The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has decreed on Friday, Nov 25 that two shows under the upcoming M1 Singapore Fringe Festival, Naked Ladies and Undressing Room, exceed the R18 rating under the Arts Entertainment Classification Code (AECC). According to a spokesperson from IMDA and subsequent Straits Times reporting, the IMDA has the responsibility to protect young viewers from unsuitable content. I applaud the IMDA for stepping up to the plate and ensuring that the impressionable in society do not get exposed to obscene “celebrations” of naked bodies. And in fact, I say, why stop there? We have lost sight of our moral values and our sanity as civil members of society in our pursuit of pointless art. What is artistic integrity after all, if we are unable to prevent our children’s eyeballs from being scorched by the photons bouncing off naked skin? Surely we owe the children in society that much.
I have several suggestions for extending the ban on nudity to other platforms. The visual arts are so accessible nowadays, it’s important for us to be thorough in protecting the innocence of the doe-eyed young.
Let’s start with the Italian Renaissance.
I am so ashamed of this piece that I feel like I’ve compromised on my values by putting this up on my blog. It’s a small price to pay for the good of Singapore, though. This is the Vitruvian Man, a diagram of sin drawn by “genius” Leonardo Da Vinci, who we all know is a renowned homosexualist. Just imagine if your child saw this, legs splayed out in all its glory. How are you going to explain to you child that a naked man in a starfish position can roughly touch the circumference of an imagined circle? You know what else has five points and occupies a circle? A PENTAGRAM. This is unacceptable, and any visual citation of this piece should at least produce a warning message so parents can avert their young ones’ eyes.
The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli. First of all, Venus is not real, so how can they give us the impression that she exists? Second of all, I can see that Venus is still interested in maintaining her modesty because a floaty forest nymph is hurrying to cover her with a flowing scarf, but in the first place, what self-respecting woman would emerge NAKED out of a giant clam shell like that? And did you know that giant clams are endangered!? DISGUSTING. What kind of environment-hating nipple-freeing society are we trying to encourage here? I say we exercise our best judgment and censor pictures of this piece. Or, we can create a new version where she is already wearing the red silk scarf. It doesn’t have to be boring, we’re not trying to stifle creativity here. I’m guessing maybe we can drape it like in this Hermes demo here:
This bustier asymétrique looks quite chic, no? Very fashion forward.
Anyway, this atrocity of nudity continues even in baroque works and in pieces following the French Revolution. You’d think we would know better, but it only goes to show that the arts is a hotbed for debauchery to fester. Boorish oil paintings have been flourishing under the guise of fine art for so long, like the underground rat population at Bukit Batok. Abhorrent.
This is Lady Liberty Leading the People. Leading them where you ask?
Is there a need for her chest to be exposed? Who is that small boy next to her? Does his mother know he’s been frolicking around with firearms and Ms Bare-It-All? What kind of agenda is this promoting? Why does the man on the left look like Abraham Lincoln? The artist got one thing right. Notice all the dead bodies piling up in the foreground of the work? This work is prophetic. It’s announcing the arrival of society’s decay, which we will no doubt come to with the leadership of naked people.
It’s tempting to cast blanket statements about the aggressive and radical liberisation of Western powers, and to say that the hegemony and hypervisibility of their images have infiltrated even the most Confucian of our Asian hearts. We, however, owe this topic a little more nuance in thought. Our own art pieces have been obscene and masquerading as cultural treasures, even in trusted institutions like the National Gallery Singapore.
Tell me, if you were sitting around forlornly looking at your rattan baskets of radishes, will you be topless? What sort of degenerate society was Cheong Soo Pieng seeking to depict? Our Southeast Asian civilisation is one that is dignified and we know where our morals stand. This is unacceptable, and it’s a shame that even now, with the benefit of postmodern rationality, we are unable to shed images of nakedness. Nakedness is a carnal sin. It’s a violation of nature. Don’t ask me how but I just know it’s unnatural and I bet even Adam and Eve at least had leaves or something.
These harmful images aren’t just confined within the walls of museums. They’ve invaded public spaces. They have the audacity to display genitals, loud and proud, in full view of passers-by who did nothing to consent to such violations.
Absurd. There’s not one but FIVE naked boys, and all of them seem to be delighting in their obscenity. There’s no bronze pile of clothes lying near the river, so I doubt that the boys were even going to put on clothes after their debaucherous swim. They might have even walked naked to the river. Who lives near the river? They’re either rich (and should know better, they should guard their reputations) or they live in a neighbourhood estate and came all the way out just to display their dingdongs near the river, an icon of national identity. This has gone too far.
There are so many other pieces that should be pointed out, but alas, I am only one diligent citizen. Fellow Singaporeans, I urge you all to be on the look out for any flashes of skin, and to report them. We cannot be complacent in our fight against lawless genitalia regalia. Let’s all do our part to protect our young ones.