What Is Art?

Not too long ago, a story ran in the local paper about a boy who was suspended for drawing a figure of a girl out of a manga magazine. The story is quite short, and it's as follows:
Hatcher was proud of a drawing he made, and brought it to school to show a friend, who in turn, showed it to another girl at school. The girl was offended, ripped up the drawing, and told her mother. The mother told the principle, and the boy was suspended without question. The excuse was that he had brought pornography to school.


Now I know this boy. He's a good kid, and has now decided that he never wants to draw again because of this incident. So it brings the question, what is acceptable as art? Do there have to be "regulations"? When has the idea of art crossed some sort of morale and ethical line?

News Story

I would say it depends on the age of the child and what year of school they are in. If the kid was in middle school then he should leave any and all drawings that show 'private' parts of the anatomy male or female at home. Nudity is not acceptable in art for children (imo) until they are older. (high school +) it also depends on the pose of the girl in the picture he drew etc. A lot could have gone into this. And since the drawing was ripped up before the principal could see it that may also have played into it.

What is acceptable is really determined by age. Just like how movies are rated. You wouldn't want your 13 year old to see people have sex. They are too young and impressionable to understand what is going on and would assume that it is ok behavior between any two people. Not just people that are in love etc. as you get older you can view the body as more then just a sexual object and that is when it becomes art.

>.> I hope this makes sense. XD

The drawing was ripped up, but recovered.
Wouldn't there be something to be said about the girl's attitude through her destroying of someone else's art?




No intricate genitalia, no sexual poses, just a girl sitting on a chair.
I understand where you're coming from, and I could agree with what you've said.

I still think different: the older one becomes, it seems the more often the body is viewed as a sexual object. It's why the ratings are there; anything above a pg-13 these days has some sort of sexual activity. It has suddenly become taboo in our society to allow a naked body to be seen, and that was one of the points that were made in the article. The boy didn't understand why his drawing was such a problem when there were art books in the library at the school of nude paintings.
And when the principle heard this, he actually removed them from the shelves. That doesn't scream out an immaturity and uncomfortable view of nude art at all.

I'm not saying that young children should be forced into viewing nude bodies and art; not even I would want that. I do believe that this society should stop being so "offended" by it and just accept that it exists. If anything, teach younger children that it is art, not pornography.

I think considering what you showed, it shouldn't have been done.

Maybe the boy said something wrong along with it, inappropriate that instigated this girls feelings, but it could have also very well not been a complete drawing. He could have had every intention of drawing on clothes later.

I for one always draw the body, then draw on the rest of the clothes afterwards, to make sure they're the right shape and the body as the correct anatomy. I think to kick him out because of this is stupid, while there should be action taken for far worse things that happen in school.

Schools need to get their priorities straight. >.>

I say what I did because I can view a nude body at the age of 21 and not be turned on by it or see it as porn, but as a figure. But I'm also married and don't care for the bodies of other men or women. so perhaps it is just me? But it's always seemed to me that when you are little nudity is taboo and something to be giggled at like OMg! I saw him but LOLOLOL. When you get older you can view Michelangelo's David and see it as the masterpiece that it is and not a sexual or laughable object so to speak. That's more of what I was trying to get at.

Seeing the art, I think she is wearing clothes. >.> above the leg looks like there is a swimsuit line. But I am going to agree with rando and say that perhaps the boy that showed it to the girl said something derogatory to her. But removing books with nude art is a bit extreme. Children should be allowed to appreciate art. . . but at the same time some text books that I have checked out at schools show that not all kids are mature enough to see nudity and not have dirty thoughts or vandalize textbooks. -_-

Oh, no, no. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point perfectly; I just didn't agree wholeheartedly with it.

I believe, for the most part, that it's how we're raised. There are some children who live with parents who shelter them from everything, so when they come across art, or anything that's remotely unfamiliar, they don't know how to act, and typically take on the behavior of those around them; namely being the immaturity of the age when they're young. And you're right, it's quite possible that Hatcher's friend did say something dirty.
And it's quite possible that the girl was just raised conservatively and thought she was being cute by throwing a fit.

