Will buy her work

Dear Editor,

It greatly concerned me when I read the (Open Forum letters) in the paper about the Art Show. As an artist, I understand that Sarah's art was a nude, but let's be logical and look at a few facts before proclaiming that our children are being corrupted.

First of all, pornography is defined as: "Literature or art calculated solely to supply sexual excitement; obscene literature or art."

Then we have nudity defined as: "not covered with clothes or drapery; a naked figure depicted in an art form."

Please pay careful attention that the definition of pornography says, "SOLELY to supply sexual excitement."

Now how can this student('s work) be seen as obscene for wanting to depict a Biblical figure, who is almost always depicted nude, in her art?

There is nothing obscene in her efforts for these very reasons. I know there is a fine line between pornographic and nude artwork, but when the definitions are considered you can see this artist is trying to say the human body is a thing of beauty.

It is not something to teach your children to be ashamed of, but a degree of respect must also be taught. Without this respect children and adults become closed minded, instantly screaming "OBSCENE" or just giggling every chance they get.    

This brings me to the children pulling on the sticky notes; they should have been supervised.

So the public knows, the oils on your hands could cause mold to grow on artwork that is impossible to clean off.

I am speaking from experience. These children could have destroyed a wonderful piece of work an artist put their entire soul into making. I personally have spent up to 20 hours on a single piece. How tragic it would have been for all that time to have gone to waste. How tragic that a town believes Sarah McPhillips' work deserves to be locked away behind closed doors.

I personally will be contacting her to view more of her work and may even purchase something.

Thank you,

Jamie Adkins

McCook Community

College Associate

of Arts Major