Both teens in art show controversy will get private cash awards

The Daily Press has now published the painting and posted it on their website, and now that I've seen it, I'm more convinced than ever that Bruce Brdley made the wrong call. First off, it's a beautiful painting. And second of all, taken in the context of an art show at a respected museum like the Chrysler, there is nothing wrong with the painting. It's a provocative painting by a talented 17-year-old, but there's nothing smutty or inappropriate about it.

Perhaps it is time for Bruce Bradley to visit an Art Museum. Any large city will do. Art is art. It does not need to be redefined by Bruce Bradley. I moved to this state over 30 years ago. I come from a very conservative, midwestern community - St. Louis, but darn it, this is ridiculous! Welcome to the Dark Ages.

While Beth's nude self-portrait probably doesn't violate child pornography laws, there are certainly plenty of people who would accuse the newspaper of child pornography for publishing or promoting the nude image of a minor. Newspapers already operate financially on the edge; becoming the target of a campaign to shut them down for "child pornography" would probably succeed. One should never underestimate how hysterical such things can make some segments of the public. Jasmine's sculpture, which combines nudity and pregnancy AND (implicitly) high school students, would almost certainly have elicited a similar response.

I don't blame Bradley for rejecting these two as winners, since I can see things from his point of view. As publisher, he can't let an art contest jeopardize the newspapers he oversees; he would get fired for that. I don't know how many times this issue has come up in the 36 years of the contest, but there'll probably be changes in the rules for next year.

It is a shame, really. Both girls' work shows an interest and willingness to explore issues of body image, which many teenage girls find themselves conflicted about.

It sounds like there were no rules as to what could be submitted. If Mr. Bradley had looked at all the entries before the judging and determined that the 2 pieces be excluded is one thing, but he disallowed them AFTER they had been judged to be the best and second best pieces in the contest. This is tampering/fixing/rigging the contest. I am glad these 2 young ladies are getting the prize money and the (unofficial) recognition they deserve. I also feel sorry for the young artist that official won to find out that they actually came in third place.

The Chrysler Museum is free to all students everyday it is open - for non students the Museum is free on Wednesdays and is open until 9 PM for all.
Also Wednesdays, For wednesday patrons there is a wine-soda and cheese bar in addition to the free musical performances occurring for all to enjoy in Huber Court. The Student Gallery Finalist Exhibit is just beyond Huber court on the first floor. I hope to see many, if not all of you and your friends at the Chrysler museum when ever it is open and especially during the student gallery exhibition. It's Free Admission Wednesdays and every day for students and it's always Free Parking!

....and for crying out loud, Virginia, grow up!!!

I'm really glad these two young ladies are getting the prizes that they earned. The Pilot wants to sponsor an art show, but apparently they want it to be Crayola drawings of trees.

It cracks me up to see people posting about this story and saying the Pilot is correct to "protect the children." Protect them from what? Truly amazing the way some people can think.

Kudos, at least, to the Pilot for having the decency to write about this story. They know it makes them look like buffoons, but at least they're not trying to cover it up.

I would like to congratulate the two young artists.

I would like to thank the donors who ensured that these two young women received the reward they earned.

And I would like to thank Mr. Bradley. Your decision has boosted attendance to the show and brought more attention to these two young women and the Student Gallery than ten newspaper ads.

Once again, religious and social conservatives have attempted to force their narrow-minded morality on everyone and failed.

I noticed both of you will soon be voting age.. If either of you ever become a political cartoonist, please make fun of the Democrats. Politically, they are the most worthy subject matter to make sport of. G'Morning VP Democrats..lol

"This is from someone that only buys the VP to keep abreast of my loathsome liberal ninnies."

I'm sure the VP appreciates your money, but there never has been an article about "liberal ninnies", but many on tight ars republicans.

I hope Miss Childs Gets $1000, as well & doesn't get short changed.. She goes to Oscar Smith. That's the school district for my neighborhood. We are proud of you Jasmine! WTG!! I liked the pregnant torso..It shows talent & imagination. Not going to say I'm sorry for all the hoopla though...I'm fairly certain you will benefit from the publicity in the long run. Looks like you have a lot of support out here. There are a lot of artists in the world that have talent, but, recognition often doesn't come for years, sometimes after you've passed on, & for most not at all. Congratulations to both of the young artists. I wish you a long, happy, & rewarding career.

I'm glad to see the community come through for both these young women. Some people seem to miss the point that there were no rules against what they submitted. Mr. Bradley took it upon himself to make up a new rule, after the fact, because he didn't approve of the submittals. That is just plain wrong.

