Nude artwork of minor a major issue

IT WAS April Fools’ Day at the Chrysler Museum when the spectacle of The Virginian-Pilot’s acute discomfort with nude art — most notably of a self-portrait painted by a 17-year-old girl — began to unfold in public. The paper has become the butt of jokes — and intense criticism — since that day.

William Hennessey, the museum director, and other Chrysler staffers watched that evening as Beverly Shepard, the newspaper’s marketing manager, took center stage in Huber Court. She was about to announce the winners of this year’s Virginian-Pilot Student Gallery art competition, an event the newspaper has sponsored for more than 30 years.

As the awards ceremony began, neither Hennessey nor anyone else at the museum knew who would receive the $1,000 first prize or how that winner had been selected. They might, however, have guessed that The Pilot was about to embarrass itself.

Hennessey and his staff, of course, knew that the newspaper had requested, then rejected, the judgments of two leading arts educators, each of whom selected a nude entry as the first-place winner. The Pilot then handed off the judging to its marketing and advertising departments. Those employees knew enough to ignore the nudes that Pilot publisher Bruce Bradley considered “inappropriate” and refused to honor.

The initial awards ceremony story on April 2 by arts writer Teresa Annas left the biggest news for last. It announced the contest winners, then described the judging imbroglio .

Three days later, however, Annas wrote about a community fundraising effort to award Nancy “Beth” Reid, the original “first-place” winner, the prize money that she — absent the publisher’s intercession — would have received. In an April 8 article, Annas described a private ceremony in which Reid received the cash prize. It also noted that Jasmine Childs of Chesapeake, the second “first-place” winner, would be awarded the money she would have received had the second judge’s decision been honored.

On Bradley’s orders, no photo of Reid’s self-portrait has appeared with any of those three articles. Readers have had to turn to local television, the Peninsula newspaper or the Internet for a look at it.

In my thinking, Bradley’s decision collides with values newspapers stand for: freedom of expression and fair play. We will doubtless be reminded of that paradox the next time we apply to others the standards we have refused to defend in this situation. That the aggrieved parties in the saga were teenagers who had played by the rules, only to see them changed as they neared the finish line, leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Reader response has been harsh and sustained. PilotOnline.com recorded nearly 20,000 hits on Annas’ three stories, an astonishing score, considering that the average “most-read” story generates 1,500 to 2,000 hits. At least 165 readers commented online. Annas’ e-mail inbox overflowed. Letters to the editor have also outpaced the norm, as have missives to the public editor. People who denounced Bradley’s position far outnumber those who supported it.

One reader saw Bradley’s decision as a “courageous” act, protecting Beth Reid “from possible predators.” Most other letter writers, however, were less generous.

“Is The Pilot run by Puritans?” one asked. “What next, witch trials?”

An irate military veteran added, “For 20 years I served this country, protecting the freedoms that I so deeply and reverently believe in, and that so many have given their lives for. For you to make a mockery of those freedoms by censoring art is absurd and disgusting.”

Editor Denis Finley lobbied hard for a reversal of the decision, suggesting to Bradley to award Reid the prize — with the caveat that it did not come with The Pilot’s endorsement. When that failed, Finley withdrew as master of ceremonies for the April 1 event at the Chrysler.

On the decision to refrain from running the photo, Finley said, “We have a duty to inform the public, and that usually trumps everything else.

“We stand for freedom, for truth-telling. We have won Pulitzer Prizes based on those ideals. We have let everybody down.”

Bradley says he has a conviction that “free speech comes with responsibilities.” For Bradley, the issue is not whether there are limits, but where the line is drawn, and by whom. In his view, a nude portrait of a 17-year-old falls squarely outside the boundaries of propriety for The Pilot. He is certain that publication of the portrait also would have generated a backlash. The contest rules, he conceded, needed a review years ago.

For him, it’s all about the 17-year-old in the nude. Because that rationale doesn’t explain his refusal to honor the second nude award winner — which was neither a self-portrait nor the depiction of a minor — he looks prim.

No decision has been made on The Pilot’s future sponsorship of the Student Gallery contest.

While I stand squarely with Finley on this issue, Bradley deserves applause for his willingness to let all of his critics have their say. I honor him for that.

This controversy will be with The Pilot for longer than we’d like. But Bradley is the boss, and he is willing to live with it; the rest of us have to accept it.

Joyce Hoffmann, the public editor, is an associate professor in the English Department at Old Dominion University. Reach her at (757) 446-2475 or public.editor@pilotonline.com.