It's hard to define art because not everyone views it the same. Take, for instance because we're mentioning it, the human body. Some view it in a pornographic sense, some as art, and others couldn't care less. Andy Warhol was subjected to the ideals of art of the time, and today we wouldn't think twice about calling his pieces art. There was a gallery exhibit that was taking place in a school, where artists would sculpt something and have it displayed for a few days. One woman decided she would sculpt a 7' tall penis, which was covered up during school hours. Now, I wouldn't call that art, I'd call it an attempt to get a rise out of someone. But others disagree, they'd say it was art.

It's just that the line is so blurry, you don't know whether it's morals or art.

Here are two pieces of art by famous artist that were in the center of controversy:

1. Michelangelo's nude marble statue of David - the public response to his nudity caused them to cover his manliness with a fig leave - which is not at all how Michelangelo intended his statue to be displayed.

2. Pablo Picasso's painting Les Demoiselles D'avignon - this painting was our introduction to Cubism which people just didn't understand.

Exactly, art in in the eye. Some people do not understand art or artist for that matter and how they see the world.

No matter how his art made the girl feel she should not have torn it up. Personally I think she should have been disciplined for that. From what you have said and by looking at his picture I do not think the picture was inappropriate. But you have to remember that we still live in a day and age of book burnings - we are full of censorship - soon there will be ratings on books like there is on music and video games.

It is a shame this happened to him and now he no longer wants to draw.

Really? A fig leaf?
But there were so many nude statues and paintings that had been done before. Perhaps though, it was only for portraits.

And it's true; you're right on that note with censorship.

Whether she was nude or not... The human body is a beautiful thing and is acceptable art if done in a non sexual manner. We drew nudes in class in high school because it is good practice for seeing and learning proportions of the human body. Anyone who was offended by it was welcome to pick up a censored version.

However, the image that the boy drew was not sexual in any manner and she was not nude either. It was unjust.

Art doesn't have restrictions, but schools do. It's not up to Hatcher or his friend to decide who should get to see a nude form. The school has to do what's in the best interest of the whole. Maybe there was nothing wrong with Hatcher's picture but if they allowed it, what's to stop the next kid from bringing Playboy to school and claiming it's artistic as well. Many people feel Playboy IS artistic. You can't make that distinction when you're in a position like a principal.

You have to remember that for every thing that someone finds wrong, someone thinks it's fine and should be allowed in our world. If you allow all things you have a completely permissive society. If you have a completely permissive society it will crumble. Has anyone noticed that Rome isn't a super power anymore? There is a reason for that.

But there was nothing obscene about it. It was just a picture of a girl sitting on a chair. The face was drawn in, and it still had the lines of the body shapes (cylinders and ball-joints for the arms, cube for the chest, etc.), which is bewildering as to how it was viewed as dirty and grounds for a suspension.

I understand that the principle was attempting to do what's best for the school (although she enjoys disclosing legally private information about students to the public).

About the playboy bit; you would hope that we could all be mature about it. That seems to be the problem with this generation of society in the U.S. at least. We're so taboo about things like this, that even a drawing that remotely resembles a woman, or any other anatomy of a human, is obscene. One could argue that Playboy is art, and another could say that it's pornographically charged. I'm not saying it's right for someone to bring in a Playboy to an elementary or middle school, but I also don't think it's right that art has age-groups either.

Originally Posted by Blondheart

Maybe there was nothing wrong with Hatcher's picture but if they allowed it, what's to stop the next kid from bringing Playboy to school and claiming it's artistic as well.

Isn't that a bit too extreme of a slippery slope?

