Nacken (Painting by Alv Wilenius): Difference between revisions

From Censorpedia

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
====Date: [[:Category:1995|1995]]====
====Date: [[:Category:1994|1994]]====


====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America]]====
====Region: [[:Category:North America|North America]]====
Line 11: Line 11:
'''Confronting Bodies:''' Local citizen, sheriff's office
'''Confronting Bodies:''' Local citizen, sheriff's office


'''Dates of Action:''' 1995
'''Dates of Action:''' 1994


'''Location:''' Quicksliver Mine Co., Guerneville, California
'''Location:''' Guerneville, California


'''Description of Artwork:''' The painting depicts a nude image of Naken, a male Scandinavian god, pulling a nude male victim under water. Nacken's hands and head are in proximity to the victim's penis.  
'''Description of Artwork:''' Depiction of a male nude, water-dwelling, Scandinavian mythical spirit called Nackens reaching up from a pool seemingly pulling another nude male into the water. The spirit's hands and head were said to be in close proximity to the other man's penis.


'''The Incident:''' A local hair dresser complained to the gallery owners that the painting was obscene and would be offensive to tourists and harmful to children. The gallery owners took no action. Then the hair dresser complained to the police who contacted the gallery owners and informed then that they might be in violation of local obscenity laws.
'''The Incident:''' A local hair dresser complained to the gallery owners that the painting was obscene and would be offensive to tourists and harmful to children. The gallery owners took no action. Local police asked gallery owner, Khysie Horn, to remove Wilenius' painting, citing that it violated state obscenity laws. At first Horn removed the piece, though later put it back in place with a cloth covering the questionable area.


'''Results of Incident:''' The gallery owners covered the "offensive" portion of the painting until they contacted the Assistant District Attorney regarding the issue of the paintings obscenity. The ADA told them the painting was not obscene because it had serious artistic and literary value. The owners then kept the painting in the window uncovered.  
'''Results of Incident:''' : After covering the piece Horn wrote Assistant District Attorney, J. Michael Mullins, questioning the obscenity of the painting. Mullins determined that the piece was not obscene because "one of the key elements is whether or not a particular piece of material lacks 'serious literary and artitic value'." Following this announcement the cloth was removed from the piece.
.  


'''Source:''' NCAC: based on a report in "Artistic Freedom Under Attack" Vol. 3 1995, provided by People for the American Way
'''Source:''' NCAC: based on a report in "Artistic Freedom Under Attack" Vol. 3 1995, provided by People for the American Way  


[[Category:1995]]
[[Category:1994]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:20th century]]
[[Category:20th century]]

Revision as of 21:02, 27 July 2011

Date: 1994

Region: North America

Subject: Explicit Sexuality

Medium: Painting


Artist: Alv Wilenius

Confronting Bodies: Local citizen, sheriff's office

Dates of Action: 1994

Location: Guerneville, California

Description of Artwork: Depiction of a male nude, water-dwelling, Scandinavian mythical spirit called Nackens reaching up from a pool seemingly pulling another nude male into the water. The spirit's hands and head were said to be in close proximity to the other man's penis.

The Incident: A local hair dresser complained to the gallery owners that the painting was obscene and would be offensive to tourists and harmful to children. The gallery owners took no action. Local police asked gallery owner, Khysie Horn, to remove Wilenius' painting, citing that it violated state obscenity laws. At first Horn removed the piece, though later put it back in place with a cloth covering the questionable area.

Results of Incident: : After covering the piece Horn wrote Assistant District Attorney, J. Michael Mullins, questioning the obscenity of the painting. Mullins determined that the piece was not obscene because "one of the key elements is whether or not a particular piece of material lacks 'serious literary and artitic value'." Following this announcement the cloth was removed from the piece. .

Source: NCAC: based on a report in "Artistic Freedom Under Attack" Vol. 3 1995, provided by People for the American Way