DaytonDailyNews.com

By Christie

June 10, 2007 9:04 PM | Link to this

Just to clarify…I went to a Marilyn Monroe exhibit. If I wish to see Adny Warhol or Zhao paintings I will go to see their shows. The exhibit was about Marilyn not other’s concepts or distortions of her life but about her life and death as advertised. The main theme was Maryily Monroe and how she lived, her pictures, and her death. It was not advertised as a format for Zhao or Warhol. I loved the real exhibit and especially the one woman play starring Sunny Thompson.

By Amy

June 9, 2007 11:53 PM | Link to this

The human form is the pinnacle of Gods creations, and the number one reason why we need to keep them sacred! I am not ashamed of the human body, but ashamed that someone would use their body in such a demeaning way. It is all about someone making money, gaining influence, and/or becoming famous! Everyone knows that Marilyn did not do these nude photos just for the sake of “ART” so why would we cheapen Art to such a level. Lets show some real ART!

By Ron

June 9, 2007 9:21 PM | Link to this

If Zhao portrayed Nicole Kidman in such a manner would that be considered art, Nicole is a provacative woman. Most likely it would be seen as slanderous and deemed criminal. I guess death gives the artist license to perpetuate his and our twisted view of Marilyn Monroe. The old fashioned notion of “respect for the dead” should, at the very least, be based in truth. The truth is Marilyn did not pose for this painting. It is our collective lie we fool ourselves into believing.

By Ron

June 9, 2007 9:03 PM | Link to this

If Zhao had portrayed Nicole Kidman in such a manner would that pass for art too, we all know Nicole is provacative. Of course it would’nt be considered art. Most likely it would be considered slanderous and criminal. I guess death gives the artist license to perpetuate his and our twisted view of Marilyn Monroe. What happened to the notion of ‘respect for the dead’? Which, in my opinion, should at the very least be based in truth. The truth is Marilyn did not pose for this painting.

By G

June 9, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this

Have you looked at some of the females in the local area? Oakwood, Kettering, and Centerville? Go out any night of the week and you will see young local females….looking like mere prostitutes!!!

By Shantei

June 9, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

Ann, So what you are telling me is all the hoopla is over one painting? Are you serious? I could see if the whole exhibit was porno like, but one painting? It’s may be true that she probably wouldn’t have posed for such a painting(or maybe she would), but that is why it’s called ART.

By Ann

June 9, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this

I believe the majority of posters are overlooking the fact that not all art is fit to be displayed in all venues. I would guess that those offended at the exhibit did not object to the photos of Marilyn. There was an offensive piece of art that was not a photo. The DDN’s article even discusses it:
Mrs. McDonald was definitely offended by Marilyn II, a painting by artist Yongbo Zhao.

“I didn’t like that one with her legs in the air,” she stated. “It was unnecessary, and not a part of her life. That artist is a sick puppy.

The article continues with:

Director of education Susan Anable, who supervises the docent program at the museum, said some docents (museum guides) also initially expressed concern over the Zhao painting.

Should these docents also “stay at home?”. I wonder how many of the people who wrote in even went to the exhibit and are missing the point. The painting by Zhao is not something Marilyn posed for. It is pornographic.

By Give Me A Break

June 9, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

For those who don’t like to view certain types of television programs, there are these innovative devices called the channel changer and the power button, either will solve the problem. For those who don’t like to view nudity, here’s a nifty thing to try, DON’T LOOK or STAY HOME!! Either will solve the problem.

By Give Me A Break

June 9, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

For those who don’t like to view certain types of television programs, there are these innovative devices called the channel changer and the power button, either will solve the problem. For those who don’t like to view nudity, here’s a nifty thing to try, DON’T LOOK or STAY HOME!! Either will solve the problem.

By Sheila

June 9, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

For those offended by certain types of television programs, there are these innovative devices on the television called the channel changer and the power button; either of those will solve the problem. For those offended by nudity, there’s a couple of really neat things you can do - DON’T LOOK or STAY HOME!!

