Are there still people in the naturist world
who believe that any kind of publicity is good publicity and that it doesn’t
matter a whit what is written about us as long as something or other is
written? Yes, there are indeed. Some would say that even an article which
treats naturism contemptuously can be of use. It is, of course, quite possible
that articles such as that by Manfred Schmidt recently printed in Quick and
discussed thoroughly in the very last issue of our magazine, can produce
different reactions in its readers from that imagined from the author. There
are, after all, still some people who can think for themselves and form
independent judgments, There still are the critically-minded to be found here
and there. Such persons can sort the wheat from the chaff but the great
majority take everything they read by a well-known publicist as the gospel
truth.
At a time when naturism has spread so widely and when its aims and purposes have gained fairly wide recognition among growing sections of the population, we have no need whatsoever to rely on the ‘evaluations’ of a Manfred Schmidt. Quite the contrary. We must not only disassociate ourselves from them entirely but do everything in our power to refute the falsehoods. For what are they? Merely extremely tendentious writings couched in a more or less insulting form. We must deny, put things in the proper perspective, and enlighten the general public on the true state of affairs. We know that what we have to offer is good and wholesome; we can perceive that our efforts are recognized in many different places of the modern community. We can, therefore, expect honest and orderly treatment but only if we do more ourselves to raise our status among the ordinary public. There are 1 or 2 examples in my mind at the moment of how not to do this. Firstly, comes the case of the ‘nude theatricals’ from Kansas USA. This again, was fully dealt with in our last issue. American naturists were very glad that long reports appeared in the papers following the production of a play with a naked cast. Our view is that such ‘publicity’ is not only worthless in itself but positively damaging. The majority would regard a theatrical performance with naked actors and actresses as so unusual that the sense and purpose of such a procedure would entirely escape them. Perhaps, one or two might find the report ‘interesting’ enough to warrant their further investigation of ‘naturism’. They might even become members eventually. But the effect on the broad masses – and there are exactly the people we want to interest – would be to produce ironical and derisive comments. I experienced this myself when the report on the Kansas, USA, nude theatricals appeared in the Danish press.
Let us take a further example from Austria: not so long ago the provincial paper Salzkammergut-Zeitung published an article on nudism couched in terms of bitter and condemnatory invective because the local cinema had shown a ’nudist film’. It happened to be one of those hateful English films of that nature from which the INF Congress so clearly disassociated itself. But what happened? A paper entitled Sonnenmensch which says it is a naturist magazine actually commissioned one of its contributors to write an article condemning the attitude of the Salzkammergut-Zeitung towards the nudist film. The editor of the Salzkammergut-Zeitung replied to this protest with the remark: ‘We reject nudism entirely and consider all discussion on it to be a waste of time’. It is, of course, very sad to find a newspaper editor so intolerant as not to allow free expression of opinion in his pages. But let us frankly admit that in this instance we have some understanding for his point of view. Sonnenmensch was defending something bad. If the contributor in question had tried to make the point that the naturist movement itself rejected the kind of films which were the subject of the local paper’s complaint, it is likely that he would have been given space to print a sensible article. Instead of that he tried frantically to defend the film itself and excuse the producer for not succeeding better in this aim! And this, despite the fact that we all know perfectly well why such films are made. On commercial grounds pure and simple. Not with the idea of promoting naturism but to earn hard cash in sex-speculation.
How can we ever expect the ordinary daily press to take us seriously or write about us in an objective and factual manner when we act so stupidly even in our papers which call themselves naturist journals? Every idea must prove itself and that also applies to naturism. We have now proved ourselves to such an extent that there are, in fact, many newspapers that deal with us in a serious fashion. The article ‘Outside Good and Evil’ which appeared in the Deutsche Zeitung of Cologne and was mentioned in our last issue in connection with the Manfred Schmidt affair is a fine example of what I mean. Similar writing has appeared in other countries. In fact the INF is getting ready to publish a work in three languages, reprinting such articles which have appeared in various countries. This INF publication will document the fact that some papers have at last understood us and recognized naturism as a cultural element of our time.
