Local art lovers rushed to donate money this week to a high school artist who was chosen as a winner in The Virginian-Pilot Student Gallery but was not given the award because the newspaper’s publisher deemed her work inappropriate.
By late Friday, $700 had been collected. The goal was to raise $1,000.
That’s the sum Nancy “Beth” Reid, a 17-year-old senior at Churchland High School in Portsmouth, would have won for her nude self-portrait, which art experts described as discreet.
Beth said she was flattered that people were trying to replace the cash prize. “I was not expecting it. That’s really nice of them. But I feel bad that they’re doing that. It shouldn’t be their responsibility to make up for this huge scandal going on.”
Beth said she loves art history and appreciates the nudes she has seen in classical art. “It’s not perverted at all. Now, it’s almost like if you see a naked person it’s pornographic, and that’s not true.”
Student Gallery is a 36-year-old art contest open to any high school junior or senior in the region. This year, the show was judged three times.
The top winners chosen by the first two jurors were rejected because their work depicted nudity. Bruce Bradley, publisher of The Virginian-Pilot, on Friday took responsibility for the decision.
“While it’s true we don’t specifically address this in the rules and regulations, the concern I had was to have a 17-year-old girl do a self-portrait of herself in the nude,” Bradley said. “I thought that was inappropriate for the contest.
“This is why we did not name it the first-place winner.”
Bradley told the newspaper’s editor not to publish a photograph of that work, for the same reasons. “I feel it’s an inappropriate picture to run in The Virginian-Pilot.”
Even though the newspaper has received numerous letters from outraged art supporters, he said he has not changed his mind. “I believe we made the right decision.”
Artwork by the 62 finalists, including the two pieces in question, is on display through April 18 at the Chrysler Museum of Art in Norfolk. The first judge was Aaron De Groft, director of the Muscarelle Museum of Art at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg. De Groft selected Beth’s self-portrait. A second judge, Scott Howe, education director at the Chrysler Museum, selected a ceramic sculpture of a pregnant, nude torso. The work, by Jasmine Childs, a senior at Oscar Smith High School in Chesapeake, also was rejected.
Both girls have been accepted to Virginia Commonwealth University for the fall, and both plan to study art. Two Pilot employees, one from the marketing department and one from advertising, picked a final winner and announced the decision Tuesday.
“It’s the most bizarre thing,” said Ann Dearsley-Vernon of Norfolk, “especially when you see the nude, which is the sweetest, least-revealing nude. There’s nothing showing.”
Dearsley-Vernon is a former education director at the Chrysler Museum who has been a paid consultant and a judge for Student Gallery.
She and Shelley Brooks, who coordinates exhibitions and arts programming for Tidewater Community College’s Visual Arts Center, are spearheading the fund drive.
“We’re going to try to make some public recompense to this young lady,” Dearsley-Vernon said.
Trish Pfeifer, an elementary school art teacher for Norfolk Public Schools, said she was “just stunned” by The Pilot’s decision. She and her husband, Ken Pfeifer, contributed Thursday toward Beth’s gift. The couple has funded a yearly $250 Student Gallery prize, called the Visual Wit Award, for the past decade.
“I could not believe it,” Trish Pfeifer said. “I thought it was so unethical of The Pilot to take away this award from this child. It brings up issues of censorship and freedom of speech. It was so unethical to hire a judge and not honor that judge’s decision.
“The thing I was so amazed at was the fact that they still included the work but took away the award. If it was so offensive for people to see, why did it stay in the show?”
Beth had the same question.
“I think it seems ludicrous,” she said. “And, of course, there’s naked men on the front porch,” referring to a monumental statue of torch bearers at the museum’s main entrance.
Beth said her self-portrait was inspired by books such as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” She wanted to reflect the idea that humans have a darker, animal side as well as a social facade.
Because the dark side is bestial, she said she felt she should portray herself in the nude. In the rendering, she is crouching, with most of her private parts hidden, except for a small portion of her backside. “I’m comparing that inner darkness to what an animal feels. They don’t have religion or philosophy or art, or anything that separates humans from animals, from running around in packs naked.”
Beth admitted her father was uncomfortable at first with her creating a nude but became supportive as he understood her ideas. Beth’s mother, Nancy Reid, was out of town but e-mailed that she felt her daughter earned the award, “and it could have contributed to her ability to receive further scholarships.”
One of Beth’s art teachers, Jean Stith, said her reaction to the rejection of Beth’s work was to meet with all of the art students. “We talked about community, judging, censorship and whose rights have been infringed on.
