CNN.com has an interesting story involving an art school teacher who was escorted out of her classroom because the school found nude "art" photos of her on flickr.com. In her defense, she claims that they are art and that she felt she wasn't doing anything wrong. Why anyone would think she's in the wrong here is beyond me. Art is expression and the body expresses. Simple as that. I think the real problem here is the school. Wouldn't they rather have the kids looking at tasteful "pieces of art" rather than porn pictures that objectify humans? What is SO wrong with nakedness? It can't be to protect the children, because they've already seen naked bodies on the internet. Most high school boys already know the differences between the various types of porn out there.
Let's just hope that the judge has some shred of common sense in this case. I'm sure we ALL know the worst that could happen in this situation.
No, you silly conservatives. Having this teacher fired would be the worst thing that could happen. Sheeesh.
This is an interesting case. Is the teacher at fault and is she telling the truth about the pictures just being "art", or is she condoning something unsavory in the public school system? Personally I think she may have meant it as art. I guess it depends on the availability of it on the internet and how it was done.
This just reminds me though, aren't college art teachers allowed to have nude models for the whole class to use for their art? Would a college art teacher get in the same amount of trouble? Now, I could understand if the teacher in question was teaching middle or grade-schoolers, but some common sense must be used.
I understand how she could get fired, though. If I had kids that were staring at their teacher's boobs, I think that would be a cause for concern. They might not understand it as art. Try to look at it from the parent's point of view.
Actually, the article that Jacqulyn posted says that some of her students saw those pictures before the trial/etc on Flickr (since she was a high school teacher), and though I don't think there isn't anything wrong with nakedness or exposing the human body, it's still strange for the school when one of their teachers is posting such pictures on the internet. It can create a bad impression of the school and though the teacher meant it to be art, students and community members may see it in a much different way, thus creating problems.
The pictures were taken by a friend of Ms. Hoover and that friend posted them on a private site. I am not sure, but I think that the pics didn't have any names posted to identify the teacher as such. I also am pretty sure that Ms. Hoover says she wasn't aware her friend had posted the pictures online. As soon as the issue was discovered, they were placed in a password protected area of the webpage to deny access to just anyone.
Regardless of if some students or parents happened upon the pictures they were done on Ms. Hoover's own time as a side project from teaching art. I mean she is an ART teacher. One should expect this type of work. She never told any students about the pics nor did she ever place her students in any form of danger.
I find the fact that the school district wants to fire her as completely insulting not only to one's artistic expression, but also an invasion of privacy. Remember she was turned in by a fellow teacher she regularly argued with. Sounds like revenge to me. And if I were a part of the administration I would inspect the 'tattletale' teachers honesty in her plight 'to correct a wrong Ms. Hoover did.'
Lastly, it never ceases to amaze me how people can get so up in arms about boobs photographed artistically as a tribute to the human figure yet allow their children to watch violent movies and play war games (like paintball). It's sad that our society would rather give a child a gun (even if it doesn't shoot 'real' bullets) than let them see breasts!!
I have to agree with this. Look in any art history book and you'll see tons of art work depicting the naked forms, especially artwork reflecting classical Greece and Rome. I'm assuming grade school kids goto the museum, right? I remember going to the Getty when I was in 3rd grade. Big whoop. I have to agree on this pathetic disparity between art, pornography and violence. Let the woman teach!
I agree too.
Kids are going to see it, and if it wasn't pornography blatantly displayed in the classroom (which I do disagree with), then I don't see an issue. I wouldn't think she should bring this art into the classroom, because her being nude in the classroom isn't appropriate, nor should she deliberately lead students to see it, but I don't see that she should be penalized for her outside interests and participation in artistic endeavors involving the human body.
WHERE IS THE LINK
I WANNA SEE BOOBIES!!!!
This story is unfolding in my hometown. Sadly, the teacher is up for termination soon. Even sadder, the information came from a fellow art teacher who has been termed a "rival" of Tamera Hoover (the teacher in the pictures). This other teacher was clued in by students on how to get Ms. Hoover back.
Ms. Hoover and her photographer both claim that these pictures are art with the photographer saying...
"The definition of pornography is material with no artistic or aesthetic value -- created for the sole purpose of stimulating sexual arousal. That's not my intent at all," said Celesta Danger, photographer.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/13artteacher.html
The above link will send you to a local article and has a couple pictures of Ms. Hoover. See for yourself if you think they are porn.
i can see what age group was it
Yeah this is dumb. Its not like the kids would have seen her flickr pics. But they will now, they will want to see what the big deal is.