Yarborough Threatens to Defund MOCA, because "PORN"
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Culture/MOCA-Jacksonville/Councilman-Clay/i-j6NDRk9/0/O/pornography_400.jpg)
A guest editorial by Thony Aiuppy. Recently, City Council President Clay Yarborough declared a photographic image at MOCA as "pornography". Then he threatened to defund MOCA if the image was not removed.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-dec-yarborough-threatens-to-defund-moca-because-porn (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-dec-yarborough-threatens-to-defund-moca-because-porn)
As usual the "World's Biggest Hick Town" must uphold its longstanding reputation.
Fall must be the season of 'Facsimile Thread Awareness' or something...
Sounds like this guy never took an art history class
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,23179.msg397339.html#msg397339
what a prude. needs to grow up.
I predict his political career is over..
Small government, christian fundementalist conservative using big government strategy to define art...seems legit.
Good lord, come out of the closet already Clay!
I think we should defund city council, they've done more damage to the children who have to live in this city after these idiots are gone.
Angela Strassheim 'quite shocked' by Clay Yarborough labeling her MOCA photo 'pornographic'QuotePolednik also said she was disappointed to hear about the situation after Brown's administration was asked to intervene instead of hearing from Yarborough himself. She said that feedback "good, bad or otherwise" is important for exhibits and she would have been the right person to talk to about the issue.
Chris Hand, Brown's chief of staff, said Yarborough's request was forwarded to the Office of General Counsel, given the possible First Amendment implications.
The Cultural Council has weighed in, saying it "stands ready to defend the artistic and curatorial choices of our cultural service grantees." The council called Yarborough's objection unfortunate.
Yarborough said those responses suggest unwillingness to compromise, which is "unfortunate in this situation because I believe a solution that protects the rights of children and all others is within reach."
Since his viewpoint was made public last week, Yarborough said he's received about an even split of support and opposition on the issue.
Strassheim said Yarborough is entitled to his values, but not to impose them on the world at-large.
"I am proud of the museum for standing by their beliefs in the freedom of expression and by me," she said.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=544411
Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?
Quote from: funguy on December 01, 2014, 11:33:40 AM
I predict his political career is over..
Hardly. He will now have a base of support city-wide rather than simply in his own district.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 01, 2014, 02:32:49 PM
Hardly. He will now have a base of support city-wide rather than simply in his own district.
Did anyone decent run against this man-child?
(http://i.imgur.com/8l6anES.jpg)
I think the problem is we don't even have good candidates in any of these races. Look at the last mayor race - brown and hogan, not the best choices IMO.
Quote from: edjax on December 01, 2014, 02:30:57 PM
Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?
Good question - kind of stokes the idea that it is controversial to show art depicting a nude woman, particularly a nude pregnant woman.
Not really. People can have different sensibilities when it comes to nudity.
The issue is Clay threatening to attempt defunding of MOCA because he is personally offended by an image.
For me, it's not really an issue of "is this image appropriate"?
The issue is that Clay's reaction is completely inappropriate.
We had our faculty show the same night as the opening. Many said he was at the opening. If this is true, this means he had days before his fit of rage. I am just curious if this isn't based on his opinion alone- or some kind of funding source/ not please wit the show and taking their politician puppet acting-out for them. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is Jacksonville politicians we are talking about.
Quote from: TheCat on December 01, 2014, 04:46:49 PM
Not really. People can have different sensibilities when it comes to nudity.
The issue is Clay threatening to attempt defunding of MOCA because he is personally offended by an image.
For me, it's not really an issue of "is this image appropriate"?
The issue is that Clay's reaction is completely inappropriate.
Yes really, wrong context. The two are inextricably tied. Clay's reaction is twofold - one is his reaction against the photograph itself, classifying it as porn/bad (and some actually view porn as a form of art). The other is his way of handling it.
The MJ article covers both sides of the issue. Thus it stands to reason that if MJ's take is that the photo itself is not conceivably inappropriate or porn, there is no reason to blatantly conceal the controversial components of the picture.
Edjax raised a good question. It does, in fact, diminish any argument being made here by concealment.
Quote from: TheCat on December 01, 2014, 04:46:49 PM
Not really. People can have different sensibilities when it comes to nudity.
The issue is Clay threatening to attempt defunding of MOCA because he is personally offended by an image.
For me, it's not really an issue of "is this image appropriate"?
The issue is that Clay's reaction is completely inappropriate.
Very weak.
Quote from: edjax on December 01, 2014, 02:30:57 PM
Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?
Yes! This is also my question. The TU was almost burned at the stake for censoring a photo online (where they had a NSFW link attached) and now this photo is reproduced here. Why? Double standard? Who was responsible for the leading letter's photo? Very curious.
^^^ If the picture in question was never reproduced in any medium or social media, it's still is not appropriate to use political power to further your personal concept of morality or acceptability. If it were simply a picture of a girl in a prom dress and it reminded you of an awful time you once had at a high school dance, it still wouldn't be right to threaten to withhold the public's tax dollars from a museum with its own governing body and its own set of standards. You speak to them first, if you are so inclined to make an unfounded accusation against an established artist.
I want to comment on this issue but I can barely find words that are appropriate. I can't even wrap my head around Yarborough's view. I truly believe people like him should NEVER hold office. His views on everything are sickening. I can't even stand to scroll up and look at his constipated expression. I am from this area but I am truly ashamed that we have a plethora of tiny minded people not only living here but holding office. If I was younger I would leave Jacksonville. Sorry guys but it get worse and worse every year. Backward conservative thinking has completely consumed the place. My cousins who grew up here and moved to Seattle never want to come back. I can't blame them!
He had token opposition in the 2009 race. I think the Dems just conceded the seat to him.