C.B. wrote, "...I think there is a small sticking point of law here and that is a juvenile being able to submit personal nudes of a juvenile."

There is no sticking point of law involved. In order for images of nude minors to be illegal, they must be sexually explicit. There is nothing sexually explicit about either piece, including the very modest nude self portrait. Those who object to these pieces of art are the same apparently uneducated prudes who sided with that Virginia Beach cop who charged the manager of Abercrombie & Fitch with pornography. They won't be satisfied until we're all wearing burqas. Grow up!!

They'll still find contestants, but I doubt they will find judges.

I think the sponsors should have the right to determine what's appropriate and what's not appropriate for their contest, however ridiculous that might be. The issue seems to be that there (at least to my knowledge) were no rules/guidelines on contest submissions, nor a disclaimer that sponsors reserve the right to make a final decision. The contestants submitted their entries, judges were selected and their decisions were undermined by Bradley. This is what's so wrong. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the VP had difficulty finding contestants or credible judges for any contests in the future.

It's not like these girls and their peers can't turn on the TV and see worse or pull something far worse up on the web... at least their pieces were in good taste, unlike some of the smut you can find on TV and the web...

I am so glad that these women were reconized and think of their future careers! Thanks to the Virginian Pilot, all of us will be looking forward to their future endeavors. If you do not want this type of artistic impression in the next contest, please feel free to compromise the First Amendment, the one you so clearly cline to.

I think there is a small sticking point of law here and that is a juvenile being able to submit personal nudes of a juvenile. Although alot of art portrays nudity, nothing to be ashamed about, we fall into a strange situation of what is appropriate or not. If a child is allowed to submit nudes of a child then why is it not OK for an adult to submit nudes of a child? Why does a teacher who uses his you know what to make "art" become the scourge of society but sweet little susie can paint nude pictures of herself and call it art with no backlash? I don't have the answer on this but it does seem a little strange. The publisher did what he/she should have and that was protect the company from culpability. This is from someone that only buys the VP to keep abreast of my loathsome liberal ninnies.

Congratulations to both girls. I'm still very disappointed in the VP for their part in this, but look at the free publicity each of the girls recieved.

The rules did not specify "no nudes", so the entries were made in good faith. The judges did not think about using any moral filters since artists normally do not find the nude body morally offensive. I think I see the point about minors, but if a rule does not exist about depiction of nudes, how would a student know not to submit a nude as a winning entry?

Perhaps you all missed the earlier article - The Pilot is not running a private competition - this is a public competition and the Pilot is one of three major sponsors (The Chrysler and SunTrust also). NO way - let me repeat - NO WHERE in the rules for the last 35 years - yes, 35 years - is there a prohibition against nude figures. The Pilot is not the judge - that's why unbias hopefully objective jurors are invited from outside the area - OK Williamsburg barely makes the minimum - but still - we are not always happy with the judge's decision but you don't keep going back until you get the answer you want! BTW the House quote is for The Pilot. Shame on you!

There is nothing wrong with a private newspaper that creates a contest setting and enforcing rules and determining prizes bases on subjective evaluations. Another example of liberal political correctness trumping good taste and morality. Shame on the people who overruled the disqualifications.

The Virgian-Pilot is a private company that has the right to set it's own policies, rules, regualtions, and details of any contest. If they want to set a list of expectations for their contests, then they have the right to enforce them if violated. If anything here, they've voiced their constitutional right as a private business.

Glad to hear it. Congrads to both girls! The prudes cant just not look if it art bothers you.

Can you imagine the backlash that would have occurred if it had gone the other way? Pat the idiot Robertson would have had his entire flock out to protest if she had won, or if the pieces were publicly displayed. I do nave a question though, you have to be 18 to pose nude, so is it ok to display a sculpture of a nude 17 year old? I think he made the best choice.

The Virginia Pilot shows it's true colors again. Constitutional rights are touted when the need information, but are ignored in their attempt to manipulate the coverage to their slanted view. It is truly shameful.

He has violated the ethics of his profession. Journalism is, as a previous commenter said, neutral and objective. Since Bradley has ne regard for the ethics of his profession, he is a danger to the community. What stories will he kill? What stories will he deem worthy of publishing? His flagrant disregard for journalism's ethics clearly threatens Hampton Road's ability to receive all available information on a specific subject -- and therefore constitutes a specific danger to the common-weal. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Kudos to Bradley for taking a stand. He can live with a clean conscience knowing he didn't jump on the band wagon and cave in to those who have lost their moral compass when it comes to protecting minors.

I guess the community had the final word.