Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Kelly Ogle opposes Nude Angelina Jolie

See this beautiful work of art? Kelly Ogle opposes this. He says it is perverted.

Maybe he is perverted. Maybe this beautiful work of art opposes Kelly Ogle.

For those who are confused, a bronze life-size park statue of the beautiful Angelina Jolie breastfeeding a baby is coming to Norman. It will be unveiled at the MAINSITE Contemporary Art Gallery in Downtown Norman on Sept. 11, as a tribute to World Breastfeeding Week. Why Norman? The artist behind the statue, Daniel Edwards, suggests it is because Brad Pitt was born and raised minutes from here. If you ask Kelly Ogle however, he asserts that it is here just to rile up folks in the Bible Belt. But pardon me for stating the obvious, was anyone riled up about it before Kelly Ogle featured it on the nightly segment where News 9 lets Kelly go wild with his own free mic time? No.

Last night Kelly Ogle said, "And the idea of putting the sculpture in a metro park..well, no problem, as long as you..make it realistic. Take the piece back to your studio, put some CLOTHES ON HER, and cuddle the nursing babies under a cute little blanket." In other words, cover them damn babies up!

The comments got worse tonight when they turned it around and aired comments from viewers. Oh my God. There must be a low-mark for intelligence that they're shooting for when they solicit comments from viewers.
"How do you explain the statue to your 5 year old?" - Cindy, OKC
I don't know. Gee that is a really good question. I think, because of this statue, you might have to sit your 5 year old down and give them a really serious talk about breastfeeding. This is like asking how you explain eating to someone who just got done eating 5 minutes ago. Whatever Cindy from OKC is on, I want some of it..
"Even my 15 yr. old daughter thought that it was TOO much!" Kathy, Edmond
How is it too much? I'm dying to know. In Europe art often celebrates the human body, and as a result, it's not "too much" for them to have nude sculptures. In America we don't like to see nude sculptures, either because we don't have as much class, it makes us feel like crap about our own bodies, or we aren't nearly as artistically advanced as our European brethren.
"If we allow it, watch out for what else is installed later on." James, Del City
Yeah no kidding. I'm sure one minute you allow a tribute to a woman breastfeeding, the next minute they'll be clamoring to put up hard-core sex scenes around it and then even adults couldn't go near the park after that. That makes sense. I think James needs to stop watching video he taped of women breastfeeding and go out and get a life.
"This is another assault on Oklahoma's Christian values." - Steve, OKC
I think it could be an assault on Oklahoma values, but not the Christian ones. A lot of really important Christian art features nude women figures. Angels are almost always depicted as partially-clothed figures. Christ is even often depicted as nude. Back then there wasn't as much negative dogma around the idea of a naked body. Art truly celebrated the beauty of the human body. I'll go easy here because Steve could be a reader of my blog.
"This would send the wrong message to children especially young boys." Kerry, Hammon
What is the right message to send, then? Don't breastfeed! Don't bring your infant babies out in public! Keep that breastfeedin' and them infant babies confined to your own home! ??
"To force a work of art such as this into a dress code and behind walls where it will be seen by fewer people who really need more enlightenment is disappointing." -Joe, OKC
Finally a voice of reason. This whole business of --Ooh! Hide them naked babies, and that naked mama!-- is just outright ignorant. The only reason that a nude sculpture is even remotely inappropriate is because the Nazi right insist that nude art is demonic and anti-God. The demonic nature is just a figment of their imagination, but as long as people agree that it's deplorable, perception is everything, and we will remain culturally inferior to Europe. Let's compare America next to Europe:

On a positive note, it has been hardly discouraging for the artist. The Norman community has at least been receptive to the idea, where people reacted positively to the touching tribute to the mother-child relationship, and liked the idea of celebrating Brad Pitt's Oklahoma roots. Artist Daniel Edwards is also planning a project with an Edmond artist to build a house they call "The Brangelina," according to Channel 5's website.


OK Dude said...

Personally, I think it is odd and a bit weird. I think the guy is obsessed with celebrities. Have you seen his other works of art? He is borderline crazy. I think if we are going to have a statue of someone in a park, the person should approve of it first, and second the person should actually have had something to do with the community. This entire thing is just for the guy to get publicity.

I don't mind if the art/statue is obscure and you can't tell who it is. That is art. This is just a guy that is obsessed with celebrities. You should see the statue he made of Brittany Spears giving birth.

Steve said...

Sorry, but you're wrong on this on. Breastfeeding can be an innocent thing, but this statue is sexualizing the act by making the mother fully nude. And then you lost your argument with me altogether when you wrote, " ... and we will remain culturally inferior to Europe."

C'mon ... seriously?! Were you just being rhetorical and fishing for reactions?

Walker, Downtown Ranger said...

I knew that was probably you, Steve!

I don't think it's a sexual object at all. At OU I believe there are statues of Indians that aren't wearing clothes and nobody is saying that it is sexualizing the Indians. We all know there would be 10 million different law suits from the Indian tribes if that were the case. Paintings that portray angels, or the mother Mary, or Jesus in the nude aren't sexualizing any of those figures.. but rather humanizing them.

In the middle of a public square in Europe you'll often find a nude statue, such as the world's most famous statue, David. 10 year old boys who see the statue in world history class might laugh but they get over it..it's still one of the most important pieces of art in the history of the world.

I'm just saying it bothers me that we expect art today to conform to a dress code. That to me is just more backward than the medieval period. Since then we've had the Renaissance and many other great art movements. It just bothers me that in the US we can't appreciate art and expect it to conform to not offend our lame social issues. Art should be above that. It doesn't mean someone should not wear clothes because they should in public, but art should still be above that.

Besides it isn't even full nudity, but rather suggested. If you actually look at the statue, which it is actually safe to do so, you wouldn't see anything that you shouldn't. Of course you would in Europe, just saying..

Steve said...

We should just be able to walk around naked anyway. We only wear clothes because of unfounded shame. I say take it all off, all the time! Why should I hide what God gave me anyway?

U - S - A!!! U - S - A!!! U - S - A!!!

Walker, Downtown Ranger said...

While Steve goes and joins a nudist colony, I would just like to say that I think art should be allowed slightly more wiggle room to be provocative than normal people who should wear clothes in public.

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!