The Art of Wm Monje

an online gallery representing many artists.  Those of my pieces for sale on Yessy are digitally enhanced and

printed individually by the artist as a certified giclée limited edition, signed and numbered by the artist, with

a certificate of authenticity.  Be sure to check out the bronze sculpture and other of my gallery exhibits with

Please note:  I've opened this site with considerable text, some of it personal in nature, but a great deal of it

regarding the whole subject of censorship, both religious and political, which is, having spent years

moderating message boards on the topic of civil liberties, a subject I jump into, compulsively, every chance I

If you don't want to read the opening text, you can just look at the

pictures as you scroll forward or simply go directly to yessey.com and

start buying my artwork.

The artwork herein is copyrighted by the artist, William Monje

/2009/all rights reserved.  Individual pieces have much earlier copyright

dates.  This work may not be used for sale in any form, electronic or

otherwise, such as printouts or other means of reproduction. Inasmuch

as many of the originals have been sold, it should be reminded that

ownership of originals does not imply a copyright, meaning the right to

make and sell reproductions, unless expressly granted in writing as part

of the original sale of the work.  Also under copyright law, the work

may not be defaced or distorted in anyway, but I do not object to a fair

To those who have collected my artwork in the past, wondering,

perhaps, what happened to me, I will try to sum it up as best I can.  First

of all there has been a return of censorship, and I could not find an exhibit open to the public that would

show my work.  Beyond that, after a lengthy period of depression following a fire that destroyed much of

my work, I simply became discouraged.  That ended when I discovered online, was produced as a

playwright, and otherwise devoted most of my time to writing fiction, both narrative and drama, and further

took a stand, online, against that return of censorship and other lost liberties.  For a long time I did not do

any new artwork, probably over twenty years.  More recently, however, I did a small collection of unique

and erotic pieces of sculpture, also presented on this site.  Even more recently I have produced a number of

landscape paintings, mostly inspired by a move to Northern California and literally a change of scenery. 

The opening portion of the text is a bit of personal history and commentary on both my work specifically

and on art in general, including aesthetics, censorship and other aspects of erotica or simply art. (A lot of the

commentary is political in nature, a kind of an obsessive/compulsive problem I have, probably the result of

twelve years doing message boards, including seven years as the ACLU message board moderator.)  The

smaller pictures used in the opening text are illustrative only, relative in some small way to the text around

them, but are not the presentation of the art itself as such.  Further on, after that opening text, I have larger

pictures titles.

signed and numbered, limited editions with image dimensions

relative to printing on a 17 inch wide sheet, some on Fine Art

Watercolor Paper and some on Premium Matte Finish Paper.  The

certificate of authenticity consists of disclosure about the

reproductions in accordance with California law and insures resale

value should the work appreciate with time.  “Giclée” is a French

word referring to individually enhanced and controlled inkjet

reproduction of art prints, and is pronounced zhee-clay.  Extensive

definitions of both certificates of authenticity and the giclée process

can be found on line with a good search engine such as Google.

The work herein is taken from digital photographs or scans of either

original work or reproductions that in most cases are hand-colored

prints.  Many of the originals have been sold already, so much of

this work is taken from prints. In most cases the originals were done

in pen and ink, professionally photographed in black and white or

halftones from which prints were made, then colored with

transparent watercolor.  The same watercolor was used on the black

and white prints as was used on the originals, both of which were

hand-colored by the artist.  Some originals remained uncolored, although the prints were usually hand-

colored.  Most work is in pen and ink and watercolor, but those in oil, pencil, charcoal or any other medium

This collection is not all-inclusive, and a good number of pieces were sold without prints being made first,

and some lost, including the remaining prints of several popular pieces that were lost in a fire several years

ago.  I am still endeavoring to restore or otherwise recover copies for reproduction.  I would be interested in

hearing from anyone who owns either originals or reproductions with the possibility of using that work for a

I have presented my Self Portrait here as a reminder to those familiar with my work, being the best selling

of all reproductions.

