Anyway, the fourth artist that I researched seems to strike my fancy. Her name is Kim McCarty, and she works in watercolor (my first love).
Her style seems very loose, uncontrolled, and delicate. This, according to my watercolor teacher, is how watercolor is "supposed" to be handled. She argued that the paint must be allowed to mingle and flow with the water, and react as each pigment uniquely does. While this point can be debated, its obvious that this is one unique aspect to watercolor and should probably be experimented with.
While I love her pieces, especially the nudes, upon reading her "about me" I discovered that:
"...Kim McCarty's watercolors depicting adolescent and preadolescent children..."
Wait. What? These nudes were gorgeous and tastefully done, not too graphic, and yes, they have a childlike innocence to them, but I never thought that they were, in fact, of children. I thought they were just stylized.
Is this ok? Or is this a form of child pornography? I don't know. I still like the paintings though. Tell me your thoughts.
http://www.kimmccarty.net/
Now, on a personal note:
If God had wanted to be a big secret, He would not have created babbling brooks and whispering pines. ~Robert Brault
I love her style too, but I would feel weird about hanging one of those in my house. I like the way the paint flows though, it was very peaceful to look at! Plus I like how her name has double m's and double c's. I sometimes notice weird things like that...
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this particular blog post for a few days (maybe a week) now. I hadn't ever thought that painting nude children would (in one sense) may be child pornography, but then I constructed my argument as to why Kim McCarthy's paintings shouldn't be classified as pornographic material.
ReplyDeleteKim's paintings are meant (or so it seems to me) for viewing pleasure not sexual pleasure. A few years ago a religious school toured a museum that featured some nude art. Prior to the tour the facility/parents insisted that the nudity be covered because it was inappropriate for the children. This request caused an uproar because art (especially classic art) doesn't present nudity in a sexual or pornographic way.
To say that Kim McCarthy's work is even semi pornographic is like saying Debussy's Claire De Lune shouldn't be played for or around young women because it might arouse them (true story).