and this really is not very appropriate for a public park.
It's not the matter of anatomy. And it's not necessarily the bare breats either. The lack of pants is more noteworthy, in the overall conception of the piece.
The work is clearly conceived as erotic in nature—as erotica or as a (bogus) commentary on erotica. It's a (gimmicky) fragmentation of a sexting photo, and conceived as such.
I'll defend it all day long as human expression, but people questioning it being appropriate to a park are not out of line. And any women saying it's a creepy piece to have in a park have a point also.
Nobody should be arrested or burned st the stake. The work should not be harmed in any way. It is probably way above average erotic sculpture. But if the park decides to pass on accepting the donation it wouldn't mark them as Cotton Mather.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read