In today's Post Gazette, our Mt. Lebanon Library is making the news. It seems that a photograph, that is part of an exhibit of architectural photographs, is making some people nervous.
 |
Photo by John Flatz
"Innocence," a historic painting hanging in the Mercer County Courthouse.
|
The problem is the exposed breast in the photograph of the mural and the close proximity to Mellon Middle School. The library asked the photographer to replace the photo with a different one and photographer John Flatz refused.
So he covered up the offending breast on Monday with a picture of a bra and an arrow pointing to it saying "Censored by the Mt. Lebanon Public Library."
Are the National Geographics next to go? Maybe the library should talk to our school board director, whose billboard says that even good girls go there. We have truly lost it here in Mt. Lebanon.
Read more:
Mt. Lebanon library says partially nude woman in photo exhibit breaks rules
Update February 9, 2013 1:30 PM As of 1:15 PM (only fifteen minutes ago), this is what is hanging in the hallway at Mt. Lebanon Public Library.
Nothing has been censored. There are no photographs of bras or statements of censorship.
The library is approaching this all wrong!
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of Title IX just put up a copy of The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci.
Seriously, why should the boys be the only ones that get to giggle at a little nudity.
Mt. Lebanon really knows how to put a damper on living and life. By all means lets strive for a return to the Dark Ages.
Yes, and every book that has a picture of famous Greek and Italian statues must be burned!
ReplyDeleteThere's one thing to have a policy and another thing altogether to have a workable policy.
Censoring art now are we? Wow.
Once again Mt. Lebanon makes the news from Palm Beach to Seattle in the Associated Press story on this issue.
ReplyDeleteWay to go Lebo, we should be proud!
How could kids who drink, do drugs and dirty dance be offended...or even influenced?????
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Who was the genius who made the decision that the photo should be censored?
ReplyDeleteReally who cares if the kids make fun of the picture? I've seen some ugly artwork in the libray that folks could have made fun of as well.
Embarrassing,the creator of the controversy should be fired.
I asked my mellonmiddle school girl about the photo of the exposed breast and she immedi said "what about all the preschool kids that walk by with their parents..on their way to the childrens library"...also i thought the response of the photographer to the librarys request to remove it VERY sophomoric at best..
ReplyDelete5:00 PM, what if a baby strolls past and attempts to suckle the photo?
ReplyDeleteGod forbid a child should see the original hanging in the Mercer County Courthouse.
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The kindergarten kids actually go to a farm to milk a real cow. The kids see much more, in 3 dimensions, when they go through the ladies locker room at the pool.
Who knows what the kids see the deer doing in their own back yards?
The title of the painting, "Innocence", describes it well. Parents should simply continue to move down the hallway if they find it objectionable.
5:00 guess the preschoolers will be shocked right out of their Big Boy pants if their parents ever take them to the Carnegie Museum or heaven forbid the Louvre in Paris.
ReplyDeleteAnd by all means don't corrupt your middle school daughter to world history, architecture or civilization.
I'll bet 5:00 pm that the statues "Venus de Milo" and "David" must throw you and your daughter into a state of hysteria, terror and uncontrollable rage.
ReplyDeleteI have it on good authority that the photographer was never asked to remove his picture. I hope the person who called me will write in with more information.
ReplyDeleteI also know that there is nothing covering up his photo as indicated in the article.
Elaine
Perhaps the PG reporter can clear things up. Ms. Carpenter reported:
ReplyDelete"...according to Mt. Lebanon Public Library officials, who asked photographer John Flatz to replace it with something else.
He refused, and thus began a tug of war that has, for now, ended in a draw."
That sure sounds like he was asked to take it down. There is always the possibility the artist created a PR sensation for his exhibition by contacting the press, but that's not what was reported. Then there is the following in the story:
"The photo will remain as is, but "we cannot say that when our director comes back or if a board member comes in that there may not be a concern."
So when did the bra and arrow show up?
wow,, i the 5pm commenter from yesterday and i couldnt believe all the ignorant replies from this site.. especially a blog politically conservative leaning....
ReplyDeleteon finally point,, when i asked my daughter about thoughts about a photo of a print of a woman with her breast exposed, she prob didnt think of a classical art piece,, but of something she is very familiar and that is the HUGE posters of young women in the Victoria Secret at SHV.
ReplyDeletethink young girls are sensitive about the issue of any artwork/photos that shows breasts because they personalize it..
12:51/5:00 pm contributor.
ReplyDeleteHaving a hard time following your contribution, could your explain further please.
Which comments were ignorant specifically and what made them so.
And are you saying that appreciating and understanding art is the preserve of liberals?
That nudity is pornographic and offensive. That we have to shelter our young children from the works of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rubens, Manet lest we turn them into deviates and sex addicts.
What should we do next, scour the library for any books that may have a photo or illustration of a bare breast that our kindergartners might come across and burn them.
