The Big Cover-Up

"MODERN TIMES"

THE BIG COVER-UP

Lloyd Garver

The Justice Department is involved in a cover-up once again. This time, they're not even denying it. Two statues in the Great Hall of Justice are now considered too sexy, and are hidden behind new blue drapes. The two offending statues are the Spirit of Justice and the Majesty of Law. The female Spirit of Justice has a partially exposed right breast, and the male Majesty of Law has a naked tummy. No wonder the Justice Department took some action.

These are not new statues. They have stood proudly in the Great Hall since 1936. They are aluminum Art Deco works created by the award-winning sculptor, C. Paul Jennewein. Originally, these statues cost the taxpayers a total of $7,275. The blue drapes just cost us $7,900.

People's tastes and the art world are constantly changing. Maybe, over the next 65 years or so, millions of tourists and art lovers will come to view the drapes just as others viewed the statues. Maybe they'll be considered Pop Art like Andy Warhol's Soup Cans or Tide boxes. Maybe photographs of the Blue Drapes of Justice will start appearing in art history books. Ph.D. dissertations might be written about the symbolic value of the blue color, the fabric that was chosen, and the way they hang representing our culture at the beginning of the 21st Century. Maybe. Maybe not.

Usually, when something is considered obscene, somebody thinks the object in question might be offensive to women or that it might incite others to act in an offensive way. But these are aluminum statues! Is the Justice Department worried that other statues will be offended? Do they think young statues will see these partially clad statues and will get inappropriately aroused?

Last time I looked, that thing draped around the Statue of Liberty seemed a little clingy. What would be the harm in putting a loose-fitting sweater on the Lady? It doesn't have to be frumpy. It can be stylish, so long as it keeps her appropriately covered. It's got to be cold for her out there near the water anyway.

There's no reason why this campaign should be limited to this country. Nobody can deny that some of the world's most famous works of art are naked. We all know what "The Thinker" is thinking about. And what about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Wasn't "The Fall of Man and the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden" just an excuse for Michelangelo to show some skin? And wouldn't his famous statue of David be just as great a work of art if somebody slipped a pair of boxers on him?

One thing that I'm confused about is, why now? Today, when we hear about a government or culture that is worried about sexy statues or paintings, we say these people are backward, repressive, or "religious nuts." In fact, haven't we been engaged in an enormous struggle with a culture that has been obsessed with covering up women? Wouldn't they be pleased by our hiding the Spirit of Justice?

Maybe the Justice Department can be forgiven for overreacting. After all, there is so much gratuitous sex both in an out of the government these days, that maybe they just got sick of it. Republicans generally blame the Clinton Administration for this lack of morality. And as far as nudity is concerned, they have a good case. Let's face it, for all those years –- even when children were present -- the Clintons never had the decency to put any clothes on their dog, Buddy.