... If my principle told my that I'd draw a giant erect penis and find some way to slip it into the compeition. And tape a copy to his office door. >o

XD 'slip it in'... total coincidence.

Judging from the evidence given the actions taken were not justified. If anything, the girl should have been suspended for destroying another students property.
But I do not know there persons involved or the situation firsthand so...

But I have had similar experiences, if not as quite blown out of proportion. Because most artists strive to be able to draw the human figure correctly, I practiced drawing nudes. A lot. In school. Highschool mind you. But still school.
Often I would recieve a variation of, "IS THAT GIRL NEKKID?!!! WHY IS THAT GIRL NEKKID??!! YOU'RE DRAWING PORN!!!" loudly from other students.
To which I would reply, "They're boobs. Get over yourself."
Then I would have to explain artistic nudity to whatever teacher who's class I was in.
Accept the art classes.
I drew naked guys in those classes. XD

I hope the kid wasn't scared away from art forever.
If you do know him, keep encouraging him.

I say its a 12 year old thing. =) i support him all the way~ 12 year old and he's already started ^O^ gogogo!!

come to think of it ..i drew nekkid girls aloooot when i was in school. Yet the only thing my teacher commented was " are you a les? " XD;

My best friend is the manager of the day care center that is run by the local school district, and though those kids are age 12 oldest, the teachers are still supposed to turn in drawings that they find that are questionable. She claims it's due to school shootings, and such.

I remember she showed me one of the drawings, it was of some sort of vampire. She asked me if this was normal or something to get worried about. I asked the age of the child. She said 12 and I said, normal. But she didn't like my answer. :lol:

But there is a big tier system of offenses that children can make. Sexual ones are pretty high on the list.

Yeah, it's like we live in a weird police state. So yeah, homeschooling seems the way to go. In other words, the moral of this story is IMPORTANT for all artists, even adults.

Know your audience. :cool:

It is really apparent she is wearing clothes, so that girl must have been a total prude, or she didn't actually see the swimsuit line. That picture isn't even as sexual as the one in the book. I'm very sorry for him.

I don't see any reason that justifies the anger of either the girl or the principle, unless something was said in relation to the drawing that made it inappropriate. From what I can make out, the girl is clothed and she is sitting in a way that isn't sexual at all. And even if she wasn't clothed, a lot of artists I know start off with a naked body in order to get the proportions right so they don't get confused, especially while drawing baggy clothing or flowing dresses or such. That boy was wrongly suspended. =/

Every type of art is acceptable. Art is expressing yourself. It's stupid for people to get into trouble for drawings, writings, songs and such. Freedom of speech. That's what art is to me.

I would say it depends on the artwork. Artwork can express a wide range of issues and themes. Many of these issues or themes could be offensive. I would say judge it on a case by case basis and common sense.

Tasteful/ neutral nudity on the other hand is not even close to being offensive. Porn maybe, drawing the nude figure doing something like laying with their genitalia spread out, maybe.
Looking at the "offending" drawing this drawing does fall under this at all. As others have pointed out, it's a person sitting on a chair who seems to be dressed in a swim suit.

And even if she were nude, it falls under tasteful nudity. She's not doing anything risque.
I would define porn as a picture of a character doing something suggestive of sexuality or sexual activity. A female character with her legs spread apart with the picture looking up into her spread out genitals would fall under porn or a male character holding his genitals.

Had the drawing been of an anatomically correct nude person sitting on a chair, yes it might be best to ask ahead of time just in case instead of passing the picture around. Saying it's a nude would been sufficient and whoever didn't want to see a nude would have been warned.

What this other person did who tore up the drawing was wrong. This person could have reported what she felt was offensive without tearing up the drawing. I'm sure the budding artist felt good about their accomplishment and to have it simply ripped up by a classmate is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by Bii

Every type of art is acceptable. Art is expressing yourself. It's stupid for people to get into trouble for drawings, writings, songs and such. Freedom of speech. That's what art is to me.

You sure about this?. What if someone drew a huge nazi symbol with a pile of dead people under-neth?. What if someone wrote a song about how they are going to brutally murder someone who rejected their relationship?.
What about the "art" displays involving watching a dog starve to death or putting goldfish in blenders for people to turn on?.
I can see where you are coming from for wanting to support free speech and I do feel strongly about free speech as well. I suppose it depends on if the artwork is going to be publically displayed or in someone' private home.

Originally Posted by Claudia

You sure about this?. What if someone drew a huge nazi symbol with a pile of dead people under-neth?. What if someone wrote a song about how they are going to brutally murder someone who rejected their relationship?.

Maybe neither one might be pieces of art that you or me would enjoy, but I'ld still say it's art nonetheless. Depending on the intention (social criticism, accounting for the past) and the way it is done, they could even be really valuable.