It's a real challenge to pursue a career in any kind of art, not to mention a

living (meaning you actually pay the rent from income as an artist).  By

artist I mean not just painting or sculpting, but music, acting, writing and

other similar endeavors as well…all those "occupations" you don't want to

put on an application to rent an apartment in Hollywood because the

I'm an art school dropout myself.  I dropped out after six months of what

would have been a two-year degree because I figured I could get paid to

practice what I was, as a student, paying to practice—what’s more, the

master I was studying under agreed..  I was right.  The first thing I did was

to paint a backdrop for a community theatre as a volunteer (nowadays,

working for nothing is called "showcasing," which is essentially what I

did).  Within a month I was working as a paid professional scenic artist,

which within a year progressed to set designer, technical director, lighting

designer, and another seasonal job (to become year around later on) as art

director for the State Fairgrounds.  I was about twenty-one at the starting

point.  (This was in the late fifties…and times were about to change dynamically very soon.  I'll get to that

shortly.)  I'm not sure what my point is, but looking back (and around too), college would have been a waste

of time for me as an artist.  Although it probably never seemed like it at the time, looking back, I never

The sixties were mostly devoted to making a name (like being a big frog in a small pond) as a set designer

and scenic artist, but including technical direction, which meant I could also build and light those sets

(carpentry and a lot of electrical expertise, which helped make me in demand and employable).  My work at

the fairgrounds also led to a sideline business in commercial display, which has a lot in common with theatre

I had actually studied fine art and was not interested in commercial art as it is usually defined…although I've

done my share of that too.   I never considered scenic art and set design to be particularly commercial, but I

suppose commercial display would be.  I loved the theatre, and still do (although my latest endeavours have

been as playwright, not scenic artist), but the fact remained that it had been my intention to be a fine artist. 

Fine art, if one is not familiar with the distinction, means a struggling artist who paints what he feels like

painting, and then attempts to find or otherwise create a market for that art (not that I didn't enjoy the

challenge of being commissioned to paint four or five backdrops measuring up to 22' X 56' in a couple of

weeks or less).  The great difference being that in commercial art, even scenic art, the market comes to you

and tells you what it wants.  Mostly, I think, I was not only being content with scenic art, but I really didn't

know, at that time, exactly what subject matter I wanted to pursue as a fine artist.  That came later and was

motivated by certain current events.

A wondrous thing happen in 1961:  The Supreme Court pondered the question of D. H. Lawrence's Lady

Chatterley's Lover and decided it was not obscene, contrary to previous considerations, most of which dated

back to a guy named Comstock and the Comstock Act (look it up online).  That decision, followed by

another regarding the Eighteenth Century novel Fanny Hill, ultimately opened a floodgate of erotica,

including porn, which probably would have offended even Lawrence himself.  In the late sixties the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that people could read and look at whatever they wished in the privacy of their

own homes. That ruling really upset most of Congress who, in their most righteous consideration of how

they believed themselves to be the makers of laws to protect Americans from themselves (which has what to

do with life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness?), decided it was their duty to do something about

this damned promiscuous Constitution of ours.  Later, President Johnson commissioned research by

eighteen experts into the effect of pornography and obscenity, which was actually a congressional effort, or

intent (Congress having appropriated two million bucks to prove pornography was a threat to American

values), so they could retain control of the individual's life through their many laws of enforced morality. 

