimes do.

Oh, the horror.

http://joco913.com/news/overland-park-r ... -launched/

Overland Park refuses to remove statue, petition drive launched

FRED BLOCHER

One of the statues in the International Sculpture Garden at the Overland Park Arboretum has inspired some discontent.

Since a statue depicting a bare-breasted woman photographing herself was installed in the Overland Park Arboretum, community members have been taking sides on whether the statue falls under the definition of obscenity or art.

Tuesday night, Phillip Cosby, the director of the Kansas and Missouri chapter of the American Family Association, George Hsu, a minister with Emmanuel Chinese Baptist Church, and Joanne Hughes, a Stillwell resident who began an online petition against the statue, met with Overland Park Mayor Carl Gerlach to ask that the statue be removed from the arboretum.

The mayor denied their request to remove the statue.

The city maintains that art is protected by the First Amendment and it is up to the courts to decide if they see any individual piece as obscenity, Overland Park spokesman Sean Reilly said in a statement Tuesday.

The association launched a petition drive this week to compel a Johnson County District Court judge to convene a grand jury to investigate alleged violations of the state law against promoting obscenity to children.

Cosby and Hughes said the statue, “Accept or Reject†by artist Yu Chang, implies and encourages inappropriate behavior for children and the city should be more concerned with regulating the messages that children receive.

They contended that the statue can be defined as obscenity and should be moved to a location intended for an adult audience. Hughes suggested the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.

The group aims to collect 4,000 signatures of registered Johnson County voters. The signatures must be physical signatures, not electronic. Cosby said Tuesday it might may take six to eight weeks for the group to collect enough signatures to begin the grand jury process.

Hughes had started an online petition through the websitechange.org, which had 2,722 electronic signatures as of Tuesday.

On the same website, a petition to keep the statue in the arboretum was started by Ashley Fuller, a Shawnee resident. It has 177 electronic signatures.

Cosby said Hughes attempted to schedule a meeting with the Overland Park City Council numerous times and after being unsuccessful, she reached out to his organization. He said he also attempted to schedule a meeting with the council and was denied. Cosby said they were told because they are not Overland Park residents they could not come before the council.

“It gave us no recourse but to begin the grand jury process,†he said.

Reilly said because of Hughes’ initial requests, signs were posted at the entrances to the walking path that include a warning: “Some pieces include a display of the human body and parental guidance is encouraged.â€

I have seen this statue. Do I like it? Not especially, but that doesn't mean I want it removed. As for being obscene, I find the AFA more obscene that any piece of art I've seen!

[valsa]

I'm more perturbed by the fact she looks like a dismembered body than the fact she's flashing her tits (although the bare breasts do lend themselves to the overall rape-and-murder-victim vibe)

[terranova]

I'm more perturbed by the fact she looks like a dismembered body than the fact she's flashing her tits (although the bare breasts do lend themselves to the overall rape-and-murder-victim vibe)

Yeah the nudity doesn't freak me out so much as the disjointed limbs. Kind of odd.

[GeoBQn]

I want to see what would happen if these guys went on a European tour.

"Ditch David!"

"The Venus de Milo is de-Frauding!"

[CanadianHippie]

Honestly the statue says to me "look what we've done to women, we've mutilated everything human about them and make them into sex." Of course to someone who thinks female knees and shoulders are defrauding, they'd be pissed at the idea a naked or half naked woman should still be considered human.

[AmyP]

Is the blue shirt part of the statue? I really don't like it. I would like it better without the blue shirt.

[mirele]

I want to see what would happen if these guys went on a European tour.

"Ditch David!"

"The Venus de Milo is de-Frauding!"

I know what happens!

Gayle Ruzicka, the president of the Eagle Forum in Utah, once took her dozen or so kids (seriously, I lost count) to Vegas for something or another. They were in the shopping mall in Caesar's Palace and she told her brood to cover their eyes when they passed the replica statue of David.

I also remember how BYU excluded four statues from a Rodin exhibit it was mounting back in the late 90s. One of the statues was the famous "The Kiss." *rolls eyes* And Utahns wonder about the sardonic statement: "Welcome to Utah, set your clock back 25 years." Yep.

[Elle]

I don't see the human body as automatically vulgar or anything. Think about works from the renaissance that pay homage to the beauty of the natural human body! But that statue is borderline. She's assuming a pose that you'd expect a real woman to take (minus the dismemberment) if she was hoping to be seen as attractive, plus she is intentionally flashing in such a way as to draw attention to her breasts. This piece seems to be less about beauty of the human body and more about drawing attention in a sexual manner.

[sassyNoz47]

I've seen it several times..I don't care for it because it looks just wrong its rather disturbing to some people. I think kids might be bothered by it but that doesn't mean I want it gone... I would prefer it be inside a gallery or something.

[Cran]

Well, not to my taste, but "defrauding"? Who the hell is attracted and defrauded by a partly shown, dismembered statue?

I will always remember that US-penpal who told me she recently got her German newsmagazine in a brown bag - because there was a cartoon on the cover where a (satirically) drawn woman flashed her nipples! I will never understand the US-attitude behind this, and much less if you give it a Christian vibe. Sure, men are sinful, yadada etc. pp., but man is supposed to be God's highest creation. Seems fundies don't see it as that.

[AmyP]

I don't see the human body as automatically vulgar or anything. Think about works from the renaissance that pay homage to the beauty of the natural human body! But that statue is borderline. She's assuming a pose that you'd expect a real woman to take (minus the dismemberment) if she was hoping to be seen as attractive, plus she is intentionally flashing in such a way as to draw attention to her breasts. This piece seems to be less about beauty of the human body and more about drawing attention in a sexual manner.

Yeah- I think the way the statue is pulling apart the shirt gives it a vaugely "porn-esque" look. If the statue were just naked I'm not sure it would make as many people uncomfortable.