Anyways if you are drawing correctly, for the most part we ALL draw nudes and then clothe them properly. I never once had a teacher approach me and tell me my drawing is inappropriate. It was an innocent study of the human figure, non sexual, had no genitalia and could have been just a sketch figure for him to add the clothing to latter. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it and a total overreaction.

The girl shouldn't have torn the drawing. From what I see from it, it shows a woman sitting in a chair with some kind of bathing suit on.

I've had to deal with my fair share of people like that. I started taking art seriously when I was in 6th grade, so I drew the general figure of a person before I put the clothes on. You can see where this is going, right? I never got reported, thankfully.

I don't think that a nude drawing is the smartest place to bring to school unless you are in an art class or go to an art school. The person to whom the drawing belongs to may be mature enough to handle it, but a classmate or friend might not be mature enough.

It's a pity that your friend doesn't want to draw anymore over this.

Schools are just ridiculous. Ugg.
Attempting to teach a child about the outside world, and protect them from it at the same time.

School very much decides the future of the child. Teaching the child that this is wrong and pornography means it will keep that position when viewing it in the future, unless otherwise taught so.

This is no where near porn I feel. It's more like a pin-up girl. Which no one longer views as pornographic, and many view it as art.

From what you showed in the images, I can definitely see that the student was unjustly suspended. Of course, the figure isn't fully clothed, but the essential parts are covered, and the pose is sexy, sure, but it's not ..how do I word this... sexually explicit? I mean.... her legs are crossed. And I'm pretty sure I saw worse things in class, even in middle school. Parts of educational videos that no one bothered to point out, even though genitalia was totally visible. Now, I'm not saying it's right to go around and show these kinds of things to little kids and middle schoolers, but this drawing doesn't seem to be breaking any sort of rule.

Instead of unjustly suspending students without even giving them a chance, I think schools should educate the ir students on what is acceptable and what is not, at least in that particular school. I've read around and found out that obscenity is defined by the community and environment, so defining what's appropriate and what isn't really depends on circumstance. It also has to do with taste. I enjoy looking at drawings of a naked figure but I don't really like looking at a penis. That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with looking at it, I just don't like to ^^;; And the body is like.. the most natural thing to be aware of... I mean.. it's not like we were born with fur to cover ourselves with (I mean after we evolved o.e; ). We were born NAKED. The only reason people used to cover themselves was to protect themselves against the cold. Not to cover up some "dirty parts". Aren't there parts in Africa where exposing the breasts (for women) is completely normal?

Sorry my thoughts are all jumbled up. I have a headache.

-cough-

In cases like this, I find it amazing that my parents worried about sheltering me. Though, being the people they are they eventually ended up traumatizing me with exposure to too many things xD A six year old does not need to know several ways she could die on a rollercoaster before she gets on it and a middle schooler does not need her mother asking her adult to adult if she should divorce her father or not. Heh. You have to grow up a lot faster in a family that doesn't tolerate naitivity (sp?)

So, I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't come from the kind of backgorund that allows me to relate to or understand her actions.

It just makes me furious. I would never have responded in any way similar at any age. Maybe it was the book he was drawing from that upset her?

I just don't know, but the school is ridiculous to handle it in such a manner.

I found all art acceptable, but when there is nudity, you tell the person first before showing it. >.>

I think this whole situation could have been avoided if he just drew in some extra lines to make a bikini. Some people are just prude beyond words.

That girl's reaction was WAY over the top, though. Reminds me of when I doodled a winged figure with chains on her arms but hadn't drawn in any clothes yet, and a girl came up behind me and yelled "ARE YOU DRAWING BDSM?!!". And the principle's reaction was not necessary either, he could just have called the boy to his office and asked him what the drawing was about. Then he could've said he copied it out of a how-to-draw book. No sane person thinks of drawing tutorials as porn.

Originally Posted by CirceNix

Here are two pieces of art by famous artist that were in the center of controversy:

1. Michelangelo's nude marble statue of David - the public response to his nudity caused them to cover his manliness with a fig leave - which is not at all how Michelangelo intended his statue to be displayed.