Now then I don't agree with the call to fire the librarian that made this an issue with the photographer. They probably fielded a complaint, maybe from you 5:00 and were trying to pacify the complainer. But to say we can't have any nude images in the library is unbelievable.
Dubious explanation 2:38/5:00 pm.
ReplyDeleteHere's what you wrote yesterday if you are the ordinal 5:00 pm contributor.
"I asked my mellonmiddle school girl about the photo of the exposed breast and she immedi said "what about all the preschool kids that walk by with their parents..on their way to the childrens library"...also i thought the response of the photographer to the librarys request to remove it VERY sophomoric at best.."
February 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM
What the preschool kids walk by huge Victoria's Secret posters on the way the children's library now.
Do you really put any thought into your comments?
Or do you just react and then delight in calling people ignorant?
So 2:38 your fights with South Hills Village, not the library or the, what you call them, 'ignorant people' commenting on the artwork here.
ReplyDelete5pm.. again for the last..time..after reading the PG article, i asked my mellon child what she thought at it, this child was home sick and had not seen the photo only that it was of a woman with an exposed breast...and she said that having those type of prints hanging up where preschool children walk by was not IN her opinion no acceptable... this child is very independent, she is not brainwashed at home by any far left or right wing agenda....i just wrote that comment because i was surprised to hear her say it... but was even more surprised by the attack for the other readers of Lebo Citizens when i posted her thoughts...
ReplyDeleteThere's a bigger story here than these less than monumental photographs that will soon be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteKDKA reports: "Mt. Lebanon Public Library Director Cynthia Richey, who is out of the country, says that Flatz was never asked to take the photo down. Richey says the library does have guidelines that reflect Pennsylvania obscenity laws, but that the photo was in no way a violation. She added that no one has been offended, and they’ve had no complaints.Mt. Lebanon Public Library Director Cynthia Richey, who is out of the country, says that Flatz was never asked to take the photo down. Richey says the library does have guidelines that reflect Pennsylvania obscenity laws, but that the photo was in no way a violation. She added that no one has been offended, and they’ve had no complaints."
No one was offended?
No one complained?
The artist was never asked to take it down?
So what or whom instigated the Post Gazette article?
Did the reporter make it up?
The photographer for his fifteen minutes of fame?
Whatever the answer someone has pulled off a very malicious hoax or a very bad cover-up.
The hell with the boob art - I want to know who the boob is that started it all in the first place?
I'll bet my bottom dollar the PG reporter didn't walk into the MTL library and decide today I'm going to embarrass this community library.
5:08, I'd recommend spending a lot of quality time with your middle school daughter touring the Scaife Galleries and sculpture wings at the Carnegie Museum. Maybe a visit to the the state capital building, The National Galleries and Peace Monument in Washington, DC.
ReplyDeleteYou ask for her opinion of a photo of a woman with a bare breast that is hanging in a public library and her first association is Victoria Secret posters at the mall!
You've got to expand this girl's horizons real fast. I'd suggest several mother daughter days looking at paintings and nude statues and discussing the imagery,and why they're not obscene.
i feel so so bad for the new assist library director (her name is in the PG) she was just following the rules which are listed on the library website under Expo: "What may not be included: Because children use the gallery entrances, nudes or images in violation of 18 PA. Cons. Stat. Sec. 5903 cannot be included in exhibits. Pricing is also excluded from the display, but artists may post contact information
ReplyDeletemy daughter has been to museums and seen paintings and sculptures..in opinion (a 12yearold) she felt that nude painting shouldnt be in the Public Library... and if you read the libraryguidelines regarding what's excluded from their expo it's clearly written any nudes regardless of its considered obscene or a classic work of art...
ReplyDeleteYour daughter should be commended for taking a stand. Encourage that.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Why the sympathy for the new librarian. Richey said there were no complaints, no request to take it down and no violation of 18 PA Cons. Stat. Sec. 5903.
ReplyDeleteAre we to take your comment as a finger point that the new librarian took it upon herself to contact the PG because she felt the photograph was offensive?
If that's the case then she's gotten some valuable on the job training and should probably join 5:08 and her daughter in an art appreciation tour of the Scaife Galleries. Maybe also check out some books on art history.
10:51 sorry YOU ARE WRONG, Cynthia Ruchey told you, you are wrong and yet you still cling to your belief.
ReplyDeleteNudes ate only verboten if they violate the PA Statute.
As for your daughter voicing her opinion, that's to be commended as Elaine suggest.
Hope she is given the opportunity to read the comments here and attached to the original PG article. It may help to develop her self-esteem, perception of women and appreciation of the human form even though everyone qualifies as a Victoria's Secret model.
10:51 AM, I appreciate your input. The solicitor weighed in and found nothing to be objectionable from a legal perspective. The library will be displaying the artwork until the end of the month. Maybe parents can take their children to the library and discuss it. Check out a book while you are there.