No, sadly, his political career is not over. I predict he will run for Lake Ray's seat - he's term-limited - in 2016. He will use the time between his Council term ending mid-2015 and the 2016 election "spending time with his family," building his Tea Party bona-fides, and knocking on doors (which is how he won the Council seat originally).
C'mon Duval Democratic Party - field some viable candidates.
jealous rage?
Has Yarborough made any statement at all since his initial remarks or is he silent?
Quote from: Jax native on December 01, 2014, 07:28:00 PM
Quote from: edjax on December 01, 2014, 02:30:57 PM
Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?
Yes! This is also my question. The TU was almost burned at the stake for censoring a photo online (where they had a NSFW link attached) and now this photo is reproduced here. Why? Double standard? Who was responsible for the leading letter's photo? Very curious.
Ironically, the TU has the image of the unedited photo on their site (nsfw, or clay, contains a boobie):
http://jacksonville.com/slideshow/2014-11-27/unedited-version-nude-photo-pregnant-woman-museum-contemporary-art-jacksonville#slide-1
Yarborough was meeting yesterday with MOCA on a compromise.
His choice of words was wrong, but his idea was right, move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children. A simple compromise, which is what he should have asked for in the first place before his use of the word pornography.
It would have been better to see some protesters dressed up like dancers from The Gold Club, to show the world what real pornography looks like, but alas, not even 117 West Duval Street is ready for what happens on the streets in Midtown Atlanta during a real protest of the arts.
First time in a very long time that I have agreed with something that Littlepage has written.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-12-04/story/ron-littlepage-yarborough-doesnt-deserve-be-mocked
Yarborough's idea was not right. His rant was not for the sake of the children nor the parents, it was a knee jerk reaction stemming from his personal prejudice. It was not a calculated political move, it was simply his true colors coming out. As to any name calling or making fun of him now, it is the only way to call those types of beliefs out for what they are. Ron Littlepage did not get this one right.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 05, 2014, 05:47:57 AM
...move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children.
(http://www.buzztorah.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/what-about-the-children-2.jpg)
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 05, 2014, 05:47:57 AM
Yarborough was meeting yesterday with MOCA on a compromise.
His choice of words was wrong, but his idea was right, move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children. A simple compromise, which is what he should have asked for in the first place before his use of the word pornography.
It would have been better to see some protesters dressed up like dancers from The Gold Club, to show the world what real pornography looks like, but alas, not even 117 West Duval Street is ready for what happens on the streets in Midtown Atlanta during a real protest of the arts.
Why is it that only American
adults children are susceptible to the evils of simple nudity? What exactly will happen to one of these children if they see a breast that is so bad? Will young boys spontaneously enter puberty and begin furiously masturbating? Will young girls need to immediately run back to their Barbie dolls to re-establish the correct form of the female body? Honest question. We as a society certainly don't have any issues exposing children to copious amounts of violence in the news and media.
The worst thing I can see imagine to any type of "child" seeing this portrait is that 8-10 year old boys might giggle for about 3 seconds.
The real question should be this: Why are taxpayers forced to support an art museum anyway? If art is so wonderful, let it pay its own way. Why would you take money forcefully (and taxes are forceful, make no doubt about it) from taxpayers for "art"? If YOU like this stuff, feel free to support it, but don't force ME to support it. That is the heart of the matter. Government should only provide services unable to be procured otherwise, like roads, police, court system, etc.
Didn't get his way. Announced his apology.
Per jacksonville.com:
http://jacksonville.com/news/2014-12-08/story/jacksonville-city-council-president-ready-move-moca-controversy (http://jacksonville.com/news/2014-12-08/story/jacksonville-city-council-president-ready-move-moca-controversy)
Jacksonville City Council president ready to move on from controversy over nude photo at MOCA
After meeting with and apologizing for not initially contacting the director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Jacksonville City Council President Clay Yarborough said he's disappointed the downtown museum will not remove a photograph of a nude women but is ready to "move on" from the controversy.
Here's Yarborough's full statement:
""I apologized to Director Polednik for not contacting her initially. I also learned the director and board are responsible for content and have the ability to safeguard children from mature material without stifling expression, so I asked whether anything would be done to protect children exposed to a large photograph of a naked woman without having to pay admission when they enter the taxpayer-owned, public building. Ironically, after volunteering that her child has never seen a television and when they go into private homes where a television is on, she requests it be turned off, Director Polednik's exact response was, "Regrettably, no." She and Board Chair Gellatly expressed it would reflect poorly on them if they were willing to compromise. Though I unwaveringly believe this weakens Jacksonville's moral climate and hope the board will, at-minimum, consider a disclaimer similar to what is used in other public forums, there are other important issues that we must move on to address."
Fortunately, both Yarborough and Lumb will be off the Council by the time the next budget discussion is underway - so they can't move to eliminate all arts funding.
Jacksonville's moral climate? What is that exactly?
^humid.
Quote from: spuwho on December 08, 2014, 09:42:35 PM
Here's Yarborough's full statement:
""I apologized to Director Polednik for not contacting her initially. I also learned the director and board are responsible for content and have the ability to safeguard children from mature material without stifling expression, so I asked whether anything would be done to protect children exposed to a large photograph of a naked woman without having to pay admission when they enter the taxpayer-owned, public building. Ironically, after volunteering that her child has never seen a television and when they go into private homes where a television is on, she requests it be turned off, Director Polednik's exact response was, "Regrettably, no." She and Board Chair Gellatly expressed it would reflect poorly on them if they were willing to compromise. Though I unwaveringly believe this weakens Jacksonville's moral climate and hope the board will, at-minimum, consider a disclaimer similar to what is used in other public forums, there are other important issues that we must move on to address."
(http://www.themanhattanwelldiggers.com/images/about_hole.gif)