By charlie

June 9, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

How does one define what is art? I agree with a majority of the posters here. This is no different than any other expression of the human form, she is not doing anything in the image remotely provactive. Perhaps, if people would look, compare, and reflect on the other images in the museum, they might see that this is yet another refelction on the representation of form. Marilyn, is no different than any other artist’s model- image captured in marble, oils, or celluloid; it’s all the same.

By charlie

June 9, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

How does one define what is art? I agree with a majority of the posters here. This is no different than any other epression of the human form, she is not doing anything in the image remotely provactive. Perhaps, if people would look, compare, and reflect on the other images in the museum, they might see that this is yet another refelction on the representation of form. Marilyn, is no different than any other artist’s model- image captured in marble, oils, or celluloid; it’s all the same.

By Howard

June 9, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

Porn or nudity, does the reporter or DDN know the difference. Porn usually is some kind of sexual act, nudity is being naked. I doubt if the DAI is showing porn pictures of Miss Monroe.. We American are so hung up on nudity..

By Shantei

June 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

We are all mature adults, so why are people offended? This is Marilyn Monroe we are talking about. Everyone knows that she was a woman who wasn’t inhibited about herself, so that isn’t your cup of tea, why go see her? People make huge deals about the smallest things and we got a lot of other things going on in this world other then people “crying” over some nude pictures. Get a life.

By jj

June 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

If you dont want to see nudity. Stay Home People.

By jj

June 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

If you dont want to see nudity. Stay Home People.

By Diane

June 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

So……if it were a Reubem, or Degas or heaven forbid a Picasso,it’s ok…yet a photo of Marilyn NAKED. Holey moley……People get a life

By Diane

June 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

So……if it were a Reubem, or Degas or heaven forbid a Picasso,it’s ok…yet a photo of Marilyn NAKED. Holey moley……People get a life

By Melinda

June 9, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Marilyn Monroe was no Sunday School teacher so why you thought you’d go to an exhibit with her as the focus and NOT see her nearly nude is BEYOND me. Her body was beautiful and natural…not starved down to size -0 or plumped with silicone and paralyzed with Botox. If every naked woman is “pornographic” or “perverted” in your mind, you should probably spend your free time on a psychiatrist’s couch rather than in the art museum. There was nothing offensive about what we viewed last weekend.

By Cappy Badmitten-Van Houten

June 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

I just love your little “Provincial Art Collection”, it’s campy, how you have used manufactured pop icons to attract the average ‘Jack and ‘Vonda’, to the place. Perhaps next we could have a readings from ‘The Expolits of Batboy’ from the National Enquirer. It’s cute how this little ville, tries to make ‘art’ accessible the the masses.

By Stephen Bickford

June 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Oscar Wilde was right.

By Arvil Combs

June 9, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

I gotta agree with that thar Vonda. It’s that thar pri=ovincal midwestern brar-hopper mentality that’s git us all stuck here in east day-town and aguin with them blacks orta west day-town. buddy! and all them good jobs at Frigidaire and the Caish and Dayton tar and rubber is gone and Larry Flint don’t even print Hustler here no more. What this here town needs is another good flood. Hey Tillson, start the planning for a 100th Anniv is 2013…flood art! Yee haw!

By Vonda

June 9, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

I think its all them movie stars that us people in truble. That Linsley, and that there Madona. If that was normal people doing that their pics wuld not be in the art museum

By Emmett Thornton Beaver

June 9, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Yer doin a helluva job Brownie -I mean Brad Tillson! While other museums get traveling Picasso shows, Maggrite and Caravagio exhibitions, DAI gets a cheap, ephemera tragedy -Marilyn Monroe. What did patrons expect? A “newspaper” editor is now running an “Art” museum? Remember Tillson’s “Inventing Flight” debacle? It appears that his next trick is to dumb down our great DAI into post modern trailer-trash and to play up this rote, nudity gag so we won’t notice the plastic pink flamingos.

By Emmett Thornton Beaver

June 9, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Yer doin a helluva job Brownie -I mean Brad Tillson! While other museums get traveling Picasso shows, Maggrite and Caravagio exhibitions, DAI gets a cheap, ephemera tragedy -Marilyn Monroe. What did patrons expect? A “newspaper” editor is now running an “Art” museum? Remember Tillson’s “Inventing Flight” debacle? It appears that his next trick is to dumb down our great DAI into post modern trailer-trash and to play up this rote, nudity gag so we won’t notice the plastic pink flamingos.

