Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007

Nude photos approved, then pulled from gallery

You walk into an art gallery or a museum. A painting, photograph, sculpture or other work might captivate you with vivid detail that reveals the subject's soul or inner conflict and the artist's talent.

Maybe it does nothing for you at all, and you move on to the next piece. Or maybe you flat out hate it.

We all have our preferences. I'll take a Charles M. Russell depiction of the Old West over a Monet water lilies painting pretty much seven days a week.

Other folks might like a Peter Max psychedelic over the "Mona Lisa" or a Betty Saletta bronze statue over Rodin's "The Thinker."

Consequently, artists in all disciplines understand their works won't appeal to everyone and sometimes might not appeal to anyone. It's always a matter of personal likes and tastes.

Sometimes, it's simply a question of whether a work is in good or bad taste. The management of downtown Modesto's Mistlin Gallery determined some photos by two local artists crossed that line and removed them last week from an ongoing show titled Figuratively Speaking.

The show focuses on art involving the human body. Many of the works involve nudity in mediums including oil, watercolor, photography, sculpture and other art forms.

The naked eye can have quite an imagination, particularly when it comes to a photo of a naked body.

Some will see it as art. Others will deem it offensive.

The artists, photographers David Schroeder and Lee Bailey, are upset -- not because someone didn't like their photos, but because they were approved for the show by a three-person "jury" and then removed by management after drawing complaints.

"When you put things up, you understand some people will like it and some don't," Schroeder said. "It was handled in a way that made me feel bad. I was insulted, embarrassed and, later, angry."

Photos attract attention

The photos were up for just more than a day, gallery director Gaye Wolf said.

A couple of visitors voiced objections to gallery staff members. Conversely, Wolf said, the photos also drew about a dozen teenage boys and a few transient-type men who hung around the gallery and in some cases, returned for a second gawk. (An optimist could argue the nude photography succeeded in introducing more people to the arts.)

Wolf admits the issue was handled poorly. But, she said, she and the gallery board made the decision because they felt the photos were inappropriate for children, since the gallery frequently offers art classes for them.

The Mistlin Gallery doesn't have a large advertising budget to promote its shows. Many visitors walk in off the street completely unaware of what's on display.

The Central California Art Association leases the gallery from Civic Partners, which leases the space from the city of Modesto and Stanislaus County. There is no written agreement restricting works that can be displayed, said Brad Hawn, who not only is the CCAA board president but also is an accomplished painter and a Modesto city councilman. He was in Europe when the issue surfaced, but said he backs Wolf's decision to pull the photos.

"There is an inherent responsibility that goes with (being in a publicly owned building)," Hawn said. "It does look like a city (event). The only thing I'm sorry about is that we should have caught it at the jury level."

To his recollection, art featuring nudity wasn't allowed when the association maintained its gallery in the basement of the McHenry Museum prior to the Mistlin Gallery's opening in 2003.

Wolf said she was out on bereavement leave when the photos were selected, and said the gallery didn't provide the jurors with enough guidance as to what should or should not be displayed.