Resolve to keep happy, and your joy and you shall form an invincible host against difficulties.

Back

ID#: 38310	Area: Archive	Submitted: 2007-08-05 14:17:07	Posted: 2007-08-11 03:01:02
Categories:

QDear 100 Hour Board,

I heard that a few years ago there was to be an exhibit in the MOA involving nude art, but then they decided it was inappropriate, and ultimately they decided only to display nude male art, and no nude female art. (I may have some or all of the details wrong on this. It was before my time.) Does anyone know the full story on this? Why would they display males but not females? Who made this decision? Any thoughts on freedom of artists v. keeping church standards at BYU?
Thanks so much for your help/thoughts!
- Beatrice

ADear Beatrice~

After some digging around, I found out that the specific exhibit you're referring to is probably one by a French sculptor named Rodin.

I called President Samuelson's office about this, and they pointed me to Carri Jenkins, the university's spokeswoman. She said that the exhibit's focus was actually on Rodin's hand sculptures and was titled, "The Hands of Rodin, a Tribute to B. Gerald Cantor." Before the exhibition began, the Museum under the direction of Campbell Gray made the decision not to display four pieces of sculpture. The exhibition consisted of 56 works in bronze and plaster, most of which were single hands, shown in a variety of positions and dimensions. Several figures were also displayed chosen for the hand gestures they express, including "The Helmet-Makeŕ’s Wife" and one of "The Burghers of Calais."

I asked Ms. Jenkins specifically concerning why only one gender was taken down, but she said that's inaccurate.

As for my "thoughts on freedom of artists v. keeping church standards at BYU", I think it's pretty simple: Artists are free to create or not create whatever art they want, and BYU is free to display or not display whatever art it wants.

I hope that clears things up.

~Hobbes

ADear Beatrice,

I remember discussing this in an art history class. Apparently the issue caused quite the uproar at the time, during the fall semester of 1997. I went to the Deseret News's archives and was able to dig out several articles that shed much more light on the subject. (Since their web site makes it impossible to link to a specific article in the archives, I've copied them to the Board's server; the links are below.)

The first article contains a good explanation of why four sculptures were removed from the exhibit:

Brigham Young University's problem with four pieces included in "The Hands of Rodin, a Tribute to B. Gerald Cantor" exhibit is not with the nudity but with the lack of dignity portrayed, says the museum's director.

Campbell Gray, director of the Museum of Art for the past year, said a committee made up of faculty members, administrators, the museum's board and him, determined the pieces they've chosen to exclude do not convey a message that's positive about the exhibit or the 19th century French sculptor, Francois-Auguste-Rene Rodin."The Kiss," "Saint John the Baptist Preaching," "The Prodigal Son" and "Monument to Balzac" all move away from the sensitive and subtle messages the rest of the 56-piece exhibit portrays, said Campbell.

"Nudity isn't the issue, it's more the latter (the lack of dignity)," said Campbell.

"It's a wonderful exhibit without them. It is superb. Rodin focused on the human body as the source of expression for his art."

Every exhibit has its own message and Rodin used hands to convey allegories of deep emotion wonderfully well, said Gray. "We believe each (of the four pieces excluded) would have deflected the meanings of the exhibit."

"The Kiss," portrays a man and a woman embracing. "Saint John the Baptist Preaching" shows the biblical prophet striding toward an unknown purpose. "Monument to Balzac" is unflattering of the portly gentleman.

Each piece is of naked subjects, but so are many of the other pieces kept in the exhibit, which opened Monday in the museum and stays on display through Jan. 24, 1998.
(Haddock, Sharon M., and Edward L. Carter. 1997. Y. excludes 4 Rodin sculptures, citing `lack of dignity,' not nudity. Deseret News, October 27, Metro edition, sec. B.)

Nevertheless, there was quite an uproar, and students organized an unofficial protest.*

There was enough of a controversy over the issue that BYU President Bateman got involved and took responsibility for the decision. The last article offers a good clarification of the issue and BYU's general position on appropriate art:

"In the end, a decision was taken in which I was involved and ultimately responsible for, to take those pieces out and keep them crated," said President Merrill J. Bateman. "That was what we did."
....
Bateman said Museum of Art director Campbell Gray told him about two months ago that several of the pieces in the Rodin exhibit, which is on loan from the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Foundation, might not be appropriate at BYU. However, Bateman said, administrators decided to wait until the statues arrived last month before making a final decision about excluding any of the pieces.

Once the pieces arrived and BYU officials looked at them, the decision was made to exclude "The Kiss," "Saint John the Baptist Preaching," "The Prodigal Son" and "Monument to Balzac."

One statue was inappropriate because it depicted a "nude male in the act of self-gratification," Bateman said. The other three weren't perceived to fit the exhibit's theme, which focuses on "The Hands of Rodin."

Bateman said BYU made a mistake by failing to issue a formal statement about why the statues were being excluded. Media reports began appearing soon after the decision was made, and the story - including some inaccuracies - quickly spread.

One student asked Bateman why the Museum of Art accepted the exhibit in the first place, given the fact that Rodin is known for focusing his work on the nude human body. Bateman said BYU officials agreed two years ago to show the exhibit. However, the standard screening policy wasn't followed.

"This came through without getting adequate screening," Bate-man said. He promised the university will avoid future uproars like the one over Rodin by simply not contracting to show exhibits that may contain questionable material.

"The university does not have an obligation to bring to campus things that might contradict values of (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)," Bateman said. "I'm not trying to force my values on anyone else. This is not a decision about people's rights. It's a decision about what's appropriate to bring to the institution."

The museum is a public place that is visited by thousands of schoolchildren and local residents each year, he said, so administrators had to take into account the values of a community larger than just BYU students. By excluding the statues from the exhibit, BYU is not saying art students cannot study Rodin in their classes, Bateman said. Viewing photographs of the Rodin pieces and others in class is OK as long as faculty members provide context for the study, he said. (Carter, Edward L. 1997. Bateman responds on Rodin. Deseret News, November 14, Metro edition, sec. B.)

There was quite a bit of speculation about why the university pulled those four pieces from the exhibit, just as President Bateman said. Some people questioned the removal of those specific pieces of art, saying it was because they primarily featured men (not women, as you heard); as the first article noted, three were nude men and one was of a man and woman embracing.

In my class we had a discussion of cultural attitudes toward nudity of men vs. nudity of women, with some claiming that seeing a man nude was more "shocking" in our culture and that was why these sculptures were removed. However, I think that was speculation without basis. The first and last articles do a good job of explaining the university's decision.

I also think they did an admirable job of explaining the balance between artistic freedom and a consideration for one's audience. Please note that nude art is not, in and of itself, against BYU's standards. Ask anyone who has taken an art class at BYU. I think my art history teacher's definition is a good one: there is a difference between nude art and erotic art. The difference lies in the way the artist portrays his subject, and if his intent is to arouse. And even if a work of art is appropriate for a college student to study in a classroom setting, it may be inappropriate for a public exhibit with a mixed audience and no chance to provide context.

—Laser Jock

*See these two stories for more info on the protest:

Deseret News. 1997. Y. students plan protest over banning of 4 statues. October 30, Metro edition, sec. B.

Carter, Edward L. 1997. Students' protest at BYU is about more than Rodin. Deseret News, October 31, Metro edition, sec. B.

Back