Originally Posted by Claudia

What about the "art" displays involving watching a dog starve to death or putting goldfish in blenders for people to turn on?.

That's where I would definitely draw the line. "Enjoying" yourself by hurting other creatures is a terrible thing to me, and no perspective on the word "art" should ever justify cruelty like that. If you have to express yourself by showing other people something terrible as a dying creature, use your imagination and DRAW it instead...

On the topic itself: I'm from a country where nudity is taken pretty lightly (and personally I think that's a good thing) - there's no problem with showing naked bodies in public, because the human body simply IS something really beautiful. For example, I will never understand how anybody could be offended by a breast feeding mother. The sight gives me a warm feeling that has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. It's about the beauty of nurturing a new life, about the strong bond between a mother and her child.

While I think that even explicite scenes can be really artful and displays of beauty (sex and erotic are about love and sometimes also about creating a new life), I also understand why there are age categories. A child just simply doesn't know what to think about it (though that's society's fault, too), so it would probably just laugh or even be mildly disturbed.

But a picture like the boy drew - how the heck could anyone be offended by that? It's a shame that even INDICATIONS of human bodies are "to be ashamed of". You said you know the boy? Please tell him not to let people like that disencourage him!

Yes I agree with that concerning erotic art. I've seen some interesting historical erotic art.
I'm neutral on this issue and following society's "child safety" norms.
Once when I was younger, someone my age sneaked pornography material and showed it to me. Of course I looked at it JUST because it was forbidden. So I was curious. It really didn't hold my interest much longer then it's forbidden so I'm going to look.

I don't understand getting offended about a mother breast feeding a baby. And I've seen it done discreetly as well. To me I don't get the whole issue of females going topless.
I've seen some bulging "man boobs" before. This is still a sexism issue which I hope is worked on.

Well that seem smuch too harsh a punishment; in fact, I see no reason for a punishment in any case! (To be honest, even if it were nude, I wouldn't really see anything wrong with it.)
It reminds me of one time when I brought Azumanga Daioh into school; there was one page with one of the characters in a swimsuit (not a bikini or anything, either), and while I was reading it the person sat next to me just randomly looks over my shoulder and say 'Urrrh! That's minging!'.
This kind of thing really just comes down to maturity. :(

for some schools, they aren't very lenient about art. i really don't think it should have been shown to that girl though, and why the mother had audacity to phone the school of it for suspension is beyond me. i think he should still draw, just not share the work so much at school. also, that girl had no right to rip up someone's hard work. some schools have appreciation for that kind of art (i really have no idea if it was really porn or not), but beside the point, those are some pathetic standards. for me though, there is a blurred line between erotic, homo-erotic, artistic nudity, and porn. for me, it's all about poses and intentions. a girl at my school painted a nude wealthy asian woman, and it was fine. i doubt anyone was offended considering it was allowed on the wall. she has talent, and plenty of people enjoy those kinds of work, because they are attractive too. school wise, the line should be drawn between artistic nudity and erotic art though. now outside of school, it should be fine. it's a shame he feels that he never wants to draw again.

I think it's sad how overreactive some people are about nudity. The boy was only in 5th grade though. I'm not saying it was right to suspend him, but a talking to about not drawing nudes at school would have been sufficient. This reminds me of when they banned live nudes at a community college here because someone in the class didn't like the fact that the model was male and nude. It was the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Reading through some of your comments, I am... just so very, very glad the schools I attended in my junior years were an understanding sort.
Good lord, I mean-- I've been drawing since I was a very young lad, and my father taught me how to go about it the right way. Draw the figure first, then clothe it. Heck, half my stuff doesn't make it to the clothed stage.

When I was that age... I recall my family was quite proud of my art, exposed genitalia or not. There is a difference between nudity and pornography, and my teachers showed me where that line was drawn in the sand, and set me to work. Sure, they didn't hang my stuff in the hallway-- but one or two of my sketches were pinned up in the staff lounge, and the rest was stuck to the fridge at home, with magnets. I was proud of that.
I'm a better artist for my shamelessness, today.