“When Beth told me what happened, I just put my arms around her and congratulated her. I said, 'With or without the prize, you know you won the show.’ ”
De Groft said Beth’s work was “head and shoulders above most of the things in the exhibition.” He said he was impressed with the quality of her rendering and the sophistication of her ideas.
Jasmine Childs, who is 17, did not return phone calls Friday. Her mother, Karen Childs, said that after Jasmine discovered she was one of the denied winners, the two sat down for a talk.
“I said, 'Jasmine, what inspired you to do this piece?’ And she said, 'Mother, I’ve always been fascinated with the connection between a mother and a child, and when it actually began.’ ”
“I was so teary,” Karen Childs said. “I didn’t want her to go away with a negative tone. Things like this can affect you into adulthood. I wanted to keep it all positive, by just talking with her about some of her other accomplishments. And we prayed about it.”
Howe saw Jasmine’s ceramic torso as “a beautiful female form. It’s full of great curves and lines. It’s technically a great feat, the way it’s made of slab. It would have been difficult and taken a lot of time,” said Howe, who also works in clay.
“It’s very sad,” Howe said. The newspaper has “done a disservice rather than a service to the community.”
Teresa Annas, (757) 446-2485, teresa.annas@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
sorry i forgot to say this in my previous comment
She is definitely getting more tv and news time than she would have if she won. Many are going to the Museum just to see this controversial work. By the way there is a big nude man on a huge male horse in the front of the Museum. Get OVER YOURSELVES!!!
It is amazing
I also attend Churchland High School and am appalled at the Virginian-Pilots decision. It claimed to have eliminated Beth's work because she is currently a minor and shouldnt be naked in a newspaper. Fine and well. However what of Jasmine Child's work, it isnt a selfportrait but rather praised the female body and motherhood. Beth and Jasmine are extremely talented young women, and their age should not detract from the fact that they have exquisite taste and embrace the human form(which by the way is made in God's image). Donatello, Michelangelo, and Da Vinci all did nudes and were not mocked, but praised for their works. Why discourage these two young artist. One can only aspire to be as freeminded and courageous as these two. Bravo! And besides, Beth's work was not leud or pornographic, after all barely any part of the front of her body was exposed. So dear publisher, instead of being excessively prudent and embarassed with the female form and allowing it to hinder your judgement, embrace the works for what they really are. Bravo Beth!
Just Another..
...person's crusade to "save our souls". Much like the Stallings person who made a fuss about Bad Ass Coffee or the elected representative with "truck nutz"! Now the "Adults" change the rules in the middle of the contest to suit thier puritanical or "politically correct" views. I believe, right now there are a lot of 17 year olds who are thinking that this "ruling" is "more obscene" than any painting!
Puritanical Asininity
Beth, excellent response to what has been, at times, withering criticism by the unwashed masses. First, it seems to me that the actual judges were likely better able to judge your work on its artistic merit than the average Pilot reader. Second, I suspect the vast majority of those commenting negatively have not seen your painting. In fact, I’d suspect most haven’t been to the Chrysler at all, or if they have if hasn’t been since they were in grade school when they were brought there on a field trip when they spent the day snickering at the nude statuary. Third, those of you who consider either of these works to be pornographic, I suggest you put your buckled shoes on and climb back aboard the Mayflower.
Nude art is art, too.
"Brutal" wrote: "Nude art is pretty revolting when it involves adults depicting adults, but when minors are involved, it's unacceptable. The Pilot was dead right in this respect and should be applauded. If a child of mine was exposed to this kind of material at school, I'd be horrified." I think The Pilot was dead wrong. Revolting? Why do you fear the bodies we were born with? Nude is not lewd. What's "brutal" is the revocation of awards to deserving young artists by knowledgeable judges. If you don't like it, don't look. Beth Reid's letter has more integrity and maturity than all your parsimonius ranting.
Nudity
I'd like to first address the individual who thought that my work would be more appropriate displayed in a Playboy magazine rather than in a museum, which, afore mentioned, already contains works of superior quality and more revealing nudity. I was not trying to arouse anyone by portraying my self shirtless, but wanted to make myself as animalistic as possible without adding fur and a tail. Because animals naturally do not wear clothing, the symbol added well to the meaning of the piece. Its not how much nudity there is, but how it is portrayed.