Unfortunately for Nixon the report didn't come out until he was President.  (It was actually published as a

book, dirty pictures and all, and became a bestseller during the seventies.  I suspect today it may not even be

legal to look at it…which is yet another story.)  Essentially it said erotica and even pornography and

obscenity didn't present a major social problem.  One study, for instance, concluded that young college

men had a great interest in pornography if they had never seen any, but it didn't take them long to become

bored with it and lose interest, especially if it were readily available to them.  That wasn't what the Congress

In 1985 Reagan appointed another commission, run by Attorney General Edwin Meese, to come to another

conclusion.  The Meese Commission, made up of eleven carefully selected anti pornography crusaders,

came out with such statements as, "Regardless of what the findings are, common sense tells us otherwise,"

or words to that effect, which, of course, is not particularly scientific in nature.  It's a long story, one I am

tempted to go into in great length (which seems to be my nature on writing on just about anything), but the

rest, as they say, is history…although history is changing, as it always tends to do, more often than not to

One terribly sarcastic comment made by Kurt Vonnegut in a commentary on the Meese Commission,

released before the Commission's findings, and as a member of a group calling themselves the National

Coalition Against Censorship, put is all pretty well, at least in my opinion:  "It is not enough that sex crimes

of every sort are already against the law and are punished with admirable severity. It is up to our

leaders…to persuade a large part of our citizenry that even the most awful sex crimes are made legal, and

even celebrated in some godless quarters, because of the permissiveness of our Constitution." Yes, indeed,

our Constitution is permissive, its permissiveness otherwise being referred to as rights retained by the

There are some facts of the matter that are worth stating, however. 

For one thing, regarding legislative action recommended by the

original commission, the report said they found it, "inappropriate

to adjust the level of adult communication to that considered

suitable for children," which the Supreme Court supported.  What

that meant was that everything should not be reduced to what is

acceptable only for children--adults get to be treated like adults. 

Anything else would mean that what we as individual adults get to

view or read must necessarily be suitable for the youngest of

children or must not offend the sensibilities of the world's most

sensitive prudes.  The Commission also recommended that care be

taken not to expose such material to children or to unsuspecting

adults, such as not sending unsolicited material, which meant

simply giving them some sort of warning as to the nature of the

material before they viewed it.  In other words, free adults in a free

country actually had a right to make a choice about such things…a

kind of take-it-leave-it sort of choice, as opposed to Congress

deciding what you could or could not view.  That, of course, led to

I'm going to digress here a moment: being not only a fine artist who happens to do erotic art, I am also,

politically, a civil libertarian (with a small letter "l").  I recall once watching C-SPAN, a hearing on the

labeling of movies, rap music and computer games, as I recall, featuring such notables as Senators Biden

and Lieberman.  At one point Biden made the comment, "We allow Larry Flint to do his thing, but…."

whatever else he had to say.  Well, I'm sorry, Senator (now “Mr. Vice President”), you do not allow

anything.  The truth of the matter is we do not allow you to do otherwise.  That much is clearly stated in the

First Amendment in the words, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press."  No one seemed to pick up on his absolute misconception of who the hell he thought he was as a

senator and what he thinks he and the rest of Congress "allows."  It's just not that way, not constitutionally. 

But who notices things like that?  It went down in the record as some sort of statement of fact…but he

couldn't be more wrong.  It's this kind of unrepentant proclamations by elected officials that are changing the

very heart and soul of the Constitution and generating a universal ignorance among the population, the

people in whose name the Constitution was written, that our Bill of Rights is some kind of gift of

government, a privilege they gave and can take away, when, in fact, the Bill of Rights is an expressed and

explicit restriction on government itself.  When we lose sight of that truth, the “truth” will become the lie the

powers-that-be  intend it to be, and we will, with passive consent, allow it to happen.

