| Επίσημη τοποθεσία της "Βιβλιοθήκης Γυμνισμού" από 15/11/2023 |
Naturism
Judges Watch Films Depicting Them and Order a Private Performance Young Girls Defendants Celly de Reydt, the Premiere, Her Husband and Photographers Also Accused BERLIN, Jan. 10.- Naked dancing went on trial in the Criminal Court today. The principal in the case is Celly de Rheydt¹, the pioneer in dancing of this type, and the codefendants are Celly's husband, Sewelch3, a former First Lieutenant, who was originally her impresario and still acts as manager for his wife in her undraped dancing; Celly's ballet of five young girls, the youngest 14; the motion picture photographers who filmed the nude ballet and the “still” photographers who made picture postals of it, none of which would be permitted to pass through the American mails. The case, which is a cause celebre for Berlin, opened in a fitting setting today. Five learned Judges were on the bench, with a battery of eight lawyers for, the defense entrenched in front of Celly and her dancing girls. The State's Attorney is supported by one lone, shocked witness so far –a certain Pastor Hoppe –and a flock of professors as experts in the morality of the art, including Professor Max von Schillings², one of the most distinguished living German composers, best known for his opera “Mona Lisa” and Director General of the Opera House. The general public was excluded, but reporters and representatives of children's welfare organizations were admitted. The Presiding Judge first ordered a motion picture of the nude dances thrown on the screen which had been stretched in the courtroom, frequently stopping the reel for a closer examination, as well as to identify the defendants shown on the screen and to quiz them regarding exactly what articles of clothing, including beads, gauze streamers, &c., they had worn at each stage. The questioning of the Court elicited the information that at first the dancers were relatively clad above the waist, but as the ballet went on their bodies were completely exposed. In the case of the last dance shown the Court's queries as to costume were superfluous, for Celly was flashed on the screen in the altogether. On account of the heated atmosphere in the overcrowded courtroom the Court called it a day's work and decided to order a view, “in camera”, of the original live ballet production, with music, at a local theatre on Thursday. What is alleged to be the most offensive dance is a pantomime in which Celly appears, first fully clad as a mediaeval nun, who suddenly goes mad before a crucifix, sheds her nun's clothing completely and proceeds to execute a dance symbolic of delirium. This dance was actually performed in public repeatedly in 1919, until the flood of protests, principally from Catholics, on the ground of profanation and sacrilege, caused Celly to withdraw it from her repertoire. | American visitors who have since seen her modified “beauty dances” say they never saw anything like them before. Among these American art experts were pillars of the community, mostly with wives and families across the Atlantic.
(Source: Cyril Brown in The New York Times, January 11, 1922)
FOOTENOTES:
¹ Celly de Rheydt (aka Cäcilie Schmidt, 1889-1969), German nude ballet dancer. She stood trial in 1922 for her nude appearances on stage (1919-21).
² Max von Schillings (1868-1933), German composer and conductor, best known for his opera Mona Lisa (1915), also for his Antisemitism.
3 Alfred Seveloh, not Sewelch as mentioned in the text.
Citing an overcrowded market, a baffling array of “haphazard quality” nudist-type magazines and a corresponding dip in sales– it has been announced that Utopia, Arcadia, Sol, and Nudistory magazines are being suspended. Ed Lea, purveyor for the Luros interests' only gesture toward putting out genuine nudist publications, threw in the towel early this month. Luros interests include some 27 titles purporting to be nudist and probably an equal number of “girlie” magazines, some of which in recent months have been called “girlies with hair” due to the fact that they display pubic areas, both hirsute and depilated, with great abandon suspicious of deliberate exhibition. Luros currently has a serious obscenity conviction on appeal. Ed Lea and Luros, according to the announcement, were “forced to the conclusion that magazines devoted exclusively to the nudist cause have served their purpose,” after a careful survey “and are now editorially self-limiting.”
The term “self-limiting” is not defined, nor is it explained whose “purpose” is supposed to have been served. There is a plethora of pseudonudist magazines, and beyond a doubt their very superabundance, if nothing else, has made inroads on the market and left many serious readers “uncertain about the genuine article.” However, this does not force the conclusion that there is no longer need–or at least room–for the authentic product. Therefore, the phrase “magazines devoted exclusively to the nudist cause have served their purpose” must be intended to mean that magazines concerned only with nudism per se no longer make money for the California publisher: have served his purpose. As publishers of bona fide nudist magazines we can certainly agree that such magazines are not making money. If profit is a man's only motive then he should leave the field. And by “editorially self-limiting,” are we being told that nudism as practiced by nudists and presented to the public as such is not enough? Not enough for what? Profit calculations in the “girlie” trade? Or is our very way of life deficient in the eyes of a public slavering after visions of a “New Morality” proffered by the likes of Ankhdom?
