It appears that all the creator of the quilt has really done is cause division.

Gotta agree here. It's people who make natural things like our bodys something bad. It is in good taste. However, this is not the first controversial quilt to arise. Several have been banned from quilt shows. SOme articles appear in many quilt
magazines. I think the children are exposed to worse things on tv that they watch, even the cartoons. JMHO

art is art, like one member said...how many naked paintings, statues, etc exist in the world???...that being said, why is this quilt such a problem???...also, art mimics/depicts life, so they should think about that

I'm sad you can't see the beauty in something non-traditional. But I'm not losing sleep over that.

However to my earlier point, I personally don't understand how anyone can forget the rich history and stories told by the traditional quilts we see here today. It's like we chop things up and sew them back together just because they're "soooo prreeetttyyy!" There are stories here every single day about making quilts for loved ones who are far away or sick or grieving. We make quilts for children without families, and for cancer patients. We make them for animals in shelter and NICU babies. They MEAN something.

If they don't mean anything then why don't we just buy the stupid things and have done with it? It would certainly save us a ton of time and money, not to mention heartbreak when a recipient throws it in the dog's crate.

ETA: I wasn't interested in the Jesus urine jar either, but I wouldn't belittle the artist's work or intent. *shrug*

I would think that the artist could still get the point across without such detail in that specific area. I am 32 and would not want my children-boys 12 and 10- to see it all layed out there like that. To me, it is something private and not to be put on display.

However, I don't think the quilt shouldn't be allowed at the show, perhaps somewhat secluded with a warning or something. I can imagine walking from one quilt to the next admiring the stitches here, the placement there, then BAM! its in your face. Would be quite a shocker to me...

Why do you consider a vagina indecent? Lots of people have one.

I personally hate it when politics has to override art.

The quilt may not be pornographic, but it most certainly is indecent. People have a right to expect to be protected from indecency in public. If there were a live person exposing those parts in the same room, I guarantee you they would be hauled off on charges of public indecency.

It's not the vagina, but the act of exposing it in public which is indecent. There are laws on the books against this.

Didn't and wouldnt of bothered mean to each there own is my motto...

I agree ! Well said.

What are the laws with respect to perceived indecency as it applies to art? I'm not being snotty, I honestly don't know.

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.

yes but this can be viewed as offensive. i doubt anyone going to see a quilt expected the chance of seeing one made like this one was.
artist's are always pushing the boundries just because they can, not because they should.
Private areas of the body are called private because they should remain private. it seems todays' gotten lots of people just plain Ok with anything that goes. not a good thing.

I so agree!

As I said before I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to like it. I don't care that you don't. But I do take exception with the idea that this isn't art at all and shouldn't be described as such, JUST BECAUSE you don't like it.

And if you recall I did say I thought a warning of sorts was probably a good idea, so that children can learn at the right time and in the right way about the social ills of our society, and that it is right to have compassion for those less fortunate instead of spitting on or condemning them for the situation they are in. I'm pretty sure your kids are learning that at their private christian school, so they should be getting the lesson with or without the art quilt in question. Right?

And with that, I'm out. No sense in beating my head against the wall any more tonight.

It wouldn't bother me at all. However, we grew up knowing and believing that the female body is a beautiful thing, not something to hide and be ashamed of. That's not to say we walked around naked or anything, but my dad had plenty of topless "art" all over the house. Our friends were often surprised but never seemed to be offended. It was just a non-issue in our family.

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.

Again, I have the RIGHT to not consider it art. I can smear a booger on a canvas and call it art, but is it?

My children do learn about compassion for those less fortunate, but NOT by looking at a quilt of a naked lady. I doubt anyone would learn compassion from this quilt, except maybe to have compassion for the quilter who thinks that this quilt is going to make a difference in the plight of the homeless.

I'm an RN and in all my years as a nurse I helped with a lot of pelvic exams. Let me tell you there are prettier things in the world to put on your quilt than genetalia. We quilt for ourselves, family, friends and causes. Some are beautiful and some are not. Sometimes we need to take all that pain and hurt from our lives and purge it from our hearts and souls. So we take all the hurt and pain and put it onto cotton, little pieces, big pieces, straight, curved and somehow all that pain becomes something beautiful or maybe it's not. We don't care. We just need to quilt. So keep quilting and make it something from your heart.

Here we are in 2011 and we are still finding the human body repugnant, offensive, pornographic. I never cease to be amazed...............

(I'm an RN and in all my years as a nurse I helped with a lot of pelvic exams. Let me tell you there are prettier things in the world to put on your quilt than genetalia.)

I kept thinking this whole time, that it is just not the prettiest part of a woman's body. Thanks for posting this, I so agree with you.

ART is one thing, but at a "quilt" show, unless it were part of an exhibit and people were told that it would be there in the open so that they had a choice as to whether or not to look at then, it really had no place!

THANK YOU!

Not one person at the at that quilt show or in this thread thought about the "message" of being pregnant and homeless!

It is more about the fact that the show producer's chose to show that quilt without a warning to show attendees. Those people who PAID to see a quilt were shown something Sexually oriented that offended them. That makes it porn and wrong.

and to me the message was "should have kept my legs closed"!

that was actually 2 years ago, Mark Lipinski did it in HIS quilter's home. Joann's refused to sell that issue! and NOTHING in that magazine was like this quilt! BUT they were deemed offensive.

I actually went to the Mid-Atlantic quilt show in Hampton, Va this past weekend and saw the quilt in question....and while it might be offensive to some, the focus of the piece was on the plight of a homeless woman/women. In it's own right, it was a beautiful piece and I find that any art that causes one to think, strikes a chord of some kind has served it's purpose. yes, it was a bit graphic and perhaps and option to view or not may have been in order or a warning at the least, but the kind of uproar the MSNBC piece depicts IMHO is so unwarranted. I realize everyone has a right to their opinion and so it is what it is. There were other pieces at the show that were disturbingly beautiful to me for other reasons and evoked deep emotion in me as well. Some people use paint and a brush, some people use lyrics and a melody, and some of us use fabric and thread!

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It certainly has drawn attention to the plight of homelessness and it's ramifications, which was probably her intention.

If it were in a musem or an art magazine it would be considered art. Why not on a quilt? People do not have to look at it even though it's on display yet, they chose to look at in in detail although they could just glance at it and walk on by. Some peole just have to much time on their hands.

Ok, this is getting a little too heated. It's apparent that people have strong opinions on this topic. I think we have heard enough. If we can't play in the sandbox nicely we will close the sand box!!!!