|
NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive |
Staff Editorial: Art director stands firmNudity makes Americans antsy. Throw in two teens, a newspaper, and one of the College’s own and it’s a ready-made scandal — or at least it is at The Virginian-Pilot, a Norfolk daily. A recent student art contest sponsored by the Pilot has Muscarelle Museum Director Aaron De Groft ’88, and others, crying “censorship.” After whittling down some 600 submissions to the Pilot’s Student Gallery art show, contest organizers asked De Groft to select a winner. He chose “Heart of Darkness,” a nude self-portrait by 17-year-old Nancy “Beth” Reid, a senior at Churchland High School in Portsmouth. Bruce Bradley, publisher of the Pilot, didn’t like De Groft’s decision. Citing child pornography as his objection to the piece, he told De Groft to either change his winner or take a hike. De Groft chose the latter. Bradley’s ultimatum to De Groft defines censorship, and De Groft’s choice to stand behind his decision should be commended. It would have been easy for De Groft to simply choose another work of art, but by remaining steadfast with his original choice De Groft displayed a strong commitment to the integrity of the contest. The story doesn’t end there. When Bradley didn’t get what he wanted from De Groft, he found another judge. This time, he selected Scott Howe, education director at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk. Howe chose another nude, a sculpture of a pregnant woman by Jasmine Childs of Chesapeake. Bradley’s allergic reaction returned, and out went Howe. The scandal reveals several failures on the Pilot’s part. If nudity were unacceptable, then that should have been made clear from the beginning. But to slap down these pieces after they’d cleared all the hurdles from entrance to final selection strikes us as much more than negligence. It stinks of pandering, either to contest sponsors or to a public that can undoubtedly handle nudity — appreciate it, even. The Pilot should take a lesson from the man they ignored. De Groft’s unwavering support of Reid’s submission successfully served to combat Bradley’s attempt at censorship, and because of that, the freedom of expression that the Pilot claims to champion was able to shine through. |
||

This is fabulous, as is Aaron De Groft.
— Katie Dixon Apr 15, 01:23 PM #
Of course, our own Aaron De Groft walks away from this situation tree tops high above the petty and provincial publisher of the Pilot. It really is embarassing as this intance makes all residents of this area look like a bunch of hicks.
If you want to do a little research on guidestar.org, you can see that the owners of the paper (Mr. and Mrs. Frank Batten, Jr.) charitably support every Chrsitian evangelical cause under the sun. So, it is really no surprise that Mr. Bradley feels threatened by the art work. I have never paid for a subscription and have rarely purchased the Pilot. Overall, I have found the Pilot to contain exhaustive coverage of NASCAR and a bunch of wire stories to separate the advertisements for used cars (e.g. calling all E5s and above). When the Pilot goes under, I do not think it will be a great loss. Anyway, I will now stop reading it on the web for free.
— Uncle Leo Apr 15, 03:32 PM #