Was the judge right or wrong?

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:52 pm

"A New York judge dismissed public lewdness and other charges Monday against 26-year-old model Kathleen Neill who posed for a nude photo shoot at the Metropolitan Museum of Art while visitors looked on.

For the Aug. 26 museum shoot, Hyman assembled a team of six to help make sure guards were not watching. Once the guards left the gallery, Hyman directed Neill to disrobe in full view of visitors for a 15-second photo shoot.

But a female guard quickly returned and entered the gallery mid-shoot. Neill grabbed her clothes. The team dispersed. But Neill didn't make it out fast enough."

CLICK ON PICTURE FOR SOURCE AND MORE INFORMATION

edited to note: I find it refreshing to see the woman in the background is looking on while obviously not caring that, what appears to be her young son, is also taking it all in.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:09 pm

It was a narcissistic stunt having little to do with art.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:23 pm

Jayhawker Soule wrote:It was a narcissistic stunt having little to do with art.

Well the piece says, "Hyman says they pose because they believe in the art." So where did you get your info? Or is this simply your prejudice talking?

FinalEnigma · Post by **FinalEnigma** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:23 pm

I agree with the judge dropping the charges. Sometimes nudity is lewd, sometimes it isn't. Posing for a nude photo shoot in a museum that, according to the article, has many depictions of nudes doesn't seem automatically lewd to me, and, also according to the article, the law is against lewdness, not nudity.

However, I don't think this case should be used as precedent for allowing nude photo shoots in public anytime someone wants.

For the record, I have nothing against nudity - that it is illegal strikes me as simply bizarre.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:59 pm

FinalEnigma wrote:I agree with the judge dropping the charges. Sometimes nudity is lewd, sometimes it isn't. Posing for a nude photo shoot in a museum that, according to the article, has many depictions of nudes doesn't seem automatically lewd to me, and, also according to the article, the law is against lewdness, not nudity.

However, I don't think this case should be used as precedent for allowing nude photo shoots in public anytime someone wants.

For the record, I have nothing against nudity - that it is illegal strikes me as simply bizarre.

She should have had a g-string on.. then it would have been entirely legal in NYS. The law that prohibits women from being topless was overturned as unconstitutional over 10 years ago. Mind you, custom is stronger than law, and you do not see topless women taking advantage of that ruling.. even at the beaches in the summer.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:13 am

goat wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:I agree with the judge dropping the charges. Sometimes nudity is lewd, sometimes it isn't. Posing for a nude photo shoot in a museum that, according to the article, has many depictions of nudes doesn't seem automatically lewd to me, and, also according to the article, the law is against lewdness, not nudity.

However, I don't think this case should be used as precedent for allowing nude photo shoots in public anytime someone wants.

For the record, I have nothing against nudity - that it is illegal strikes me as simply bizarre.
She should have had a g-string on.. then it would have been entirely legal in NYS.

According to the article a g-string wasn't necessary. The judge threw the out the charges, in effect saying being naked wasn't illegal.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:17 am

Miles wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:It was a narcissistic stunt having little to do with art.
Well the piece says, "Hyman says they pose because they believe in the art."

Well then, if Hyman said so, I stand corrected.

Miles wrote: Or is this simply your prejudice talking?

I have zero problem with nudity and a long-standing appreciation of art ... and little tolerance for attention-seeking stunts.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:17 pm

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
I have zero problem with nudity and a long-standing appreciation of art ... and little tolerance for attention-seeking stunts.

I go along with you 100%, and am also suspicious of the true motive behind this little photo shoot.

Bio-logical · Post by **Bio-logical** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:17 pm

I have been to the Met and I can tell you that there are nude photos and paintings all over that place, so a little more nudity doesn't really change much. Regardless of that, this photo shoot was done during open hours with uninformed museum patrons present and without permission from the proprietors. This was not an attempt to create artistic photos, but instead it was obviously meant as a form of performance art. The action was inappropriate and the judge was wrong to not convict the photographer and the model of disorderly conduct, a lesser charge but accurate to their behavior.