The Whitehouse Spirit Lives On

[Canary42]

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/in-your-face-nude-paintings-removed-from-portsmouth-cathedral-art-exhibition-after-they-distressed-parishioners-1-8589089

[Buenchico]

BTW: I have to admit to reading the title of this post as 'The White House spirit lives on'.

I was left wondering if Presidential approval was needed for everything these days . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y8xngp8r

;-)

[anneasquith]

Win win for the artist though, free publicity .

[jno]

free publicity but nobody gets to see the paintings; more like a score draw.

[pastafreak]

Hmmmm...as they say..." Any publicity is good publicity ". Now that people know about his work, the withdrawal of it from the cathedral exhibition won't be a loss.

[vetuste_ennemi]

If the "in your face", but "rather good" paintings were redesignated as "body-shaming", then I assume nobody would object to their being banned.

Would they?

[Jackdaw33]

As has been said, the removal of the works to another venue will do no harm to the artist. People will flock to see what the fuss is about, thus increasing his coffers. It is simply a matter of discernment; what is appropriate and where.

[Canary42]

/// If the ... paintings were redesignated as "body-shaming", then I assume nobody would object to their being banned.
Would they? ///

A moot point. On balance, I think you're right.

On the other hand, being Art, they're unlikely to be so designated - take Lucian Freud's work for example (see link) - also unlikely to go down well in a cathedral I would think, but is it body-shaming?

Lucian's grandfather would have a ball deciphering this dichotomy ;-).

https://theartstack.com/artist/lucian-freud/benefits-supervisor-slee-2

[vulcan42]

Do these regular churchgoers believe their God created fully clothed people?