Yarborough Threatens to Defund MOCA, because \

[jcjohnpaint]

We had our faculty show the same night as the opening.  Many said he was at the opening.  If this is true, this means he had days before his fit of rage.  I am just curious if this isn't based on his opinion alone- or some kind of funding source/ not please wit the show and taking their politician puppet acting-out for them.  Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is Jacksonville politicians we are talking about. 

[simms3]

Not really. People can have different sensibilities when it comes to nudity.

The issue is Clay threatening to attempt defunding of MOCA because he is personally offended by an image.

For me, it's not really an issue of "is this image appropriate"?

The issue is that Clay's reaction is completely inappropriate.

Yes really, wrong context.  The two are inextricably tied.  Clay's reaction is twofold - one is his reaction against the photograph itself, classifying it as porn/bad (and some actually view porn as a form of art).  The other is his way of handling it.

The MJ article covers both sides of the issue.  Thus it stands to reason that if MJ's take is that the photo itself is not conceivably inappropriate or porn, there is no reason to blatantly conceal the controversial components of the picture.

Edjax raised a good question.  It does, in fact, diminish any argument being made here by concealment.

[edjax]

Not really. People can have different sensibilities when it comes to nudity.

The issue is Clay threatening to attempt defunding of MOCA because he is personally offended by an image.

For me, it's not really an issue of "is this image appropriate"?

The issue is that Clay's reaction is completely inappropriate.

Very weak. 

[Jax native]

Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?

Yes!  This is also my question.  The TU was almost burned at the stake for censoring a photo online (where they had a NSFW link attached) and now this photo is reproduced here.  Why?  Double standard?  Who was responsible for the leading letter's photo?  Very curious.

[IrvAdams]

^^^ If the picture in question was never reproduced in any medium or social media, it's still is not appropriate to use political power to further your personal concept of morality or acceptability. If it were simply a picture of a girl in a prom dress and it reminded you of an awful time you once had at a high school dance, it still wouldn't be right to threaten to withhold the public's tax dollars from a museum with its own governing body and its own set of standards. You speak to them first, if you are so inclined to make an unfounded accusation against an established artist.

[avonjax]

I want to comment on this issue but I can barely find words that are appropriate. I can't even wrap my head around Yarborough's view. I truly believe people like him should NEVER hold office. His views on everything are sickening. I can't even stand to scroll up and look at his constipated expression. I am from this area but I am truly ashamed that we have a plethora of tiny minded people not only living here but holding office. If I was younger I would leave Jacksonville. Sorry guys but it get worse and worse every year. Backward conservative thinking has completely consumed the place. My cousins who grew up here and moved to Seattle never want to come back. I can't blame them!

[Charles Hunter]

He had token opposition in the 2009 race.  I think the Dems just conceded the seat to him.
No, sadly, his political career is not over.  I predict he will run for Lake Ray's seat - he's term-limited - in 2016.  He will use the time between his Council term ending mid-2015 and the 2016 election "spending time with his family,"  building his Tea Party bona-fides, and knocking on doors (which is how he won the Council seat originally).

C'mon Duval Democratic Party - field some viable candidates. 

[mbwright]

jealous rage?

[Jameson]

Has Yarborough made any statement at all since his initial remarks or is he silent?

[coredumped]

Why in the picture on here is half the picture covered up by Pornography?

Yes!  This is also my question.  The TU was almost burned at the stake for censoring a photo online (where they had a NSFW link attached) and now this photo is reproduced here.  Why?  Double standard?  Who was responsible for the leading letter's photo?  Very curious.

Ironically, the TU has the image of the unedited photo on their site (nsfw, or clay, contains a boobie):
http://jacksonville.com/slideshow/2014-11-27/unedited-version-nude-photo-pregnant-woman-museum-contemporary-art-jacksonville#slide-1

[mtraininjax]

Yarborough was meeting yesterday with MOCA on a compromise.

His choice of words was wrong, but his idea was right, move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children. A simple compromise, which is what he should have asked for in the first place before his use of the word pornography.

It would have been better to see some protesters dressed up like dancers from The Gold Club, to show the world what real pornography looks like, but alas, not even 117 West Duval Street is ready for what happens on the streets in Midtown Atlanta during a real protest of the arts.

[Badfinger]

First time in a very long time that I have agreed with something that Littlepage has written.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-12-04/story/ron-littlepage-yarborough-doesnt-deserve-be-mocked

[strider]

Yarborough's idea was not right. His rant was not for the sake of the children nor the parents, it was a knee jerk reaction stemming from his personal prejudice.  It was not a calculated political move, it was simply his true colors coming out. As to any name calling or making fun of him now, it is the only way to call those types of beliefs out for what they are. Ron Littlepage did not get this one right.

[finehoe]

...move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children.

[Josh]

Yarborough was meeting yesterday with MOCA on a compromise.

His choice of words was wrong, but his idea was right, move the single piece to a place in the museum where the picture is not on display for children. A simple compromise, which is what he should have asked for in the first place before his use of the word pornography.

It would have been better to see some protesters dressed up like dancers from The Gold Club, to show the world what real pornography looks like, but alas, not even 117 West Duval Street is ready for what happens on the streets in Midtown Atlanta during a real protest of the arts.

Why is it that only American adults children are susceptible to the evils of simple nudity? What exactly will happen to one of these children if they see a breast that is so bad? Will young boys spontaneously enter puberty and begin furiously masturbating? Will young girls need to immediately run back to their Barbie dolls to re-establish the correct form of the female body? Honest question. We as a society certainly don't have any issues exposing children to copious amounts of violence in the news and media.

The worst thing I can see imagine to any type of "child" seeing this portrait is that 8-10 year old boys might giggle for about 3 seconds.