Also what happens to Nudism Today, the ASA official journal printed and distributed by the same interests? Is it a magazine “devoted exclusively to the nudist cause,” to be abandoned as unprofitable? Or is it to survive by further compromising nudist principles and ideals?
Samples of what apparently does sell and which is being passed off under the guise or at least aegis of nudism, as evidenced by both declaration of purpose and content in several recent Parliament publications, include: “Provocative words and pictures,” “pornography,” “erotic art,” “The Sexual Revolution... current erotic behavior,” “uses and abuse of curiosity,” and even a “swinging Sunshine Safari.” The latter offers “Naked and alive... the players cavort,” “Languorous lunch... where the views of the desert (and each other) inspire some far-out art forms.” This is all before “a female form” is 'put to the test.” (“You pour while she rubs.” A “Far-out Film” (“Naked Freak-out”) rounds out the offering, complete with “three swinging couples” inviting the viewer to “join the revelry.” “AND-for the first time... the illusion of a psychedelic trip.” “Visual thrills” include “Swinging visitors” joining their “trippy hosts” for the “lively antics of a nudist happening.” The above is not nudism. We do not feel nudism is even related to these perversions of our ideals. We assure everyone that rather than accept such possible dictates the bona fide nudist press will retire. As for the failure of Utopia and the efforts of Ed Lea to maintain his ideals within the framework prescribed by his employers –which apparently is what has happened–we are truly sorry. Ed Lea is a photographer par excellent and we would sincerely hope that his considerable talents will be employed to the promotion of the nudist movement alone.
Before nudists shed a tear or a brief pause of respect for the demise of a serious, even if at times misdirected, effort, we ought to make note of the qualifications embodied in Utopia's announcement: particularly a final accounting with contributors tempered by an intention to utilize articles and photographs on hand “in other ventures under consideration.” Perhaps excursions along the lines of the Elysium nakedelic panderings?
“Whatever business I go into,” concludes Lea, “I shall never forget your patience and loyalty.” We suggest if he indeed contemplates throwing his talent and editorial nest egg–including submissions from legitimate nudist parks–into free love fodder and its ilk, nudists would do well to more than file for divorce, and consign whatsoever patience and loyalty which does remain to a similar dung heap.
Also what happens to Nudism Today, the ASA official journal printed and distributed by the same interests? Is it a magazine “devoted exclusively to the nudist cause,” to be abandoned as unprofitable? Or is it to survive by further compromising nudist principles and ideals?
Samples of what apparently does sell and which is being passed off under the guise or at least aegis of nudism, as evidenced by both declaration of purpose and content in several recent Parliament publications, include: “Provocative words and pictures,” “pornography,” “erotic art,” “The Sexual Revolution... current erotic behavior,” “uses and abuse of curiosity,” and even a “swinging Sunshine Safari.” The latter offers “Naked and alive... the players cavort,” “Languorous lunch... where the views of the desert (and each other) inspire some far-out art forms.” This is all before “a female form” is 'put to the test.” (“You pour while she rubs.” A “Far-out Film” (“Naked Freak-out”) rounds out the offering, complete with “three swinging couples” inviting the viewer to “join the revelry.” “AND-for the first time... the illusion of a psychedelic trip.” “Visual thrills” include “Swinging visitors” joining their “trippy hosts” for the “lively antics of a nudist happening.” The above is not nudism. We do not feel nudism is even related to these perversions of our ideals. We assure everyone that rather than accept such possible dictates the bona fide nudist press will retire. As for the failure of Utopia and the efforts of Ed Lea to maintain his ideals within the framework prescribed by his employers –which apparently is what has happened–we are truly sorry. Ed Lea is a photographer par excellent and we would sincerely hope that his considerable talents will be employed to the promotion of the nudist movement alone.
Before nudists shed a tear or a brief pause of respect for the demise of a serious, even if at times misdirected, effort, we ought to make note of the qualifications embodied in Utopia's announcement: particularly a final accounting with contributors tempered by an intention to utilize articles and photographs on hand “in other ventures under consideration.” Perhaps excursions along the lines of the Elysium nakedelic panderings?
“Whatever business I go into,” concludes Lea, “I shall never forget your patience and loyalty.” We suggest if he indeed contemplates throwing his talent and editorial nest egg–including submissions from legitimate nudist parks–into free love fodder and its ilk, nudists would do well to more than file for divorce, and consign whatsoever patience and loyalty which does remain to a similar dung heap.
(Source: The Nudist Newsletter No. 177/1967)
The original statement given out by the official Prussian press service in regard to nudism was as follows: "One of the greatest dangers for German culture and morality is the so-called nudity movement.
The International Naturist Federation held its biennial World Congress at Luxembourg from 20-22 October 2022.
|
|
|||
|