Even though the law says I am technically a child, I hardly think that that is the case. I don't pretend to have the maturity of an adult, but I not being given credit for having the complex thought deemed neccesary to create/appreciate a nude figure. I may not be legal, but I am definitly old enough to decide for myself what is right versus wrong. No, I will not regret this in the future. Plus, if this issue were about the Pilot endorsing naked paintings of a minor, then Jasmine's piece should not have undergone the same judgement as mine.
Those who believe that any nudity is shameful, it is for you that I feel the most pity.
Interesting to note that
Interesting to note that contest judge Aaron De Groft commented that Beth's artwork figure was "head and shoulders above the competition..." As I recall from the Pilot photograph, there WAS no head or shoulders! LOL!! (seriously, folks...) I stand by my original observations: This is not exactly seminal or classical artwork which will endure thru the centuries. This is high school-level stuff, done in more of an abstract style than in any sort of style or rendition which could be construed as pornographic. Both young ladies said they wanted to pursue art educations; well and good. Let's see what they produce 5 or 10 years from now! In the meantime, why all the controversy? Who did they offend? If it bothers you, too bad--stay away from art exhibitions from now on. There's bound to be a nekkid lady or gentleman in there somewhere--always has been. In and of itself, nudity (or even nudism) is not offensive; the prudish, lemon-sucking finger-wagging of some strait-laced my-way-or-the-highway ultra conservatives is.
Pappy, I can't banish you
You're still here.
And I'm not placing any bets on you staying away.
The picture at the top of
The picture at the top of this article shows a decapitated, mutilated grotesque torso of a fat woman. It is hideous. How anyone can call that "art" beats me. That aside, children (and these girls ARE children) should not be producing "nudes", no matter how aesthetically pleasing they may be. Let them wait until they get to art college proper before they get involved in making indecent sculptures and, until they are of age, they should be required to stay on safer grounds.
Thank you Citizen 2583 for your 2 cents
Thank you Citizen 2583 for your 2 cents, you are free to say whatever you wish and if you do not like what I have to say, you can banish me.
I will go back over to WVEC's forum where I am not censored and messages do not take hours to be posted.
Please know this
I went to the Chrysler Museum and saw both works by these talented young artists. Just beautiful. These are not uncomfortable to look at, and both nudes have nothing to do with pornography. Nothing. I wonder how many commenting have made the trek to the Museum. Please go. AND hats off to news channel 13! Your interview with Beth Reid AND your decision to show her work was fantastic. If channel 13 isn't worried about showing her painting on television, why should the Pilot be concerned about showing her work in their newspaper?
Running Interference
One thing "civilians" you can't control (even if you are the publisher) is ART. Money has skewed your thinking, and exactly like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, power has created a false expansion of your comfort zone. If you don't like the ruling, remove the judge. Very, very wrong.
Once it becomes consensus, it is no longer art. Once it is made to bend to the will of a person other than the one who created it, it is no longer art. Art serves to reveal the truth, even as inconvenient and threatening as that may be. For shame.
Susan Kirkland
Professional Artist
BFA Columbus College of Art and Design 1975
comments..
"bLetters to the Editor. In this online forum, you can comment as much as you want by using the comment box at the end of each entry."
from the Heading..on "Letters to the Editor.".. I know this blog isn't the Letters to the Editor column, but, I'm going to assume the rest of the paper is following suit, since at the end of each article there is no such heading stating anything to the contrary, and the comment options are presented in an identical manner.
Citizen
"Why can't people make their point on these boards and leave it at that? Why this juvenile obsession to prove you are right?"
I'm not trying to prove I'm right, I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong. There is a difference. Sorry, if you don't want to read it then don't.
Nude art is pretty revolting
Nude art is pretty revolting when it involves adults depicting adults, but when minors are involved, it's unacceptable. The Pilot was dead right in this respect and should be applauded. If a child of mine was exposed to this kind of material at school, I'd be horrified.
Contest needs rules in advance
Since this is the newspaper's contest they can do as they wish. It would have been nice of them to set the criteria out in advance. How about announcing that going forward nudes aren't allowed. That would stop the debate.
Has anyone actually been there.
Just out of curiosity - has any of these critics actually visited the Chrysler? Actually viewed the and studied the many nudes depicted in the galleries? Also, (for those how are actually familiar) isn't the sculpture reminiscent of the Venus of Willendorf? I believe these young ladies deplay some exception talent - I'm sorry they are experiencing this situation but it's wonderful that so many have the opportunity to validate them.
