It’s time to play “Who’s the Worse Neighbor?”!
It’s clear that the media take on the New Jersey story about the risqué snow sculpture will favor the snow-artist neighbor and ridicule the Puritanical neighbors, but the ethics fouls may be on the other side.
A brief summary: a woman and her son used the ample snow on their lawn and the their substantial sculpting talents to make a life-size, headless, armless, torso and trunk of a rather well endowed naked woman instead of the more traditional Frosty the Snowman. If this “came to life one day,” that traffic cop would arrest it for indecent exposure.
Many neighbors apparently appreciated it, but at least one did not. The police ended up telling the artistic family that another neighbor found the snow-wench offensive, and to either “cover it up” or knock it down. They decided to dress up the figure with a bikini top and sarong, life Dorothy Lamour. Now it looks like Old Navy put a mannequin on the lawn. Classy.
I won’t keep you in suspense: the artists are lousy neighbors. The news story in the link says that they made a “snow sculpture of the famous nude Venus de Milo.” You could have fooled me. Their creation looks more like a naked Mariah Carey, and the Venus de Milo is usually depicted with a head. This line makes it sound like the next door neighbors are prudish bumpkins objecting to a museum piece. They were actually objecting to a nude, voluptuous female torso in the middle of their neighborhood. Do they have kids? Did the artists discuss it with them first? What if these skillful snow sculptors had made a similarly accurate but better-hung approximation of Michaelangelo’s David…also without a head? What if the neighbors thought “David” looked more like John Holmes? Then would it be reasonable to object? Or would the snow-sculptors cover that one up with a sock?
Putting nudes of any kind, snow, poster, plaster or Play-Dough, on your front lawn is an intrusion on the rest of the neighborhood. The most ethical course is to ask first and get informed consent; the next best approach is to treat any objection to Snow Babe and respectfully take her down.
I would bet that if the snow sculpture really looked like the Venus de Milo, head and all, rather than Megan Fox, nobody would have complained. Me, I would have been perfectly happy with Megan. With her head, of course.
[Many thanks to Jeff Hibbert, who tweeted me the link.]
Ethics Alarms 
In their defense, I’ll say that I bet making a snowman with a neck is really difficult (the head would probably be too heavy for the neck to support). I assume that’s why snowmen have that distinct shape.
The three things I thought when I heard of this:
1. Is this supposed to be the Venus de Milo just because it has no arms?
2. That was really good. I hope the next one is something everyone can appreciate… like Godzilla.
3. I bet Jack will have a different interpretation than “Their neighbor is a philistine!”
Sorry Jack, but I disagree, on so many levels.
You stated:
They were actually objecting to a nude, voluptuous female torso in the middle of their neighborhood.
So this is the ethics foul.
Nude – This is subjective. The lack of a nipple area kind of makes me think the snow model is wearing a “snow leotard”. If there was coloring, I might give you this, but there wasn’t.
Voluptuous – Irrelevant. Would it be okay if it weren’t voluptuous?
So what we have is an artistic rendering of a female torso. (Actually, everything looks very muscular, and the breasts are kind of small. I thought it might have been an extremely muscular man with well sized pectorals.)
So, to me, the foul is that they made a temporary sculpture out of of snow. You can see why I’d disagree.
So let me back off of my hard-line stance and say that maybe the sculpture is exactly what it is. So what?
The artist’s interpretation of laws might have lead them to believe that artistic creations were a form of free speech and that since their sculpture didn’t have a head and wasn’t engaging in any lewd acts, it would be fine. They might not have believed that they could create something so accurately that it would be able to offend anyone.
But then they surprised themselves. It turned out pretty good, and they were proud of their work. Not because it “was what it was” but because it “was what they created”. Who doesn’t want to show off their hard work? So they left it. They may have even thought, well, if anyone complains, we can always take it down then.
What you are suggesting is that no one should make a well articulated snow model? I think that stifles creativity a bit too much. Maybe if food coloring was used to further make the point, but I don’t believe shapes alone are a problem.
I knew you’d like this one!
