About
Membership
Chapters
Convention
Awards
Programs
Students
Educators
News
Sponsorship
Donate
Publications
Resources
Workplace
Space

Space

 

Case Study
Educators Toolbox > Featured Case Study > Case Study Archive

Original Story

Los Angeles Times
Sunday, October 2, 2005

Section: Main News; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 21
Headline: Plan for Statue of Nudes Exposes Seattle's Modesty

Byline: Sam Howe Verhovek

Stuart Smailes was a jolly, potbellied man, proudly gay, with a walrus mustache and a passion for Broadway shows, merry-go-rounds and calliopes, his friends say.

But most of all, he was an art buff—so much of a buff that he left a $1-million bequest for a fountain sculpture to the city of Seattle, with an unusual stipulation: It had to include a naked man.

"He was adamant that he wanted the nude figure," said one of his best friends, Tom Luhnow. "Stu loved classical sculptures of nude males. And he really wanted to provoke a discussion about art."

Or, as his lawyer, Tim Bradbury, put it: "Stu wanted to push the envelope."

Smailes has succeeded in that aim.

The Seattle Art Museum announced last week that it would use the Smailes bequest for a fountain titled "Father and Son," created by French-born New York sculptor Louise Bourgeois. It depicts a man and a boy, both nude with a transparent cloak of gushing water, reaching toward each other.

The work is one of several pieces to be installed in the city's 8.5-acre waterfront Olympic Sculpture Park, scheduled to open next year.

Museum officials say the sculpture is profound, but not everyone agrees.

Bourgeois, 94 and internationally renowned, "took the classical subject matter of mother and child, and turned it on its ear," said Lisa Corrin, the chief curator at the museum.

"Nudity in this work is a symbol of emotional nakedness; the two figures stand before each other but cannot touch; they try to see each other, but never see eye to eye; they are separated by bell jars of cascading water, which prevent any contact between them."

Others see it less positively.

"A thinly veiled homage to pedophilia," said John Carlson, a conservative talk radio host in Seattle who was the Republican candidate for governor in 2000 in a losing race.

Or, as the Rev. Joseph Fuiten put it, criticizing the proposed design as "bizarre" and "blatant phallic symbolism" that should be scrapped: "My father never approached me naked."

"When we have children, we teach them that if a child is approached by a naked man, it's simply not appropriate," said Fuiten, the pastor at Cedar Park Assembly of God church in Bothell, Wash., and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Network, an evangelical Christian lobbying group.

Compounding the controversy is a sketch the artist did earlier in her career, also titled "Father and Son," which some critics of the project say has a clear sexual overtone.

Dori Monson, another Seattle talk radio host, has posted that sketch on his station's website, and he said the sculpture was "very odd.... I understand that art is art, but I really question what we're doing here. I don't think it would ever be appropriate for a naked man to reach out to a naked boy."

The museum says the sculpture planned for Seattle has no indication of sexual arousal.

"To look at these figures and see something inappropriate, you'd have to have a very prurient mind," said Corrin, the curator. "It's simply not there."

Smailes, a retired computer analyst for Safeco who was 69 when he died in 2002 and whose bequest was made public early this year, would have been pleased by the fracas over the sculpture, his friend Luhnow said.

"He really wanted to challenge the city," said Luhnow, the director of two singing groups, the Seattle Men's Chorus and the Seattle Women's Chorus. "He thought Seattle was a bit prudish underneath its sophistication, and he wanted to test that. If he caused a little consternation, he would have been delighted by that."

Smailes never married, had no children or siblings, and did not have a partner at the time of his death, his friends say. He loved to travel and especially liked the classical nude statuary one might find in Rome or Paris, and he wanted it in Seattle.

Fuiten, the minister, said his objection to the sculpture was not nakedness per se.

"A naked male figure in art is not news," Fuiten said. "This flap is not about nudity. It's about the nudity of a man and a boy. We do have people in this city who believe boys and men ought to be able to coexist in a naked environment, but nobody who is not a pedophile would be in that category."