2. Pablo Picasso's painting Les Demoiselles D'avignon - this painting was our introduction to Cubism which people just didn't understand.

Exactly, art in in the eye. Some people do not understand art or artist for that matter and how they see the world.

No matter how his art made the girl feel she should not have torn it up. Personally I think she should have been disciplined for that. From what you have said and by looking at his picture I do not think the picture was inappropriate. But you have to remember that we still live in a day and age of book burnings - we are full of censorship - soon there will be ratings on books like there is on music and video games.

It is a shame this happened to him and now he no longer wants to draw.

Thats quite funny that you brought that up. Did you know that The Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo was also origanally nude? This caused a huge controversy and they ended up having another artist come in and put draperies on all of the naked figures privates?

Nude art has been an art form since the days of Rome. And this was a simple drawing excersize, what caused the girls reaction could have been what the boy said, or just plain shock at the drawing. People are very rash these days and I do know people who would have done the same thing from just seeing the drawing.

People are plain stupid. XD

That's in no way porn, there's not graphic display of privates, it's about as close to porn as the sex ed handbooks the school passes out. I mean, come on, if a kid wanted porn he just has to type 'porn' on google, there's no need to draw it anyway.

As the artist, I would have thrown a fist or two if someone shredded my art.

Artistic liberty.

People have reproductive parts. The human form is beautiful and a wonderful subject for art. Get over it.

Eek, reminds me of the few times I had people hover over me when I draw and I don't auto cloth my people, I just get enough of the body structure to do pose, then I do most of the head before dealing with the clothes and I have people assume I am drawing a nude person, NO, I can't even DRAW nudity with my drawing style, or at least enough to do more than one of it, ick. My style is not one to do nudes with. From what I read of this thread it does sound like over reacting on the both the girl and those around her, I feel bad for the kid of how it ended up. I would likely do what he did in the end too if I was his age cause of how I am.

I personally think that the girl got her parents involved and they sort of pressured the principle into suspending the boy by making ridiculous claims about his drawing. They could have said that "Is this what you teach in school?, How to draw sexual things?"

So I think it depends on the argument the parents made and since the picture was ripped up she could have said things about the picture that were not true. In a sense you can't blame the school because when faced with an outraged parent and a lying kid, the situation can get very bad. I think that the school did what it was suppose to do and not let the situation escalate about a picture that didn't exist anymore.

It's not fair but that's life as unfair as it is. The boy shouldn't stop drawing thought, he should just stop showing other people till he hits high school and even then nude pictures might be bad.

The drawing was recovered. It looks like a jointed-doll because he was practicing anatomy.
Not trying to get a cheap thrill.

The school system is not meant to be able to handle artistic students, unless the school itself is artistic in nature. As well, the school has to deal with parent complaints...with the sue happy society we are in now, it is needless to say quite hard. Why deal with a law suite when you could just suspend a student or fire a teacher (They fired my art teacher for being "racist" telling a kid to get to work).
I feel that nudity is alright if it is tastefully done, but if it is done in such a way as to be crude then it should no longer be considered art. These sheltered brats children don't know the difference and so assume that any human body not clad to their upbringings specifications is porn/indecent.
Lower level schools should not have nudity, but in the higher grades it should be ok...since it is assumed that we are mature enough to be able to tell the difference between porn and art. Those whom are artistically inclined are so...yet those outside of the "artistic sphere" are not so inclined.
Example : Every year there is a district (not exactly district...larger, but I'm not sure what to call that) wide showing of art. We all try our hardest in hope of going to the state wide competition. So this girl I know starts on a painting months before the day of the district competition. A few days before the actual competition our principal tells her that her art is unacceptable and that she can not enter it into the competition. So she has to start from scratch to slap together a piece to replace her "unacceptable" painting. The painting itself was of mother earth nude......unacceptable indeed:sarcasm: