Lelands to offer Nude photo of Joe DiMaggio at auction

[mcgwirecom]

Janglin' Joe DiMaggio... Now I feel strange with my hand on his shoulder...

[benderbroeth]

as someone else posted i do not know wht legal rights the dimaggio family has to try and end this auction, the photo is owned by someone else, unless it was stolen from the family i do not see them being able to tell people what they can sell.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I received the auction catalog in the mail several weeks ago and found these photo auctions extremely disturbing.

First off, Lelands is hyping them as artistic boudoir photos -which they aren't. By definition, boudoir means seductively clothed female photos. These are nothing of the sort.

Second, the comparison of these to Marilyn Monroe nude photos is absurd. Monroe clearly consented to her photos and was financially compensated. We know nothing about the Dimaggio and Feller photos. They aren't even looking directly at the camera, so it's quite possible, if not highly probable that these photos were taken without their consent. Someone could have walked up with a concealed camera, quickly pulled out the camera, taken the photos and ran off before the victims could do anything about it.

I also find it intriguing that these photos didn't surface until after both Feller and Dimaggio died. If these are innocent forms of art, with no concerns of demeaning the individuals, or being sued by the individuals, why weren't they published years ago? In fact, why didn't Feller and Dimaggio pose nude for calenders or magazines as Monroe did if it's no big deal? It's a safe bet that they would have never wanted these to be made public.

Shame on Lelands and the moral degenerates who will try to buy these.

[GrayGhost]

The more I read this, the more disturbed I am, by these "dealers". No need for this stuff to be there.

[steve B]

The comments point out the difficulty with items like these, or any other controversial nature.
Personally I'm against the celebrity gained by certain "artists" whose only talent is to shock and offend then cover up what's basically offensive junk with some drivel of a description of its meaning. (Mostly the guy who built a career on putting stuff in jars of certain fluids)

But the reality is that the items exist. And if they're legal to own they must end up somewhere if the original owner doesn't want them. Or even when the second owner doesn't want them. I've had a few things like that turn up in collections of film or ephemera.

What's important is not the object, but the story and lesson it carries about the time that produced it. For some items that's an easy story to tell. For others it requires a bit more tact. And for some it's very hard to do that, occasionally requiring an entire museum to portray and teach the proper context. (The Museum of Jewish heritage in NY does a fine job of that with their holocaust related items) And even the best museums find some items worthy of keeping for study but almost impossible to display. The Smithsonian was given the worlds largest air sickness bag collection, over 900 ranging from the 30's into the 80's. They still haven't thought of a tasteful way to display them. - They also need to display objects that attract interested visitors, and I imagine interest in that collection would be pretty low.


Steve B

[SyrNy1960]

So I was bored and thought I would go back and look at older posts. This one is from 2011. I don’t recall the Dimaggio photo back then, but I do recall the McGwire Jock Strap being up for auction. So I thought I would ask to see what kinds of crazy stuff have you all have seen since 2011.

[SyrNy1960]

A urinal from the Pontiac Silverdome signed by Detroit Lions legend Barry Sanders sold on eBay for $3,000.