Editor:
I was pleased to see the responses defending the life drawing exhibit. If I hadn’t had computer troubles last week I, too, would have written in.
When I was a child, in the ‘50s, our family owned a four-volume set of children’s books published in Britain. It was a kind of encyclopedia with articles on diverse topics. I loved those books. There was a chapter with instructions on making paper hats and paper airplanes, another explained the theory of evolution (also a controversial topic?), and yet another was titled “Why Are There So Many Nude Works of Art?” It explained that – though a child’s initial reaction might be that such things are “silly” or “even rude” – the naked human form is a legitimate artistic subject and could, in fact, be regarded as a thing of beauty. I was always clear on the difference between art and pornography after that.
When my children were small we attended, as a family, several “clothing optional” events, such as the Healing Gathering on Powell Lake. The human body is a natural object, no more inherently obscene than, say, the limbs of a tree.
As to the second point in your April 13 editorial – I agree that Gordon Halloran and Caitlin Hicks over-reacted to the poll. Isn’t the main concern with derelict boats that they are a navigational hazard, especially as they begin to deteriorate and sink? Turning them into art objects doesn’t change that. Though I didn’t vote on the question myself, maybe that’s why others voted against the idea. No need to assume they are all philistines who just don’t understand art! As Marc Theriault points out in his letter, if they need to be made seaworthy for this project, then maybe it’s better to let the boats be boats.
Anne Miles, Gibsons
