Is Violence better than Nudity?

Apparently judges at the Alabama National Fair think that violence is more acceptable than nudity. Alabama native and artist, Barrett Bailey, had his painting removed from the Fair's art contest because it was not considered acceptable for a family audience by the manager, Russell Melton.

His ejected piece, titled "Transition," depicts a nude model in pixilated squares. Even though the fair art director accepted Bailey's submission, manager Russell Melton decided it wasn't appropriate for the venue.

Melton says, "There are plenty of places in this city for that type of artwork, and I'm not against that type of artwork. It's just that it isn't for a family entertainment center." Judging by what is on display, religious imagery and violence are acceptable.

I have not been to the Fair, nor have I seen the artwork, but I do not understand why our society seems to think that violence is more acceptable for children to view than nudity. Explicit sexual imagry is one thing, but a pixilated nude model hardly seems like the end of society as we know it. I found it interesting that artist said:

It's something that I didn't feel bad about showing my parents, who are a very religious family. If my mother felt in any way offended, she would let me know.

So I assume it couldn't have been anything to explicit. Sensorship seems to be the news of the week however.