Chicago Sun-Times Saturday, June 4, 1977

Show Stripped of nude photos

By William Braden

A woman fine-art photographer has lost a battle over her right to bare arms Ð and other portions of her anatomy. Actually, it was the other portions of Jane Wenger’s anatomy that caused all the fuss Friday at the John Hancock Center.

At issue were eight photographs that Ms. Wenger, 33, contributed to an Artemisia Gallery exhibit that was to have formally opened Friday night in the second-floor lobby of the center.

The photographs are partial self-portraits Ms. Wenger took of various parts of her unclad body. The small black-and-white photographs were hung Thursday but removed shortly later by John Briggs, public relations director for the center.

A statement requesting restoration of the photographs was issued Friday morning by the Artemisia Gallery, a collective of women artists at 9 W. Hubbard. The request was rejected Friday afternoon, and gallery members said they would remove the rest of the exhibit before the scheduled opening. And they did.

A center official said of the photographs: “They show parts of the body, from all angles. And they show lots. They show breasts, the pubic area, buttocks. They’re very unusual and deceptive at first glance. But on close examination you don’t have to guess.”

A statement released by Briggs said:
“The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. (owner of the center) regrets any misunderstanding that may have arisen over the removal of several nude photographs that were a portion of the Artemisia art co-operative exhibit ….”

“As with all exhibits placed on display at John Hancock Center for public interest and enjoyment, the company reserves the right to exclude any material that might prove offensive, particularly to children who are residents in the center or visitors to the observatory and to other tenant areas.”

“Hancock personnel reviewed the photographs in question with the exhibit sponsor (investment brokers Bache Halsey Stuart Inc.); and it was mutually agreed that the material could be considered offensive to the viewing public.”

“Officials offered the photographer involved the option of removing the photographs and substituting them with other selections. The photographer rejected the opportunity …”

Ms. Wenger said: “It’s ridiculous that they censored the work in the first place. It’s not the kind of work people censor, as far as I’m concerned. But what can I say? The publicity’s terrific for me. It’s true. The publicity’s good for the gallery, too. I’m very proud of the gallery for taking the stand they’re taking.”

The Artemisia Gallery statement to Briggs said:
“We are united in supporting Jane’s work and its validity as fine art. We feel this is not nudity but a high level of artistic expression. As a group, we cannot allow censorship of our members whose work we respect and are in unison in feeling we cannot show as a group in your building if this person is excluded.”

“The pictures are not sexual pictures or erotic pictures,” said Elaine A. King, a gallery coordinator. “They represent the human form, and the body looks like rock sculpture. If the building is so prudish, what about the magazines they’re selling down at their newsstand Playboy and Oui? If they can accept that, why can’t they accept a higher level of art expression?”

Ms. King said Ms. Wenger teaches photography at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle Campus, Ms. King added:

“These works were shown March 15 to April 15 at New Trier High School in Northfield, where they were well recieved and no one criticized them. They also were shown at Bard College in New York and are scheduled to be shown in October at Illinois Wesleyan University.”

Briggs responded:

“The newsstand is an independent tenant leasing space that is not the public part of the center. People make a choice to pick up a magazine.
Coming up the escalator (toward the exhibit area), we don’t really give them a choice.”