At What Point Does A Nude Photo Become Pornographic? Controversy At MOCA Jacksonville
Dec 2, 2014
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Share:
There is a controversy brewing in Jacksonville, Florida as some local authorities and citizens are not just speaking, but crying out over a new photography exhibit by photographer, Angela Strassheim. The collection features a nude photograph of a pregnant woman stretched across a couch–not unlike some of the paintings that also grace the walls in The Museum of Modern Art. However, Strassheim’s photo caught the attention of City Council President Clay Yarborough, who emailed Mayor Alvin Brown, asking for the Mayor to withdraw a $230,000 grant the museum is set to receive from The Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville. Yarborough has insisted the photograph was pornographic, “and works against our efforts to promote a family-friendly Jacksonville and downtown.”
You can see a copy of the photo in question here (All you see is the women’s breasts, but, head’s up your boss might still be deemed NSFW) before you make any decisions for yourself, but if you’re like much of the art and photography world, you’ll probably find the claims to be a bit nonsensical. Fortunately, supporters of the photograph, as well as MOCA officials, have publicly defended the work and it’s right to hang in the museum and, at least for the moment, the photograph will remain in the exhibit.
According to a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, pornography is described as, “utterly without redeeming social value” and “patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description of sexual matters.” Supporters of the portrait are confused as to what separates the nudity found in Strassheim’s photo from the countless nude statues and paintings that art patrons have been drawn to for centuries, and which can be found all throughout the museum.
Not all has been lost for the museum, however, as MOCA has seen a substantial attendance spike in light of the controversy. They say many of the visitors are stopping by just to see what all the fuss is over.
What are your thoughts on the image in question? Let’s open up an intelligent discussion in the comments section below and share your opinions on at what point a photo (or piece of art in general) crosses the line of tasteful and takes a turn towards pornography.
[ via Jacksonville ]
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Related Posts
Giovanni Troilo’s WPP Winning Photo Has Been Disqualified After Latest Controversy
World Press Photo Announces New Ethics Guidelines and Rigorous Review Process After Massive Controversy
Revisiting Shinichi Maruyama’s “Nude”; 10,000 Photos Of Nude Dancers Composited Into One
Photographer under fire for using a nude photo in a book after the model asked him not to [NSFW]
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
35 responses to “At What Point Does A Nude Photo Become Pornographic? Controversy At MOCA Jacksonville”
whoever would ban such a photo is an emotional and sexual child with some serious inner issues that need work
Adding a photo to your description….
http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/slideshows-wide/CityCouncilmanClayYarborough.jpg
also hates women.
Boy… you can certainly fast-forward about 40 years and hear him yelling about kids getting off his lawn.
OMG, that is so NOT porn,,,what a shame so many can not see a photo like this for what it is…ART
Oh for goodness sake.
I wonder if this was a B&W photo the perception would remain the same… not kidding here, I really think that there’s this underlying agreement that if it’s nude photos in black and white, there are more chances people would give it a Fine-Art pass.
Trevor E. R. Yerbury.
Sorry but this guy looks like he is one twelve Two straight out of a right wing Religious community and has lead a very sheltered life of numbers and facts with little or no exposure to Art and just went looking for something that would get his name in the papers. JMO anf yes it is judgemental based on anly a few images and things I have read but its an opinion
Kevin, I am a total Conservative and Catholic. The fool is just that a fool, his ability to see beauty in that photo is sad. I think he was born to late the inquisition was a long time ago.
I would be curious to know what these guys think about Lady Gaga on stage …
This just backs up my opinion of the mentality of elected officials in Florida, myopic morons, this is the reason I could never live in Fl. You move to Fl and within a few years your brain dead.
Nothing wrong with that photograph. This just stupid
….. ummmmm, I know it’s only nitpicking but it’s not a nude photograph, it’s a photograph of a nude pregnant woman. Aside from that, did Clay Yarborough think that his mother was a porn star when she was breast feeding him?
If you fap to it – it is porn to you.
What would those Puritans say about this photo made by me or this topic?LOL :D
http://vojislavmarkovic.com/2013/03/22/sexual-organs-in-artistic-nude-photography-pro-et-contra/
What would those Puritans say about this photo made by me or this topic?LOL :D
http://vojislavmarkovic.com/2013/03/22/sexual-organs-in-artistic-nude-photography-pro-et-contra/
It is too much attention for this guy. I would not call this photograph an art piece. But does it need art to show and justify nudity? I am not able to understand the common nipple or nudity phobia. Nudity is very important for everybody. How much more alienated from our bodies should we become? Often prohibition makes matters much more interesting. So I hope that at least the photog will benefit from this abundant controversy.
City Council President Clay Yarborough is a stupid asshole and should resign.
I’m not offended by the photo, but I am wondering why we bow to the hyper sensitivity of some people while disregarding the hyper sensitivity of others. Some cultures find nudity to be offensive…Muslims being the extreme. Would we be more willing to hear Mr. Yarborough if he as sporting a large beard and had his wife wrapped in a burka? I’m not saying we should listen to nudity police. I’m saying we should stand up for our cultural norms no matter who the aggrieved is.
And so what if it is porn? How does that make it illegal?
As other commenters noted, “pornography is in the eye of the beholder”. If someone can get off to a picture of a fully clothed woman, do we make images of fully clothed women illegal?
If he doesn’t like it, don’t look at it.
To me, it’s not pornography as long as you don’t see the details of the bottom part (to put it bluntly, the vagina). Seeing breasts and skin is far from being porn.
I don’t really think this photograph is art though (personal preferences, don’t mind me), but I don’t see what the fuss is all about.
Ahh, the 1950s rule… “You can show boobs and bottom, but no bush”.
There is no line separating pornography from non-pornography. It is a gradient. My issue with the photo is not the nudity. My question is why is a mediocre snapshot hanging in an art museum.
I think the official government stance is “you know it when you see it”
OMG, me as a european I could only shake my head about such small minded statement … #itisnatural
Regardless of what it is or isn’t, in this case being accused of being ‘porn,’ the fact that the photograph has created controversy has in done the photographer a favor.
Streisand effect: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. “The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.”
“and works against our efforts to promote a family-friendly Jacksonville and downtown.”
The irony here being that pregnancy is certainly promoting ‘family’.
There’s a lot wrong with that photograph, but the fact that she’s naked isn’t part of the problem.
noun: pornography
printed
or visual material containing the explicit description or display of
sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
‘NUFF SAID.
The image is not pornographic. While not to some people’s tastes, people really, really, really need to understand that nudity photographed in this way IS NOT PORN.
I find this to be Art & a representation of a woman that would be valuable for centuries to come in the same way that the statue of David has been a representation of the male form.
repressed much?
This absolutely cannot be called pornographic. I assume Mr. Yarborough’s complaint has been ignored. If not, a letter-writing campaign and/or a petition seems in order. And if this is what bothers him, perhaps he’d be better off never leaving the house.
If that is porn, I am the pope….just sayin’ he must have been raised in a totally screwed up family environment
Humans are the only creations who have problems living and seeing the covering God intend, and God created us to be naked unashamed. If man were to see unhindered nudity on a daily bases pornography could never exist. People who see nudity on a daily bases like in hospitals are never bothered by nudity, in person and even less so by pictures, grow up get real Adam and Eve were not porn stars, God looked at them naked unashamed and said they were very good. God has never said that to any high ridding clothed people yet.