Letter: Nude photos degrading, regardless of intent

Editor,

This is in response to Lucinda

Ulrich's complaint about the dismissal

of art teacher Tamara Hoover

in the June 29-July 5 Daily Lobo. I

found something in her column

to be somewhat ambiguous. She

claims that Hoover's nude pictures

were "artistic, not pornographic."

By what standards is anyone able

to make this distinction? What's the

difference?

A nude photo is just that - a nude

photo. Anyone could use this reasoning

to make an excuse for watching

pornography. For instance, if I stare

at a Playboy magazine, I could easily

justify it by claiming that I was looking

at it for "artistic" purposes. In

either case, I think nude photos are

very degrading and demoralizing.

Gerardo Saenz

UNM student