Countered Corrin: "It is not inappropriate for an artist to be taking on something that is deeply, deeply human. And for all of us to ask the question, 'What is it that upsets some people so much about the nude male figure, which is one of the most beautiful forms on earth— whether you are gay or straight?' "

Controversies over naked figures are not new, of course.

Former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft created a flap in 2002 when he had drapes installed over the bare breast in the statue "Spirit of Justice" at the Justice Department's ceremonial Great Hall. (The covering has since been removed.)

And some objected at the unveiling in 2000 of a naked bronze in honor of tennis great Arthur Ashe at the National Tennis Center in New York.

As the controversy over the Seattle sculpture continues to provoke protest and provide talk radio fodder, one thing is clear: Smailes got what he wanted.

"He's probably in heaven right now smiling a very broad smile," Corrin said. "This is exactly the sort of conversation he wanted us to be having."

Discussion Questions

  • Assess the information value and/or ethics of this article describing Smailes—especially very early in this article—as "jolly, potbellied man, proudly gay, with a walrus mustache and a passion for Broadway shows, merry-go-rounds and calliopes." The description furthers stereotypes of gay men, and the description of him is irrelevant to the point of the story.
  • Assess the use of Rev. Joseph Fuiten as a source in the article. The article includes no indication as to the size of the Cedar Park Assembly of God church congregation; whether he speaks for his entire congregation; whether his public statements on this fountain sculpture are unusual or whether he frequently speaks to the media about art, perceived moral lapses in the public sphere, parenting, etc.; whether the Faith and Freedom Network is a local, state, or national lobbying organization and whether Fuiten is speaking for it as well here. There is no indication whether Fuiten has any credentials about the psychology of family life, the sociology of family, etc., above and beyond the fact that he is the pastor of one church in a city with hundreds. In fact, Fuiten uses only his relationship with own father as a benchmark of what is normal and what is not normal in American families. He also clearly implies that all male nudists are pedophiles, an assertion that the reporter made no attempt to rebut through quoting other sources, or leaving it out of the story entirely because of its ridiculousness.
  • Assess the use of Dori Monson as a source in the article. Unlike Carlson, who apparently has an arguably legitimate political career, Monson is not credited with having any artistic qualifications that suggest he is a credible source to judge a sculpture as "very odd" and that it is beyond artistically and critically accepted bounds of "art as art." He is not credited with having any anthropological, historical, psychological, sociological or medical qualifications that would make him an appropriate source to quote as saying, "I don't think it would ever be appropriate for a naked man to reach out to a naked boy."
  • Assess the article's use of the "Spirit of Justice" statue controversy and the Arthur Ashe statue controversy as background or context information. Is this information helpful and/or relevant? It's not helpful because it's not relevant, and it's not relevant at all for all kinds of reasons—not least of which is that it implies some equivalence between John Ashcroft as U.S. Attorney General and the Rev. Joseph Fuiten of Bothell, Washington.
  • Assess the article's use of Smailes' friend and Smailes' attorney as sources in this article. After all, there is no indication that they are experts on art, morals, nudity or anything else other than choral singing and the law, respectively. They know what Smailes wanted—why he left the money—including the possibility that Smailes predicted the controversy and told the friend and lawyer to prepare for it. It can be assumed here that neither Monson nor Carlson nor Fuiten knew Smailes or had even ever heard of him.
  • The reporter seems to have attempted some sort of "balance" in this article, with Bradbury, Corrin, Luhnow, Bourgeois, and the Smailes' will on one side, and Fuiten, Carlson, Monson, Ashcroft, and critics of the Ashe statue on the other side. Is this necessary? No, accuracy and even objectivity is not just about a contrived, often misleading, goal of balance, especially when it leads to sources—especially bad sources—making factual errors and/or stating opinions that they are not qualified to state. Is this desirable, in terms of furthering goals such as accurately communicating the news without omitting or distorting any of it? Obviously not.
  • What is the most basic problem with this story as journalism? Anyone can make any claims they want to, and anyone can complain about anything they want to, but it doesn't mean that they are qualified to make those claims/complaints, and most claims/complaints by even public officials, let alone other public figures, are not necessarily even newsworthy.