We shouldn't be teaching our children to be afraid of their bodies. We should be teaching them to be respectful of the way they work.
The statue of David has exposed junk-- heck, the stone cherub on my grandmother's lawn is proudly swingin' in the breeze-- would I hide famous art and furniture alike, to spare my (unborn!) children a loss of innocence?
Noooo. Heavens, no. That's not healthy. Because god forbid I ever have children, but if I do-- when little Timmy stumbles across something truly foul, I want him to trust me enough to talk about it.

i Also have a friend her name was anna she drew a gerat figure drawign and was not aloud to put it in the artsho stating it was porngraphy but the only area that could be stated as such weas almost completely covered up. not only that but in out history boods and in amy art history class you will see may naked peices of art work so why is it that people are being suspended for soemthing they created and worked hard on?

i dont understand it. i feel that if you made it with out a sexual feel to it then there shouldnt be a problem i mean others in class make girls in there bras and panties in sexual poses but a man sitting naked on a rock iwth his parts being hidden by his leg so you cant see it at all and it was never even drawn there in the first place is clearly a problem

Yes, If you draw something like that you shouldn't be suspended but hyst get told to never do it again. If you still draw that kidnof stuff than detento=ion for two weeks. But if you draw it at home than it shouldn't really matter because it wasn't like it was drawn at school and second if it was an anime character it should be fine as long as it wasn't a real human girl that he drew.

I don't understand at all whats wrong with the image. Pornography is supposed to include private parts or sexual poses/acts. That...that is just a girl sitting on a chair O.o; Plus it looks like she has a swimsuit...
I been drawing body first then clothes all the time since I was little and my teachers saw and was encouraging me, so I don't understand why such extreme measures could be taken based on the drawing. Possibly it was something the boy said or the girl over exaggerated because of some experience she had in her childhood or something.
I'm 19 and attending art school and Nudity is more than acceptable in my school. I take classes with nude models every week and I don't feel anything about it, nor does anyone else.
I don't understand why teachers raise their kids to believe that nude is always pornography. I believe in all that is art and I appreciate them in every form. It should be ok for someone to draw, its not like the kid was drawing some sick fantasy or anything.

Trying to reason that a SCHOOL's rules define art is just pointless. Schools have rules, a lot of which don't make sense to the students attending. Whether or not the girl should or shouldn't have been offended is just an argument of how much she has been sheltered, blah blah blah.

Schools have strict rules about nearly everything, not that it makes it right, but I'm surprised anyone is surprised.. o.O

okay that little boy should never have gotten suspened for that. the girl in the picture wasnt naked one bit. thats like going to the pool and saying everyone is naked. the lady was basically wearing a swimsuit so that ridiculous. the principal and mum didnt even see it. if they did i dont think this wouldve happened. this little boy got ripped off so badly. the mum if she saw it wouldve been okay with it probably. which wouldnt havin gotten to the principal and never got the little boy suspended. i type quite a bit and hope that makes sense. haha.

No one should EVER destroy a good (or just any) drawing! The girl should be the one who was suspended for doing so. And if they say THAT'S pornography, I should have been suspended at least twice!
If you see him, then tell him that he shouldn't let those bastards steal his will to draw, cause they're not that worth at all.

Anything is acceptable as art to me, I really don't think the school was in the right. I mean, just tell tell the kid not to bring something like that, even though it's not really showing anything specific, to school.

One reason why I love the art program at our school is that our teacher kicks ass. There's this one amazing painter at our school (graduated, now), and he specialized in women. Well, someone got ahold of his sketchbook, and showed it to the principal, and got it taken away, because there was nudity. Not pornographic nudity, but the kind you'd see in an art gallery.

Long story short, our art teacher kicked ass and took names, and got a little more respect for artistic nudity. It was awesome. XD

It looks like she's wereing a bathing suit. You go to the beach and see worst than that. And taking all the books out is rediculous. But i don't think you should ever let anyone get ahold of your art if it's something others might deem inapropriot. Our school puts up with much more than that, even with the younger kids. And it's not like he drew gargantuous boobs on her or anything. It was drawn inncocently, and the girl shouldn't have gone home and tatled on him to her mommy like that. All you can see (even if she was naked) is her chest. No other private parts, and just looking at a commercial on tv you see more than the chest usually. There was no reason to suspend him, call it pornagraphic, rip it up, or put it in the newspaper. Who cares!? She shouldn't have riped it up either. That was wrong. I acctually got a book the other day that you couldn't look at the inside, but i bought it, and it has images way worst than that in it! But it does have good tips for drawing the body. He was not to blame.

Originally Posted by the_paper_crane

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.

Wow. Lolz.

How the hell can anyone be offended by that?

*rolls eyes*

The girl was a bitch and probably jealous.
If anyone ever tore up my art, I'd pop them in the face.

There is absolutely no reason why he should have been suspended.
That is not pornography or anything close.
It's disgusting how ignorant people can be when it comes to art.

Now, what in art is acceptable can't really be answered.
There are different opinions with everyone.

Some people think drawing anthro is fine, others hate it.

Some are offended with shota and loli.
Some like it.

Basically, art its self is confrontational.
You just have to be careful who you show your art to.
Cause of ignorant people in the world who will flip out over nothing.