Artist Margaret Tuckey, of Banksia Park, with one of her exhibits for the Gully art show. Pic: Neale Winter
One of the artists rejected last year for her nude submission to the Tea Tree Gully Council’s exhibition has decided to enter another nude this year, this time of a reclining male.
Margaret Tuckey, whose nude entry was rejected last year, said the show would be a “bland” display of still lifes and landscapes under new guidelines and if they knock back her latest painting of a nude man “they don’t even know what art is”.
The new guidelines, unanimously endorsed last week by the council’s social inclusion committee, will cover entries in the next show, to be held at the Civic Centre in August.
The committee decided the council had a duty of care to protect Civic Centre visitors from any pieces of artwork “depicting images containing perceived violence, racism, sexism, nudity, blasphemy, cultural discrimination and other issues that may be seen to be discriminatory or offensive”.
Artist Margaret Tuckey protests TTG Council censorship of nudes
Now I don’t know about you, but I love that nudity is considered to be equivalent to violence, racism, sexism, blasphemy and cultural discrimination.. they are all so clearly related. if people are seen to be nude, what on earth will become of us then? wont somebody think of the children?
you don’t hate children…do you?
the poll at the bottom of this article quotes that passage word for word. not ‘are nudes in art offensive’ not ‘should artistic nudes be included’ but “Do you agree with the Tea Tree Gully Council’s decision to ban “images containing perceived violence, racism, sexism, nudity, blasphemy, cultural discrimination and other issues” at its annual art show?’ thus putting them all on an equal footing.
I hope the council revisits it’s policies, but I doubt it will. I hope Margaret Tuckey gets her work in this time, but I doubt she will. mostly I hope that the council and the article that I have quoted here will look into their wording and see the suggestiveness and implications present in the wording of this phrase, but I doubt that will happen either. Because this has become a point of bureaucracy. and the reality is that nobody wins when bureaucracy has it’s way.
Jennie's Palette 
When I just checked then, 88% of people were saying no, they didn’t agree with the council’s decision
Hi Jennie, that is really sad. The general consensus of the populist in art, literature and film is that it has no real artistic value and/or is offensive if it’s not something considered “wholesome”. Not all art is a painting of children with balloons or of a flower. I write horror and was recently asked by a local writer’s group to leave because I didn’t share the same views as the others. They judged my personal character by my fiction stories. The body is beautiful and for some reason–to see it without clothes–is considered vulgar. There is a big difference between a nude painting and a Hustler centerfold LOL! 🙂
It’s a sad day when art is left to the bureaucrats and treated as a commodity designed to appeal to everyone without offending anyone. Art should stir an emotional response and cause the viewer to question what he takes for granted. Sure it may offend some but that’s okay. Censorship of art is another step toward Orwellian groupthink. We should think of the children. If children are shielded from things that help them grow intellecturally, creatively, and emotionally, just because someone might find it offensive, aren’t we harming them more than we are helping them?
Bobby and Rick I like the way you think! it’s ridiculous the extent to which councils will overstep their bounds in determining what is safe for us all. if we only did what was safe we would never accomplish anything.