Letters

The reverend weighs in

To the editor:

I read with interest (Kevin Lee’s) article in the April 12, 2006-April 25, 2006 issue of Lagniappe regarding Space 301 and policies about frontal nudity.

Last spring, I believe it was, William Chesser, now-deceased director of Chesser Gallery, suggested that I submit a piece of my art work at a “peoples’ show” at Space 301. I was told for a $10 fee anyone in the Mobile Register area could submit a piece of art work which would be judged by the public at the opening.

When I registered, I was asked to place my piece in the storage area with the other entrants. On leaving I noticed a painting by Christian Zane. It was a rather “dark” painting, and as I recall, it had as a subject a nude androgynous Statue of Liberty-esque figure with female breasts and male genitalia. Personally, it is not the kind of painting I would like to hang in my collection. However, it had artistic merit technically. It was not pornographic in my opinion.

I am grateful to report that my own painting was given a very prominent place in the show. I am an abstract expressionist, and as such there are no figures (human or otherwise) or even landscapes in my work; just lots of color and gestural markings. When I inquired about the whereabouts of Ms. Zane’s painting opening night, I was told that it was not in the show because it contained frontal nudity. I was shocked and found the decision difficult to believe.

I spoke with Ms. Carlos Parkman at the opening. She was very nice and cordial. Ms. Parkman told me the Zane painting could not be shown because of frontal nudity. She said it was a rule of the Mobile Register, and the Mobile Register was both a sponsor of the show and owner of the building in which Space 301 resides. Ms. Parkman also shared with me that a gentleman had withdrawn $250,000 because of frontal nudity in a former show. And finally, she justified the action by stating that children frequented exhibits at Space 301.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. She asked me to be patient with the art scene in Mobile, as she hoped things would improve in the future. Ms. Parkman did allow as how they let Ms. Zane enter another piece – a head of St. Francis. I find that not only an insult to Ms. Zane, but to St. Francis who embraced the whole of creation.

I informed Ms. Parkman that after that show, I would not be able to participate again in Space 301, and, further, that I would not be able to contribute financially to an institution with such rules. I do not paint nudes, but I do defend the right of fellow artists to do so, and to have equal access.

Recently, my wife and I returned from Paris. While we were there we had an experience at the Auguste Rodin Museum that made me compare it with my experience last spring at the peoples’ show at Space 301. I regret my camera battery had died. What we saw were any number of preschool children’s classes taking tours and studying human anatomy. I wish you could have seen the children as their teachers led them through their lessons of first a male nude statue and then a female nude statue. There was no giggling or embarrassed expressions – just innocent, precious children experiencing fine art.

I thought Space 301 was about fine art. Fine art always has and still embraces the human anatomy, including frontal nudity. Everyone knows that. Not to allow frontal nudity is to deny fine art. I am embarrassed by and ashamed of the Mobile art scene at Space 301. It just goes to show that Mobile continues to be locked up in passé Victorian, if not Puritanical, sensibilities and remains a backwater wannabe art center. Mobile’s successful art future depends on wiser decisions.

Thank you for your article.

The Reverend Canon T. Mark Dunnam

Canon to the Ordinary

Episcopal Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast

Mobile

Archives