Strangely, it seems to me, that since the seventies, or the sixties, back when Midnight Cowboy was X rated,

the R ratings nowadays are more and more about "graphic violence," not nudity or particularly explicit

erotica.  But if you stop to think about it, it would be virtually impossible to portray the history of mankind

and the human condition without a great deal of both sex and violence…although violence, for some strange

reason, seems to be more acceptable for viewing than a naked breast, particularly where parental consent is

involved.  I wonder what that means sometimes.  The rest of the country is wondering why young people are

becoming more and more violent.  The " tripple X" movies,  rarely, if ever, portray violence, at least not

One glorious exception to the whole contemporary R-rated-movie thing is a wonderful movie entitled Nell 

in which Jodi Foster does several extended (not "brief") nude scenes.  The story, acting and general

production values make it an exceptional movie in itself, but Jodi Foster nude makes it exquisite, at least in

my opinion.  (When I read the nudity warning I was hoping it would be Jodi Foster.  There was another

actress named Natasha Richardson, and actresses named Natasha tend to do nude scenes…or worse yet,

maybe it might be Liam Neeson's rear end, which actually did make an appearance too.)  I couldn't help but

pick up on the words of the character played by Liam Neeson in that movie, watching Nell dance naked in

the moonlight: "Just because I think she's beautiful doesn't mean I want to have sex with her."  Exactly.  In

a word it is called "aesthetics."  It is a pure and simple sense of beauty in what should be, in the eyes of any

rational human being, beautiful.  I say the same for portrayals of sex itself.  Why should it not be a beautiful

scene?  It is about aesthetics, in my mind, certainly not anything ugly or evil.  It is, in fact, the exercise of

Beginning in the seventies, there were basically two groups who opposed nudity and erotica.  One group

was the family-values crowd, or what today we might call the "faith based" censors; the other group was the

extreme feminists who saw it all as exploitation of women.  The feminists were probably the toughest if not

the meanest of the lot, and even the most dangerous (in a First Amendment sort of way), leading the way in

both boycotts (mostly targeting Playboy and Penthouse sold at convenience stores as prime examples of all

that is rotten about men in general) and enacting or attempting to enact legislation against free expression in

The established test, not for what is obscene, but what should be preemptively forbidden as speech, in the

minds of most legal experts (and I really don't agree with any form of prior restraint on any speech at all), is

the old Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement from 1919-- the concept of a "clear and

present danger."  (That did not actually refer to yelling "Fire!" in a theatre.  It did refer to the mailing of anti-

draft pamphlets, during a time of war, by the Socialist Party, which, ironically, today, would probably be

protected speech.)  Anyway, given that criteria, I have to ask myself this question:  Will my erotic art

present a clear and present danger?  Will my artwork lead to the subordination and degradation of women

and ultimately rape on the streets, making evildoers of otherwise righteous men?  (The whole concept of

female nudity is based in a prevailing patriarchal belief system that the female body, especially exposed, but

not necessarily exposed, will tempt otherwise righteous men, thus making the female body an instrument of

Satan.  Strangely enough, the extreme of feminism falls for the same concept…in their fashion.)  So, will my

The criteria for what is obscene and what is allowed as free expression is calculated by whether or not it is

"socially redeemable" ("redeemable" from what, it doesn't say), and is based on a test of whether or not it

has scientific, literary, artistic or political significance…otherwise known as the "SLAP" test.  I am certain

in my own mind that my work has artistic value, which is further defined in yet another Supreme Court test

as having "artistic elaboration."  That part ought to be obvious, although I would argue that every line in it is

of artistic significance and every line in it is artistic elaboration.  It's a vague test, you have to admit, but I

don't lose any sleep over it.

Now add to that the ruling of "community standards."  That

would seem to indicate that some communities (although a

"community" is not in any way defined within the ruling itself)

may decide that a painting of naked and well-fed ladies by

Rubens is, in their opinion, obscene.  So be it.  I figure that if I

present my erotic art online, with full warning that it is erotic, and

some of it explicitly so, and if such artwork is in violation of your

community's standards, but you still click on the link to it, it is

you, not I, who has brought it into your tightass community…so

Although I read the President's Commission on Obscenity and

Pornography shortly after its publication about thirty years ago

and followed the discussion with personal interest at that time,

some of the quotes used above I've borrowed from an article on

the subject by David M. Edwards.  The quotes used are well

documented in footnotes to that article posted online, which is

possibly a mirrored and/or abridged version of the original: