I agree that magazines, television and Hollywood have exploited the female anatomy, and males, in order to make money. However most of the artists I know aren't in it for the money. We do what we do because we enjoy creating beauty, i.e. Michelangelo's "David," creating works to raise public awareness, i.e. Picasso's "Guernica," and works that just look cool.
Sam Collet's nude paintings at the Salt Lake Public Library are nothing new. The old masters were doing nudes as teenagers. The paintings certainly are not shocking. I've seen more provocative pictures of women in one-piece swimsuits. Actually, I think the paintings are technically weak. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to show them if they were my pieces.As for Barton Carter (Forum Dec. 6), who is he to say that nudes rendered in oil are pornographic? Who is he to decide what the normal standards of decency are?
The female body, and the male, are wonderful creations of nature, or God, if you prefer. Why hide them? Yes, the right clothes can accentuate the beauty that is already there, but clothes don't make the person. If parents are worried that their children will see a nude body before they graduate from high school, they should realize that kids smuggle in porn books to school even as young as kindergarten.
Teach your kids that the human body is not a dirty thing, be open about it and then they won't see it as forbidden fruit.
Paul Jones
Salt Lake City