“Nude – This is subjective. The lack of a nipple area kind of makes me think the snow model is wearing a “snow leotard”. If there was coloring, I might give you this, but there wasn’t.”
Well of course it’s subjective. The issues of manners, consideration and civility have nothing to do what you or I think, but of what the little old lady with the double mastectomy and the single Amish mom with the 10-year old boy thinks.
“Voluptuous – Irrelevant. Would it be okay if it weren’t voluptuous?”
Maybe. What if the figure’s breasts were hugely exaggerated, like some of those primitive fertility goddesses? That wouldn’t cause reasonable offense? Voluptuous is a comparative term. That figure in the 20’s would be considered freakish. The issue involves whether the sculpture was risque or was seen as such in context. A blow-up photo of Jayne Mansfield fully dressed would be inappropriate in most neighborhood.
“So what we have is an artistic rendering of a female torso. (Actually, everything looks very muscular, and the breasts are kind of small. I thought it might have been an extremely muscular man with well sized pectorals.)”
I’d stay away from that guy, if I were you.
“So let me back off of my hard-line stance and say that maybe the sculpture is exactly what it is. So what?”
The art’s fine. It doesn’t belong in the neighborhood without informed consent. People have a right to feel comfortable where they live. Most neighborhood require you to do minimum maintenance on your property. That’s partially because we know neighbors have an impact on the people around them.
“The artist’s interpretation of laws might have lead them to believe that artistic creations were a form of free speech and that since their sculpture didn’t have a head and wasn’t engaging in any lewd acts, it would be fine. They might not have believed that they could create something so accurately that it would be able to offend anyone.”
Law: irrelevant. Their belief: irrelevant…as soon as they knew the sculpture bothered a neighbor.
“But then they surprised themselves. It turned out pretty good, and they were proud of their work. Not because it “was what it was” but because it “was what they created”. Who doesn’t want to show off their hard work? So they left it. They may have even thought, well, if anyone complains, we can always take it down then.”
That’s fine. But they didn’t take it down!
“What you are suggesting is that no one should make a well articulated snow model? I think that stifles creativity a bit too much. Maybe if food coloring was used to further make the point, but I don’t believe shapes alone are a problem.”
Two words: BACK YARD.
I only have to respond to your point about “they didn’t take it down”.
The neighbor showed the amount of civility that it takes to call the cops and not knock on the door or push it over themselves.
If they had knocked on the door, the only option might have been to take it down. But they called the cops, and the cop that responded gave the mom and kids two options. Knowing that they had a 2nd option that would keep the statue on display that would resolve the issue, they immediately complied.
So without all of the narrative – this story only has 3 points:
1) They built it
2) Cops told them to cover it up
3) They complied
Tim—you seem to foregt the theme here: good conduct. (The proper conduct of Neighbor #1 does not depend at all on whether Neighbor #2 called the police on them.) Good conduct is not the legalistic, Clintonesque solution of “covering up” the snow-babe by using provocative clothing.” Covering up” in the spirit of the request means a tarp.
The more you write, the less I like these people.
Hopefully this makes you hate them, but either way, I’ll end on this note.
If it had been a Male torso, there would be no offense – or no justifiably actionable offense. I’m not trying to sound legalistic, but all sorts of images set people off. What’s the line? If you were a devout Christian, a typical Frosty style snowman might be akin to pagan worship. Should that snowman be taken down because it offends Christianity?
All the while, putting the fear in the minds of kids (that tried to be creative because they probably had an art teacher explaining how to sculpt and it was the passion of the moment) that you have to limit your creative expression. Charles LeVier would be oh so proud.
Back to my point – I don’t believe it’s always about “Good Conduct” or “Best Conduct” – sometimes it’s about “Acceptable Conduct” – and when it comes to kids and creativity, I never want to limit their potential.
Tell me her kids were over 16, and I’ll change my tune a bit.
Tim, if my neighbor was offended by snowmen, I sure wouldn’t build one. And if my neighbors were NOT offended by giant snow penises wearing top hats, I wouldn’t build one of those either.
By the way, her kid was 34. 😀