It is only by means of such articles – not through sensational reports about nude theatricals and nudist films – that ordinary, intelligent people can be won to the naturist cause.
At a time when naturism has spread so widely and when its aims and purposes have gained fairly wide recognition among growing sections of the population, we have no need whatsoever to rely on the ‘evaluations’ of a Manfred Schmidt. Quite the contrary. We must not only disassociate ourselves from them entirely but do everything in our power to refute the falsehoods. For what are they? Merely extremely tendentious writings couched in a more or less insulting form. We must deny, put things in the proper perspective, and enlighten the general public on the true state of affairs. We know that what we have to offer is good and wholesome; we can perceive that our efforts are recognized in many different places of the modern community. We can, therefore, expect honest and orderly treatment but only if we do more ourselves to raise our status among the ordinary public. There are 1 or 2 examples in my mind at the moment of how not to do this. Firstly, comes the case of the ‘nude theatricals’ from Kansas USA. This again, was fully dealt with in our last issue. American naturists were very glad that long reports appeared in the papers following the production of a play with a naked cast. Our view is that such ‘publicity’ is not only worthless in itself but positively damaging. The majority would regard a theatrical performance with naked actors and actresses as so unusual that the sense and purpose of such a procedure would entirely escape them. Perhaps, one or two might find the report ‘interesting’ enough to warrant their further investigation of ‘naturism’. They might even become members eventually. But the effect on the broad masses – and there are exactly the people we want to interest – would be to produce ironical and derisive comments. I experienced this myself when the report on the Kansas, USA, nude theatricals appeared in the Danish press.
Let us take a further example from Austria: not so long ago the provincial paper Salzkammergut-Zeitung published an article on nudism couched in terms of bitter and condemnatory invective because the local cinema had shown a ’nudist film’. It happened to be one of those hateful English films of that nature from which the INF Congress so clearly disassociated itself. But what happened? A paper entitled Sonnenmensch which says it is a naturist magazine actually commissioned one of its contributors to write an article condemning the attitude of the Salzkammergut-Zeitung towards the nudist film. The editor of the Salzkammergut-Zeitung replied to this protest with the remark: ‘We reject nudism entirely and consider all discussion on it to be a waste of time’. It is, of course, very sad to find a newspaper editor so intolerant as not to allow free expression of opinion in his pages. But let us frankly admit that in this instance we have some understanding for his point of view. Sonnenmensch was defending something bad. If the contributor in question had tried to make the point that the naturist movement itself rejected the kind of films which were the subject of the local paper’s complaint, it is likely that he would have been given space to print a sensible article. Instead of that he tried frantically to defend the film itself and excuse the producer for not succeeding better in this aim! And this, despite the fact that we all know perfectly well why such films are made. On commercial grounds pure and simple. Not with the idea of promoting naturism but to earn hard cash in sex-speculation.
How can we ever expect the ordinary daily press to take us seriously or write about us in an objective and factual manner when we act so stupidly even in our papers which call themselves naturist journals? Every idea must prove itself and that also applies to naturism. We have now proved ourselves to such an extent that there are, in fact, many newspapers that deal with us in a serious fashion. The article ‘Outside Good and Evil’ which appeared in the Deutsche Zeitung of Cologne and was mentioned in our last issue in connection with the Manfred Schmidt affair is a fine example of what I mean. Similar writing has appeared in other countries. In fact the INF is getting ready to publish a work in three languages, reprinting such articles which have appeared in various countries. This INF publication will document the fact that some papers have at last understood us and recognized naturism as a cultural element of our time.
It is only by means of such articles – not through sensational reports about nude theatricals and nudist films – that ordinary, intelligent people can be won to the naturist cause.
Erik Holm
(Source: Sun and Health, International Edition, Vol. 28, June-July 1964)
.jpg)
