Originally Posted by MistyMarie
I have a RIGHT to not like this quilt. I am not casting stones at the quilter; I am saying I DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T LIKE my children seeing something like this. I am a very modest person and I screen what my kids watch, send them to a private Christian school (so they are not exposed to this kind of "art" and the like in a public school), and I plan on keeping their innocence as long as I can.
So, instead of respecting my opinion, I feel like I am being attacked for not liking this quilt and not wanting to expose my children to this. Being upset with my opinion of this quilt is pretty hypocritical.
I am in total agreement with you, so you are not alone.
If the quilter wanted to make a statement about homelessness..fine. If she thought depicting the woman in the nude was a metaphor for being stripped of all she owned...fine
Why did she have to display her spreadeagle? Certainly not for artistic sake, but to shock and possibly to offend.
Someone mentioned the many nudes in art through the ages. Michaelangelo did beautiful nudes. Reuban painted beautiful nudes. Neither felt the need to pose the women in such a manner as to disrespect the women.
Would those in support of this quilt, also support men's magazines that leave nothing to the imagination? Many an adult bookstore have defended their presence near elementary schools by calling their magazines "art" and considering their art as "free speech".
I stand by my position that this quilt is offensive to me, and quite honestly, I think the artist would be pleased, because I think that really was her goal.