When I first saw Rodin’s The Kiss, I was probably no older than ten years old and it has since been one of my favorite pieces. My mother is an avid lover of art and introduced me to many masterpieces at an early age. At that young age, I was in no way sheltered from nudity in art, and as such, when my classmates in junior high giggled in art class at nudes, I was completely comfortable.
The human body is one of God’s most beautiful creations. The intricasy in which it works and houses our souls is perfect in its design. It is no wonder then that the artists of the ages have sought to recreate the beauty of the human form. For me The Kiss is a tribute to God’s creation.
It can be argued that such a piece is not appropriate for display at a Church institution because perhaps it is pornographic in nature. I would disagree as the intent of the piece is not to arouse. The figures are placed in such a way that is tasteful and is meant to show the lines and forms of the human body. Rodin leaves areas of the sculpture undefined and places the hands in ways that are appropriate and natural.
However the thing that bothers me the most about this story is how students were still allowed to study the piece in classes. Art history is much better learned by seeing the pieces than by looking at small pictures in textbooks. The idea that it is appropriate to study the piece in class but it is not appropriate to study the piece in a museum seems to me nonsensical and hypocritical.
I’m sure President Bateman had his reasons to withhold the piece. However, if I ever get the chance to see The Kiss in person, I’ll be there and so will my children.
 |
I really admire how cultured you are in art history! I really admire historical art but I haven't taken an opportunity to see very much of it in person. You made a very good argument and bringing in personal experience really gave it credibility. I really liked how you talked about "The Kiss" being a tribute to God's creation. I never thought of it that way but it's so true and such a beautiful exhibit of natural beauty.
ReplyDeleteI was also irritated when students were allowed to study the piece in class because it seemed like it completely defeated the purpose of President Bateman's decision. I agree with you that it is not meant to arouse people, and that it is more of a tribute to the human body if anything else.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the whole mess involving the art history kids really defeated the arguements against showing the piece. Art History kids at BYU shouldn't be allowed to view pornography, and if this doesn't qualify then it should be displayed in the art museum for all the other kids as well. I mean, come on people. We are college students, we can recognize art as art. It's about time for the adults to start recogniiing that.
ReplyDelete