A Debate from the Sept. Issue of "The Artists Magazine"

In the Sept issue of "The Artist's Magazine" there's a letter from the editor (as well as some from readers) concerning the nude figure in art. Apparently, in the June issue (which I somehow missed), artist Bob Palevitz wrote to the magazine stating that his gallery happily sells his still life paintings, but is reluctant to show his paintings of nude figures. The article then launched into a question about whether nude figures is considered pornography in our modern age. In the "Letters from Readers" you can glean a little more about the debate. One subscriber writes that a female artist friend, who also shows paintings of nudes, has a huge difficulty selling her work. Other letters (one from a grade school teacher) comment that some parents become outraged if, when going to an art museum, their children are "exposed" to classical paintings depicting the nude figure. Another comment makes the broad statement that most nudes seem to be painted by male artists (she specifically referenced a work by David Leffel in her letter). Anyway, reading the full article really irritated me. If you actually get a chance to read the letters, one says it's terribly ironic when movie stars are paid more than teachers, and I believe the same mis-placed priorities are applied here as well. People don't protest about photos of naked GAP models on public billboards, but they have a problem with a classical painting of a nude figure. Ignorance indeed. I especially think it's silly to accuse men of being the only ones to paint nude figures. Mainly because I paint them as well, and I enjoy it. Imagine that. :P