By Gunther

June 9, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Im not sure what the big deal is about Miss Monroe anyway, but anyone that is offended by nudity should have never pulled their head out of their *@& in the first place.

By steve

June 9, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Ahhhh, Dayton. What a great town to be from (and no longer live IN).

By FedUp

June 9, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

I hope the prudes who complain are never subjected to that masterpiece nude pornographic statue of David by Michelangelo. David is nude, you know! AND circumcised! Better stay home if you are offended at the DAI. Oh, and turn off your TV, you might see an ad for a bra. Gee, I wonder if these same prudish Victorian morons are offended by the Bush/Cheney obscenity in Iraq? Bunch o’ jaggoffs!!

By Erin

June 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I’m not a regular at the DAI, but I do remember a considerable amount of nude art while waiting in line at the Diana exhibit.

By Nate

June 9, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Right on “Amy”.

By painfultruth

June 9, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

I need a reality check? Stating the Ashcroft issue is but one person who decided to do something odd. Using Ashcroft as a yardstick to measure conservatives? OK, Bill Clinton, IMPEACHED for lying about “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”, means all Democratic liberals are sex obsessed pathological liars. Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot. There’s a big difference between a conservative and a right-wing bible thumper. I also don’t believe in censorship.

By Jelane

June 9, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

To “Unnamed”: Whoa! “Most of the locals are going to be offended”? Maybe you should pull your head into the sunshine and actually meet some of us. Most of the people I know here think that the complaints about this exhibit are ridiculous and that the photos are gorgeous and they are definitely art.

By Amy

June 9, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

The human form—male or female—is beautiful. Perversion is in the mind, NOT the figure. Anyone who was offended by the exhibit probably sees the human body as nothing but a dwelling place for sexuality and sin (these people are the reason I left church!) They are the same people who think breast-feeding is “dirty” or “disgusting.” They are sad and ignorant individuals.

By W.H. Jamison

June 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Marilyn was the creation of an artist with brown hair and freckles named Norma Jean. Like Frankenstein she created the monster that would destroy her. Who was she? We don’t know, because in the end she did’t either. Marilyn Monroe was just the mask she could not remove, because we would not let her. Hers is a sad and lonely tale, she was loved for the illusion, but never for herself. May she rest in peace.

By Cheyenne

June 9, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

My question is people know that Marilyn was known for being provacative in her day and age-so why are you offended by the materials displayed? if you are offended, why did you go in the first place? It is a form of art, and like most others have commented, many statues have male genitiala displayed, and noone is offended by that. I say if you are not mature enough to see the pictures as an art form, then you dont need to be going to view the materials in the first place.

By Charlie

June 9, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

The pictures are beautiful, simple, and exposing a vulnerability that would soon lead to her undoing. It amazes me how people could fing this offensive. They are not lewd or lascivious, they are just pictures. It isn’t any different than a nude painted in the Renaissance, or a Hellenistic Greek Sculpture. I guess the ‘holier than thou’ people that are judging this forget that when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they couldn’t run to the GAP for Classic Pocket T’s and Vintage Capri’s.

By Caroline

June 9, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Unnamed, who around here actually burns books???? I don’t know why this argument has become a conservative/liberal argument. I do think it is funny that people are offended by this considering that a lot of the art at DAI that includes nudes. Of course, these are painted or statues, but still—art always has a lot of nudity.

By Joaniesgarden

June 9, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Dear Barb, It is in Oakwood. ;) I was referring to the dark side of the Puritan ethic. Perceiving pleasure as sinful. John Calvin,it’s founder, banned laughter, happiness and pleasure as ‘suspect and undesirable in literal biblical interpretation. Seems we had to go to heaven to experience it. Living simply, working hard and being thrifty have always been positive attributes.

By Barb C

June 9, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

The next thing you know a shirtless baseball player will be called pornographic too.