This is silly
Have you seen the picture, it shows little more than the average 17 year old girls bikini on VA Beach, okay maybe a little more cheek. This artwork was well done and should not of been censored. It is quite sad that two children that have obviously studied art and took the influence of many sculptures and paintings into their own art to only be told they are wrong. I can only worry that this may make them curb their enthusiasm and talents in the future. To the artists, well done, to the pilot, seems you are the one with a sexual problem.
Va Pilot disgrace.
Fergus, you may want to read the article again. Mom and daughter did not pray over the decision to submit the piece, they prayed following their discussion of the outcome.
The Pilot was wrong to deny these two ladies. There are many issues here. How can a newspaper censor an artist. It seems they are more focused on their own "tasteful" image than promoting free speech. Next, what are we teaching these two would be winners? That your freedom of expression is okay so long as we don't have to acknowledge it? It's okay to change the rules as we go along? What about the "other" winner - how do you think this makes that person feel to know that they only won because some idiot editor decided they didn't want to publish a nude portrait?
This situation really makes me question The Pilot's journalism motives.
"The newspaper has “done a disservice" LOL
This story in one form or another has been collecting comments for days. Right now this one has the most comments of all the stories in the paper.
Disservice? Controversy is a serious artist's dream. If those 2 young ladies are pursuing art as a career, they now have controversy "in spades"..I recommend waiting until all the comments play out, copying all the articles, blogs, letters to the editor, & associated comments for their portfolios. Why limit your 15 minutes of fame to 15 minutes?
As an artist you may be able to capitalize on this for your entire career.
You had no rule against what
You had no rule against what this young woman did and you publish worse in some of your underwear and adult entertainment ads.
KEYWORD: ADULT.Neither one of the girls is an ADULT.They are,for those with reading comprehension problems, M I N O R S.
Hey, George and Pappy
Could you two take your thing off-line? It was funny watching you two for a while, but it's getting old. Are you married or something?
Why can't people make their point on these boards and leave it at that? Why this juvenile obsession to prove you are right?
Read something. Respond to something. Heck, reflect on what someone else has to stay. But stop boring us with your petty squabbles. These are not the great debates and I have not stumbled across Lincoln or Douglas here.
Now, with that out of the way ...
Pilot, you blew this one. The censorship of art is no more defensible than the censorship of words. The she-was-a-minor thing doesn't wash. You had no rule against what this young woman did and you publish worse in some of your underwear and adult entertainment ads.
georges61555
georges61555, I answered your question a few times, but sadly, I must have said something the censors did not like. <<>
Sorry george, I cannot compose a response that makes it past the censors. Go Liberals!!! LOL!!
About that village . . .
Perhaps we should be thinking along the lines of, "It takes a village idiot to steal from young women the honors they have earned."
Pappy62
"No georges61555, it is not clear, please explain how 'the village' has a right to over rule the rules and the parents."
It was in reference to another post regarding raising children. In years past neighbors and friends looked out for each others kids to help keep them out of trouble. That does not happen these days.
Now YOU explain to me what right of yours am I trying to take away.
Have you been to an art
Have you been to an art museum in your lifetime? I'm guessing you're probably not much of an art fan anyway. If you were you'd probably realize the history of art is replete with classic nude pieces. IT'S NOT PORN, IT'S ART!
And since when does age have anything to do...?
Fergus' reply: I have a degree in art.And once again you miss the point: THIS IS A MINOR who still needs someone else making decisions for her.She isn't legally responsible for her decisions.Her parents are. Teenagers are notorious for being confused about making the right decisions.Did you notice the one girl and her mom had to pray on it? That tells you she went back and forth whether to enter it or not. I don't blame the Pilot one bit for stepping up to the plate and looking out for these girls best interest down the road. Kudos to the Pilot.
Nude Winner
I agree with the Pilot. The young lady should have entered the Playboy Mag. instead of the Pilot. Thanks for standing up for something. Melvin C.
Wayne LOL!
Dang , that was brutal...the torso is pregnant, not fat...You must not have ever been married..when my wife was pregnant, if I would have told her she had a fat torso, I probably would have had to sleep in the doghouse, plus be blamed for her predicament...lol
V-P student Gallery
Bruce, baby, you blew it. Censorship? of art? By a newspaper? Lots of irony. Not a lot of sense. You should say you're sorry.
No georges61555, it is not clear
No georges61555, it is not clear, please explain how 'the village' has a right to over rule the rules and the parents.