No nudes in BYU art exhibit

[helemon]

Posted by Hellen on RfM

No nudes for BYU art exhibit
Burton Silverman exhibit, minus nudes, set for BYU|
The Associated Press

Minus the nudes, an exhibition of works by illustrator Burton Silverman will open later this month at the Brigham Young University Museum of Art.

Silverman, who chuckled about the church-owned university eliminating his nudes from the show, said he began doing nudes by visiting burlesque houses.

"Nudity in public life is relevant," he told the Deseret Morning News.

BYU officials said nude illustrations are irrelevant to the exhibition that will open July 29.

"The purpose of the show was not to show a retrospective of all of his work," museum spokesman Christopher Wilson said.

Rather, the exhibition is to show how Silverman, whose works have appeared on covers of Time and Newsweek, captures the human face and the essence of humanity.

"We picked works that reflect what we wanted to show about Burt's work," Wilson said. BYU officials told Silverman which pieces they plan to exhibit.

Nudes don't fit the theme of the exhibition titled "The Intimate Eye: Drawings by Burton Silverman," he said.


LINK to entire article:
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_4061857

:duh Yep, nudity and intimacy have nothing incommon.

[dogzilla]

What a moron. Doesn't he know that Mormons are never nekkid? There is no nudity in mormonism, just as there's no crying in baseball.

Now, put some garments on those nudes, and he'd be all set.

:D

[Born Free]

Somewhere, I think on the old Post-Mo site, I stumbled several years ago across a superb paper by Bill Gardiner - Big Eddy's brother - also a psychologist. (Jeff, I recommend that paper be one of the basics on Post-Mo.)

Anyone who has read that, would not know whether to laugh or cry reading this pap on intimacy.

Here are some of the relevant extracts from that paper:

"I believe the capacity to be intimate with another begins or is conditional upon the individual's capacity to be intimate with self.[12] Self-intimacy means an individual can be close to themselves in both a physical and emotional sense. Physical self-intimacy is conceptualized by the individual's ability to experience themselves physically in a pleasing or acceptable way. Discomfort with one's body, the way one looks, or any inhibition to experience self in a physical way ultimately limits an individual's intimacy capacity with another. Emotional self-intimacy is defined by the individual's capacity to be close to themselves on an affective level. Self- awareness and acceptance is foundational to such capacity. This means an individual has learned to be aware of what they are thinking and feeling. Further, the individual has progressed sufficiently in their own evolution to feel a sense of their own uniqueness and individual worth. Self-alienation and insecurity (shame) is the antithesis of this state. Limitations in one's self- emotional intimacy capability likewise seriously limits the capacity for intimacy with another. "

"Shame is an affective state characterized by a deep feeling of inadequacy. A shame-bound individual will always experience intimacy dysfunction due to their fear of being fully known. The shamed individual purposely keeps themselves unknown at some level fearing another will discover their perceived state of inferiority. Interestingly, a shamed individual even keeps the self unknown to themselves due to the fear of facing their own inadequacy. In other words, there is diminished self-intimacy. The shamed individual presents images or personas to mask this core feeling of inadequacy. The images or personas preclude intimacy. The irony is that the shamed individual fears the very thing that will allow the shame to be released--that is being image-free or genuine. Only through the risk of being genuine can the individual begin to experience intimacy. Then, because the intimate is fully known, the opportunity to have all shame expunged presents itself through having others accept the person based on a genuine presentation of the self. "

"Mormonism can significantly contribute to intimacy incapacity between primary spouses in a way quite exclusive from any other religions. While many conservative religions potentially socialize their membership with a residue of shame surrounding sexual intimacy as Mormonism can,[20] the Mormon Church is unique in requiring its membership to wear a proscribed underwear. Faithful members of the Mormon Church are required to wear the special underwear or "garments" both day and night. Faithful adherents are taught concerning the sacredness of the underwear and in yearly interviews with authorities of the church they must declare if they are wearing the garments both day and night!
The special garments have a potentially powerful inhibiting factor in the capacity of sexual thought and consequently sexual intimacy. Although the underwear has changed over the years, becoming less obtrusive, still the officially worn undergarments cover the body like an undershirt and semi-long underwear. Because members are taught that the garments have a protective quality to them, one might ask what the members are protecting themselves from in the requirement to wear them at night? How much sexual thought can one produce or allow when wearing the holy underwear? A shame of the body, through the need to cover it at all times, even when sleeping with your spouse is a potential. The constant reminder that lustfulness, or allowing a state of general nakedness with one's partner is wrong, assuredly inhibits the overall quality of physical or sexual responsiveness between many couples. This is of course a condition that can inhibit, in a significant way, through the mechanism of God-infused shame, the physical or sexual component of intimacy between spouses."

I am in hearty agreement with all the above. The claim that public portrayal of nudity has nothing to do with intimacy is so hilarious it is tragic, and more the fool anyone who swallows its shallow logic. On the contrary it is the absolute opposite. Comfort with our bodies and sexuality lies at or very close to the very centre of our capacity for and comfort with, intimacy.

Even Hitler could handle art (albeit it largely tasteless) that included nudity, so where does that place Mormonism?

Daryl

[runfromsafety]

Somewhere, I think on the old Post-Mo site, I stumbled several years ago across a superb paper by Bill Gardiner - Big Eddy's brother - also a psychologist. (Jeff, I recommend that paper be one of the basics on Post-Mo.)

You'll find it here....

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/archives

[Born Free]

You'll find it here....

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/archives
Thanks Colin,

I found it in the archives after posting. Did anyone else find that a powerful document, as I did?

I have encouraged Jeff to post it with Eds paper on the first page, that is, promote it from the archives.

Daryl