I was in Flying Apron yesterday and was appalled by this installation. I read the artist's statement, and it sounded like bullshit to me: recreating the photos as fine art somehow renders them no longer ridiculous and exploitative. Nope, don't think so.

I found it to be additionally galling that the artist was linking his work with breast cancer research fundraising. Can we please stop saving *boobies* and start saving HUMANS who have cancer instead?

Hee hee, boobies

Ten percent of his sales to charity? And (judging from the excerpts from your conversation) using that meager amount as a crutch to stage a fit over? I mean, we all know that he's really upset about his lost revenue off of his paintings of women's tits. He can suck it.

As far as the cafe goes: Let your employees into the decision-making process. They're the ones who have to stare at this crap all day, after all. The "due diligence" isn't whether or not the owner or manager saw the art and thought it was okay or not, it's whether or not all of the people that work there were fine with it.

One less cafe to visit in Fremont.

How much of this has to do with the Vegan angle?

I like his point of view (not as much the paintings, which are too realistic for me), after reading about this series on his website. Boobstagram does seem like a way for exhibitionists to claim a little righteousness about their constant selfies (because it's benefiting breast cancer research, hon!) The fact that all the paintings are of honkers is another pertinent comment on our anti- "itty bitty titty committee" culture. Also, these paintings have itty bitty prices.

Boring.

Boring, the art, not the article.

When did it become a thing that art shouldn't offend anybody? Yes, this was immature, crap art, but I'm not thrilled on the precedent that if someone (even if an employee) doesn't like the art it comes down.

You know, he can do whatever he wants but pictures of boobs do NOT equal breast cancer awareness. That is such an infuriating, bullshit cop out, way more offensive than any of those paintings. You look at those paintings and you have not learned anything, not become more "aware" of anything related to breast cancer. In addition, I think a good number of people with breast cancer would be pretty upset by them as it's basically like "Look at this body part that has ravaged you with disease and that you no longer have, but that our society places such an insane premium on!" Ugh, get me out of this stupid pink month already!

An even-minded, thought-provoking post. You can't control people's reactions, and the owner and artist should have contemplated an employee might object, given the images. It's a bakery, not a gallery. I'm not sure why there's anger and finger-pointing.

The other commenters above, you can't just make up allegations and post them. These are people's livelihoods. Jen put something responsible up, and your comments are off in the mud.

Nobody in Fremont wants to see painted boobs, that's why they canceled the Solstice Parade.

Great quotes so far:

"most likely the artist is a voyeur/sadist"
"these are likely photos taken against the persons will"
"the whole stunt sounds rapey to me"
"He can suck it"

The voices of Seattle sure are thoughtful and interesting. What amazing introspective remarks about artwork. I am so proud to live in a city with such a diverse range of vitriol. Thanks everyone -Brent Holland

I am so confused by the world today. There has been a massive outpouring of female nudity in books/movies/events, all with the title "celebrating the female form." There are "naked girl" book readings. Burlesque performers say things like "It's not about taking my clothing off onstage, it's about the ability to choose to." All I seem to see everywhere is naked women. I'm not saying that's a terrible thing, but it does make me a little uncomfortable. Why can't we "celebrate the female mind" as well as her form? Why is only female nudity presented? Male forms are nice to see as well.

Anyways, one of the reasons I'm confused is that everyone freaked out about these paintings. Why is nudity okay and not cleavage? Would the paintings have stayed up if they were paintings of naked women? Or is it because only the cleavage is shown, and not the faces of the women? I can see how that could send an objectifying message.

@15 This is Slog. I recommend skimming and ignoring when needed and focusing on helpful comments, such as @16. This forum is interesting because of occasional vitriol but mostly the good, thoughtful comments shine through. I'm sorry to hear about your show being yanked. That sucks.

@18 - Totally agree. I would never let comments like the ones I quoted get to me...it's a comment on a blog so I understand that it comes without a filter in any way. I bet if Slog posted a picture of a kitten it would get hateful comments within minutes. I'm going to use the quotes as a jumping off point for a new series of paintings. I'm not really sorry about it being yanked. This article would have never been written without that!

Puritans gonna purify.

I think the piece with the black bra and blue sweater is absolutely stunning. I wish I could afford it.

It is amazing to me that women (and men) objectify themselves by photographing and posting just certain parts of their bodies. At the same time, sometimes I think we are just too uptight in the U.S. about our bodies all together.

I think the show is very thought provoking. Whether the thoughts are "offensive" or "pleasant" I appreciate an artistic commentary that encourages me to consider things from different perspectives. I would love to see the issues of this show duked out in some 300-level gender studies course! I think it would be intellectually worth it.

My God, they are breasts covered in clothing. Beautifully and tastefully painted, I might add. I am really surprised these were taken down. I see more offensive and uncomfortable portrayals of women when I randomly turn on the TV at 3 in the afternoon. Furthermore, if the artist states that his work was created for breast cancer awareness, then they were created for breast cancer awareness! He's donating a fraction of proceeds to breast cancer research. Seriously, how can anyone knock that?

All things considered though--Brent, while I think it's a crying shame your art was taken down, I kind of think it's amazing that your art is provoking so much discussion. To me, that is the best kind of art.

"A note to anybody who's putting up art: Don't jerk artists around. Do whatever vetting you need to do before the art goes up." So true, but it happens.

Years back when I ran an art gallery in Philly an area artist had a show pulled down just before opening. The gallery owners hadn't seen the work (sexualized versions of animal fetishes...hey, it was the 90s) until they walked in that day and were offended by it. When he came by in tears over this I pulled down some older stuff from our walls, pulled together a volunteer work crew, and got his stuff up in time for that evening's art walk. Then got on the news and made sure the story got out.

While personally I don't care for these paintings (tits!), I think Flying Apron's actions are repugnant and cowardly. Fuck them sideways.