eve's breasts?

Muralist's vision has jail staring him in face

February 18, 2005

BY CHRISTY ARBOSCELLO
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

JOHN F. MARTIN/Special to the Free Press




Ed (Gonzo) Stross, shown at his studio on Gratiot in Roseville, is headed to jail for his take on Michelangelo's "Creation of Man."

He painted Eve as God created her: nude.

And when he finished including the bare-bosomed Biblical first woman, he inscribed the word "love" on the mural that covers the outside wall of his Roseville art studio.

In 39A District Judge Marco Santia's eyes, it's a crime.


Santia ordered jail time, a fine and probation -- a sentence that sounds a little harsh to a state senator, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and fellow artists.

Santia ordered Stross, 43, to serve 30 days in jail, do two years' probation and pay a $500 fine for violating a city sign ordinance. Roseville officials said letters were prohibited on the mural and Eve's exposed chest is indecent.

Besides jail time and the fee, Stross is to tastefully cover Eve's breasts before reporting to the Macomb County Jail on Monday morning, and to paint over "love" by May 1.

ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg said... "It's a sad day in America when an artist goes to jail for reproducing a Michelangelo painting on the side of his art studio"

In 1997, the city's Zoning Board of Appeals granted him a variance to a sign ordinance. It allowed him to paint the 1,100-square-foot wall under these conditions: no letters, no inclusion of genitalia and regular maintenance of the artwork. The board contends the artist knew breasts and words were not allowed and didn't comply with requests to change them.

Roseville Director of Building and Inspection Steve Truman, who will be city manager next month, said he doesn't object to Santia's ruling.

Truman said he believes Stross likes the attention he gets from the mural controversy.

"I frankly believe it was just self-promotion," he said. "He got a lot of free publicity out of this."

the full article and a picture of Ed and his mural are here





hmm this got me wondering about the American media and thinking back to the whole hullabaloo of that Janet Jackson thing. A good friend of mine from America was completely shocked when he stayed with me for several months; watching TV. he was amazed at how much nudity, male and female, is shown on European TV. anytime from 9pm onwards and expressed how it is very dissimilar in the states. Is this true? I mean, over here you are basically assured that there will be some documentary on porn stars or just a random show about nudity on every night. whats the deal?

Yes and no...see their is this "puritanical hypocrisy" that's kept for profit, attention, and noise.

On major network TV you won't find nudity but you'll find "adult situations" on cable and on paid cable like HBO you'll find nudity to various degree's. It's done so that those wanting to use sex keep the titulation factor high and so sex is always seem as something "naughty". It's what keeps it profitable since if it was no big deal it wouldn't make as much money as it does. Look at porn...no country buys as much porn or makes as much porn and the U.S. so you have to wonder...how puritanical ARE we?

Plus you have to remember that TV in the states is pretty unique in that we have way too many channels and each specialize in particular themes or subjects. Soap Opera's, talk shows, and top rated shows ALL have sex in them yet no graphic nudity...cause you know...to protect "the kids" and all that crap. It's a smokescreen though to keep it controversial and watched. Without it...well...it'd make many beloved shows pretty fucking boring.

In the case above...I agree it's total self promotion...especially given that he was told specifics of what to paint and not to paint. Each community and city has it's "rules" regarding sex, sexuality, and nudity in public places after all. You have to honor them even if you don't like them. You can't force L.A.'s views on sex on some small lil midwest town same as you wouldn't want them forcing it on you...that's what gets lost...community morals. If a community wants to damn and ban something then it has to be taken with a grian of salt...so long as they do not violate certain federal and state laws you really can't force em into accepting say a nude statue in their public square.

You simply can't judge american TV by the major networks anymore. As far the Janet Jackson thing goes...it was a really odd performance for a Super Bowl half time show (it sucked anyhow) but really it was out of place...though not because it was her nipple being shown but because it was the CURRENT janet jacksons nipple being shown...and in all truth she's not the beauty she once was...she is looking more like walking freakshow than anything else.

I agree it was blown out of proportion though...booing would have been better.

that should have been this

Is that the mural in the back? Cause if it is...I'd send him to jail for that monstrosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

Is that the mural in the back? Cause if it is...I'd send him to jail for that monstrosity.

---

yes it is.....hahaha i just realised that hes reaching out to touch the american flag....hahahaha...

i'm thinking more along the lines of capital punishment!

It just looks so cheesy...I mean god reaching out to touch the american flag held by an angel (at least that's what it looks like) is such a bad idea...I can see why he would have thought it was good but jeez...rethink how to do it.

Even FOX NEWS wouldn't show that.


Maybe.

so what if god created her nude? that doesn't give him the right to do the same god does. he should be killed for blasphemy.

Don't understand the flag worship thing. i mean, yeah, you're the biggest, fattest, richest nation on the planet, but is your way of life really that much better than, say, Canada? [/heresy]

shut up you're just mad because you lost the revolution.

oh yeah, and the war of 1812

mad? no. you know, odd though it may seem, very few Brits wake up in the year 2005 and say to themselves "Shit! we don't own america any more!" and yet EVERY time i get into a discussion about US self-obsession somebody brings it up. Look, c'mon! you've been at liberty for two hundred years! most republics manage to hang on to that revolutionary fervour for maybe a decade, but really... it's time to lose the inferiority complex, ok?

I'm just kidding. I'll be the first one to denounce america, but considering england is the biggest imperialistic asshole in history I really dont think they have room to talk shit.

I think we have been overtaken in the imperialistic asshole stakes. some time ago in fact.

Hrm... I LIVE here and I never heard a word about this. I might have to take a drive and get some better photos of this thing. If I get some shots, I will post them for everyone and we can either marvel at his genius or shake our heads at his poor taste. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinstar

Hrm... I LIVE here and I never heard a word about this. I might have to take a drive and get some better photos of this thing. If I get some shots, I will post them for everyone and we can either marvel at his genius or shake our heads at his poor taste. :)

---

Im local to this as well and its funny to me that more people know of this than me. It seems to have made a bigger splash elsewhere than locally.

I just think the same as 23 what is the big deal about nudity?

it kinda sounds ,to me, that the judge took something personal,i could only see a small fine for breaking the word clause only:i don't think breat count as genitalia do they?.......

my two cent's worth: he should paint a brassiere on. a sleek black lacy affair that just covers the nipples. with little lace bows. he might have to adjust the way the breasts sit, so the brassiere pushes 'em together slightly. heh heh.