By tomhorne

June 9, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

So many holier than thou individuals make an attempt to show us they are above such things. To love is to love the human form, not pretend to love. Given the fact that the exhibit was known to be sensual in nature, I believe sincerely that all who have gone and complained are the worst hypocrites in our society and are guilty of trying to condemn that which they are incapable of understanding. We should feel sorry for what they are missing, and their attitude toward the rest of us who appreciate

By Greg

June 9, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

If you are bothered by some of what you see at a true art exhibit, which is presenting what something of real value then why in the world do you still have cable in your home? There is far worse and much less value in some of what is available on TV.

By tomhorne

June 9, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Since the beginning of time, we have been delighted and yes even titillated by the sheer beauty of the female form. However if you are mature enough to look at it as art, you will begin to see, even in nature, that the form is the most equisite and flowing of any created. Consider the early artists, they knew the most inviting of art consisted of the female body, I mean come on, only so many bowls of fruit can capture your imagination for so long. Puritan thoughts are valuable, beauty is also.

By Unnamed

June 9, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

You are asking this question in a very conservative close-minded area of the country. Most of the locals are going to be offended, the same ones who “burn books.” Art is art people, lighten up and get into the real world and stop being so easily offended by the human body (by the way we all have one in case you don’t look in the mirror when you get out of the shower). I agree with Bob’s comment above. And the Art Police, you crack me up.

By Joaniesgarden

June 9, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

‘painfultruth’? Get a reality check. Remember Ashcroft and the covering of the bust with curtains behind him? The ‘Puritan’ ethic runs deep in conservatism. The human body has always been a problem for people who see it as a sin. It was one of the reasons Hugh Hefner wanted it opened up for all the world to see in the fifties. Just ask the Taliban and other extremist religions how they feel about the exposure of the female form and the woman who dares bare a leg will likely be stoned to death.

By Robert S. Black

June 9, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

I was amused that a previous comment stated that “liberals” would be offended. You don’t have to think too far back to remember that our federal Attorney General, John Ashcroft, an ardent conservative, was offended by a nude statue in his briefing area and had it covered up during his briefings. You should also remember that the recent FCC rulings against “porn” etc have all been enacted by conservatives in a conservative administration.

By The Art Police

June 9, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Quick! Someone wrap a towel around the torso of Michelangelo’s David!

By Bob

June 9, 2007 7:37 AM | Link to this

Apparently the people offended by the nudity in the Marilyn exhibit have never ventured to the other parts of the DAI or any other art museum. It’s pornographic if its intent is to create sexual excitement and arousal. Are all the men at the DAI holding their museum brochures over their pants? If not, then it’s probably not pornographic.

By John

June 9, 2007 6:59 AM | Link to this

How disigenuous of anyone who thought they’d visit the DAI Marilyn exhibit and NOT see some nudity! The exhibit is about Marilyn. It exemplifies her ability to make millions happy, and shows how very vulnerable she really was. Sensuality and nudity were simply a part of her. I loved the exhibit and would see it again and again. To those who don’t see some of the photos as art: grow up and get over it.

By painfultruth

June 9, 2007 6:32 AM | Link to this

Oh, gosh, golly and gee whiz! Somebody was “offended”? My, my my, how tragic! First, the DDN has a story about someone offended by a Starbucks cup saying.Now, somebody is offended by photos. Our world is becoming SO dangerous! What is comical is it’s usually a whining liberal that preaches “tolerance and acceptance”, yet when it’s something THEY don’t like, it should be banned! I’m afraid to go anywhere now because I might be OFFENDED!!!

By Rodney

June 9, 2007 6:32 AM | Link to this

Marilyn Monroe built her career around her sex appeal. The exhibit coundn’t be shown without those nude photos included. Otherwise, it would be censorship. I say to those people against it, get a life! These people would probably like to see all the great works of art that depict nudity wearing clothes, even, Michael Angelo’s statue of David.

By Dana RN

June 9, 2007 6:32 AM | Link to this

I have seen some of the photos that are at the DAI. They were shown by the photographer that shot the most, probably the best ever photographs of Marilyn. I didn’t find them pornographic, personally. I would think anyone going to a collection of Marilyn Monroe photos would have to think there just might be a few that are “revealing”. Some people are just prudish and overly inhibited about the human body. She was very beautiful and sensuous. Get over it people.