Human beings are complex creatures

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I guess the art that an artist creates doesn't reflect their morals. Complex indeed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6aeb7fc6f094

 

[jim10219]

I am not the least bit impressed with his photography. Never have been. But there are quite a few artists that I do appreciate who have been known to have questionable morals. It's definitely a difficult circle to square. These days, I tend to avoid learning about the private lives of my heroes. It rarely leads to something other than disappointment.

 

[jtk]

Who defines "morals" and how is that non-definition relevant to Nixon's work?

 

[darkosaric]

These days, I tend to avoid learning about the private lives of my heroes

+1
Good work outlives the creator of the work.

 

[tedr1]

First of all don't believe everything you read in newspapers, journalists are not top of the league when it comes to putting the facts first and a good story second. So things may not be what they seem and it may be worthwhile to find Nixon's side of the story.

I am not shocked or outraged by what goes on in an art class at a college. I think toleration of nudity and emotional honesty may be valuable qualities for an artist to develop.

Second, there is a difference between a penis and a picture of a penis. Some pictures of penises have been acclaimed as high art. Showing one in public may attract the attention of the police.

Sometimes America can seem such a prudish place, grow up.

 

[jim10219]

I think making it an assignment to photograph each other's penises and vaginas is a bit too far. You shouldn't put students in the position. If you want them to photograph nude people, then they should hire willing models, and not be asked to volunteer themselves into these uncomfortable situations. If they volunteer to model, then that's okay. Also, making the class look at photos of your own penis, if you're the professor, is clearly wrong. They may be artistic in nature, and I have no problem showing them pictures of the penises and vaginas of professional models. But having the class examine the pictures of the professor's penis clearly seems out of bounds. I also think he crossed a line when he propositioned a student for sex (asked her if she's like an "old friend with benefits") and described in detail an erotic dream he had about another student. There were dozens of other complaints about his as well. It wasn't a one time incident that got him in trouble.

I have a fine arts degree and agree that Americans can be pretty prudish in general. But in art school we were never asked to do anything anywhere near that questionable. There were a few awkward moments, as is always the case when new to nude bodies, but it was always handled in a professional manner. This clearly was not.

 

[Ian Leake]

Throughout history artists have made sublime artwork, despite being thoroughly dodgy people (Caravaggio springs to my mind as a good example). Morality is societal norm; highly creative artists, almost by definition, often don’t follow societal norms.

I don’t defend his behaviour as a teacher, but
as far as I’m concerned it has no bearing on the value of the artwork he created.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Who defines "morals" and how is that non-definition relevant to Nixon's work?

"Morals" are what you do when (you think) no one's watching. "Ethics" are what you do when someone's watching.
A sleazeball takes a good picture, does that make the sleazeball a respectable person?

 

[blockend]

"Morals" are what you do when (you think) no one's watching. "Ethics" are what you do when someone's watching.

Best definition I heard.

Art requires space and time to assess. Enough that a person's humanity for better or worse does not influence the quality of the work. The fact the guy wants people to look at his dick suggests he's bored with the job or with photography and needs to get out more. His work looks sentimental to me. Experience suggests bleeding hearts are often a front for cold calculation, or ethically motivated as you would have it.

 

[guangong]

Considering the general atmosphere of the contemporary academic world no one should be surprised at this behavior or even if a cascade of similar behavior isn’t reported. Nowadays there is tremendous competition for institutions of higher education and faculty to outdo one another in bazaar behavior. Witness the courses and workshops being offered by once respected university on how to do anal sex, oral sex, etc. We were able to learn all this during our middle schoo years from the gutter.
I attended many classes with nude models from a wide variety of teachers for several decades years ago and models were always treated with utmost respect. There were procedures of etiquette. For example, models always disrobed behind a screen, never in front of the class. A couple of years ago I registered for a drawing class at a local community college and I was taken aback when the model undressed in front of the class. Furthermore, exaggerated dramatic posses were requested by the teacher. Worse, the teacher herself did not know how to draw so young folks finished course just as they began, learning absolutely nothing. Should add that this was in New Jersey, where political patronage is all important.
Oh! By the way, years ago dressed models were traditionally paid more than nude models.

 

[removed account4]

he's a dog like a lot of people ..
ohwell ..

 

[warden]

Unfortunately Nixon's show is now over, closed early at the artist's request. I've had it on my art calendar for a while but I've missed my chance to see it.

Chuck Close's show just closed in Philly and he's also had a #MeToo moment, but in his case the show was not removed. Instead, the museum hung a show by the entrance to Close's, that spoke to the controversy and the culture. It was great all around, and I'm happy I could see the exquisite giant Polaroids one last time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/...n-closes-nicholas-nixon-photography-show.html

 

[jtk]

"Morals" are what you do when (you think) no one's watching. "Ethics" are what you do when someone's watching.
A sleazeball takes a good picture, does that make the sleazeball a respectable person?

Does Nixon want your respect? Just curious.

 

[jtk]

he's a dog like a lot of people ..
ohwell ..

...............

Nanian...your observation is profound...

Heck, even the Pope's apologizing to please somebody, maybe Nixon will apologize to please Photrio.

 

[removedacct1]

he's a dog like a lot of people ..
ohwell ..

I'm reminded that we live in an era when even "a dog" with a reputation for overstepping boundaries with women can become president.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

he's a dog like a lot of people ..
ohwell ..

I think to call a lech a dog is doing canines a disfavor. I think why some people like animals so much is they are honest about what they want. Humans use authority and deception for their gain. I try to have faith in humanity. I start off in a relationship with trust until the person me a reason not to. Always trust your gut instincts and question authority.

 

[guangong]

I'm reminded that we live in an era when even "a dog" with a reputation for overstepping boundaries with women can become president.

Earlier we lived in an era where a man could commit rape (and even covered by his wife who intimidated victims ) who was even re-elected as president!

 

[TheRook]

To be honest, the personal lives of artists do not really interest me; I judge an artwork solely by the work itself - its expressive power, as well as the imagination and skill that went into it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

 

[NJH]

Serious question: Has there ever been a great artist in any field who lived their life smack bang in the middle of what one could call the moral sensibilities of their time?

Not condoning Nixon in the slightest by the way just trying to understand why we have this phenomenon, and I don't mean sleazy artists but this bizarre trait of projecting our own morality on to other people whom have created things we like. This is where human beings are complex.

 

[rpavich]

Who defines "morals" and how is that non-definition relevant to Nixon's work?

That's actually a very astute question considering the subject of this thread.

Philosophically speaking, morals, a moral code that means anything must not be arbitrary, it can't be "made up" and change with the times or at the whim of whoever is in charge. That's a philosophical fail.
There must be a moral lawgiver who has the authority to give a non-arbitrary, universally binding moral code to humans.

That lawgiver is God. He's written that moral code on everyone's hearts, thus we all know (deep down) right from wrong. We can justify certain behavior and certainly we've all done that in our own way but that doesn't change what's right and wrong.

If there is no God...then there is no universal, transcendent, universally binding moral code to point to to call a person's behavior "good" or "bad".

 

[slackercrurster]

Look at the art, forget the personality. People are imperfect.