ReplyDeleteI find 10:51 AM's daughter's opinion to be refreshing. She is considerate of the younger students at Washington School and shows compassion for those younger children. I see this as a teaching opportunity for everyone.
Elaine
Let's consider the aforementioned document, 18 PA. Cons. Stat. Sec. 5903. From that document we have the following:
ReplyDelete"Obscene."
Any material or performance, if:
1. the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. the subject matter depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct of a type described in this section; and
3. the subject matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value.
OK, so the photograph of the mural clears this hurdle because it is depicting a work of art that is over 100 years old. That leaves the Library's own guidelines regarding "nudes." However, the woman in the original mural - who doesn't even exit because she's an allegory - hardly fits the definition of "nude!"
While one can't help but feel sorry for the Library staff, it still makes no sense to me that, given their own guidelines, they wouldn't have asked Mr. Flatz if he had any "offending" photographs before allowing him to display his wares. Maybe they did; and maybe he said "no." Then we're faced with contradictory stories; one that says the Library asked him to take down the photograph, and another story that says "not so!"
This whole incident is silly, but it does serve to point out why a lot of people have a difficult time taking the word of the media and local officials at face value.
Richard, you make good points and the young girl's concern for preschoolers is to be commended.
ReplyDeleteBut their is a bigger issue here under the surface. Let me try to illustrate.
Let say some generous library benefactor donated Mary Cassatt's "Mother Rose nursing her child".
Would our library be for forced to hide this work by one of Pittsburgh's most famous artist in some backroom closet, because it shows a naked breast?
Or should the work hang predominately for all to see, especially any young male or female artist as inspiration?
That it's possible to grow up in "backwater" Mt. Lebanon and reach the top of the art world.
That is the big picture.
12:21 PM, OK, let's say that happens. I believe the library would continue to show good judgment and display the art. It is not obscene, and just as they are doing with the photo in question, will display it predominately. Nothing has been censored. The only thing tht is happening is that the photographer is cashing in with his fifteen minutes of fame.
ReplyDeleteElaine
OK let's hope we don't have some boob raising issues concerning the display of artwork in the library ever again! LOL
ReplyDeleteJust came back from the library. I updated this story with a current photo of the artwork. What is going on here? Did the photographer fabricate the whole thing?
ReplyDeleteElaine
If that is true, then there is something wrong with the initial PG story.
ReplyDeleteThey owe the librarian and MTL an apology for shoddy reporting. Remember this subject went national over the AP.
Nice job, Elaine! You provided us with current, visual, evidence showing the photo in place and untouched. Here is what I think went down:
ReplyDeleteMr. Flatz, a photographer with 15 years of experience according to his LinkedIn® profile (he started in March of 1998), arranges with the Mt. Lebanon Library to exhibit some of his photographs. The assistant library director sees "Innocence" and has a gasp and a "Kodak Moment." After consulting her guidelines she tells Mr. Flatz the photo has to go. Mr. Flatz, being nonplussed, does a slow burn and calls the P-G, relating what he was told. In the meantime he decides to fire back at the library with a paper bra and a manifesto. Knowing a good story when she hears one, P-G reporter Mackenzie Carpenter makes a couple of calls, gets the library's side of the story and writes, "Ms. Landrum said the image violates the library's exhibit guidelines" - which seems to verify Mr. Flatz's statement about what the library told him. Somewhere in this mix of events Mt. Lebanon Public Library Director Cynthia Richey, who is out of the country, is contacted by Ms. Landrum for consultation. Ms. Richey says something like, "For crying out loud, get rid of the stuff on the photograph and let it be as is!" Ms. Richey then contacts the media (or visa versa) and says there is nothing wrong with Mr. Fratz's photograph, and nobody in the library is doing any censoring - which is technically true because Mr. Flatz assumed self-censorship to make a point. In the meantime the story is "out there" and the damage has been done.
Again, this is just my take on how things might have gone down. I don't think anyone was lying - but I do think there was a lack of clear communications on the part of those involved, and thus the whole incident got blown way out of proportion.
This is what Mary Robb Jackson reported on KDKA.
ReplyDeletehttp://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/mt-lebanon-library-picture-causing-a-stir/
The photographer is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame.
So much commotion over nothing. What a shame. I hope the PG apologizes.
Elaine
Just a guess, but I think Mr. Gideon's account is probably exactly right.--Neil Berch
ReplyDeleteGideon's scenario is extremely plausible.
ReplyDeleteRichey's position is exactly what the library's should be and hope it remains so.
It is a great library and while the poor reporting by the PG bruised it slightly, perhaps the attention will cause visitors to spend more time viewing the works display in the hallway.
There has been some really nice work put up at times. It actually surprised me tHough that anyone noticed the bare breast in the first place, I rarely see people pause there.