ESCONDIDO - Complaints about a nude painting displayed outdoors last Sunday on Second Avenue have revived the debate whether the city of Escondido should regulate where galleries place such art.
Critics say the city should prohibit nude paintings on sidewalks or in display windows, because that forces people, especially children, to look at them. Supporters say nude paintings are not pornography and that the city must honor the First Amendment rights of artists.
Residents, artists and city leaders engaged in a spirited debate about the issue two years ago when complaints prompted Distinction Art Gallery on Grand Avenue to remove Robert Ferguson's painting of a male nude. An outpouring of support prompted the gallery to return the painting to the same display window a few days later.
The latest controversy began when Ferguson, who opened his own gallery this year near Second Avenue and Orange Street, put a nude painting outside his gallery last Sunday.
Zachary Stark, a 26-year-old Escondido resident, said he saw the painting and complained to police. Stark then asked the City Council last week to pass an ordinance prohibiting nude artwork outdoors or in display windows, contending that the issue would not go away until the council resolved it.
"I want to decide as a parent what my kids see," said Stark, adding that he has two young children. "I don't want that decision made for me."
Because Stark made his comments during the public communication portion of the meeting, the council was not legally allowed to discuss or act on the request. The issue could be discussed at a future meeting if requested by a member of the council.
Stark said Friday that he is pleased to see the number of art galleries increasing in Escondido, but that city leaders should remember what Escondido is all about.
"We're not downtown San Diego or Hillcrest," said Stark. "While we are growing as an art community, we are still primarily a family community."
Councilman Ed Gallo said Friday that he is reluctant to move forward with an ordinance, but he said Stark makes a great point about outdoor displays.
"Magazines with nudity have to be shielded inside stores, so if somebody wants to see this kind of painting they should have to go inside," said Gallo. "But I don't want to see us get into a situation where we're policing everything that everybody does."
City Manager Clay Phillips said the First Amendment, which protects free speech and expression, makes it difficult to deal with such issues. He also said it is difficult to create legislation based on what people find offensive, because different people find many different things offensive.
Lt. Bob Benton said the Police Department received complaints about the outdoor painting last Sunday, but he said they did not keep track of the number because it was considered "a low priority case." He said an officer visited the gallery Sunday afternoon and decided that no other action was warranted because of the First Amendment.
Ferguson said Friday that he rarely places nude paintings outside and that he has no plans to do so again. Ferguson said he might also consider removing nude paintings from his display windows.
"I know parents don't want to have to explain that to their kids," said Ferguson. "This kind of uproar will make me a little more cautious."
But Ferguson also said the complaints were overblown.
"These paintings are not lessons in anatomy," said Ferguson. "You can't even see anything unless you look closely in the shadows, but Americans are obsessed with genitalia."
Enjoy our clothing free lifestyle!
