I am now offering a set of Madonna and Child cards just in time for Christmas!  It is a set of 10 beautiful madonnas, each different, with the following poem excerpt from Christina Rossetti's "In a Bleak Midwinter":

Enough for Him, whom cherubim
Worship night and day,
A breastful of milk
And a mangerful of hay

The cost is only $25.00 per set of ten cards, or $5.00 per card, shipping not included.  This is a special price for the Christmas Season.  Please message me through the contact part of this site, by email, or by facebook.  You can pay by paypal, but I need to know how much to charge for shipping first. 
All the best!
-Kate

This portrait is most especially for Michelle Tarrant Williams, a tribute the loss of her son Sawyer Erik Williams.  However it is also for all the women who have lost a child or miscarried a baby. During October, we remember all babies born sleeping, or whom we have carried but never met, those we have held but could not take home, or the ones that came home but didn't stay.

The virgin heard these words from 
her innocent child: "Mother, behold your son."
The virgin saw her son saying: "It is finished,"
and thus the sword pierced her soul.

-Stabat iuxta Christi crucem
 

This is my latest Madonna and Child portrait, a beautiful mother and baby that I met thanks to Elita of Blactating Blog.  I want to give a big thanks to Stephanie for modelling, and Elita for putting the call out for more African American models.  I so appreciate it. 

I just had my profile photo removed today by Facebook.  If there's any speculation that this removed photo might actually be obscene, please see below and judge for yourself.

This is a photo of me standing in front of my painting titled "Ailen and Jet Jazz."  This was at the National Exhibition for the Canadian Institute of Portrait Artists this Septemeber, in which I won "Most Innovative Portrait."

This is the note from Facebook that I received this morning:

Hello,

You uploaded a photo that violates our Terms of Use, and this photo has been removed. Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence, or other violations of the Terms of Use. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children who use the site.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page at http://www.facebook.com/help/?topic=wphotos.

The Facebook Team

So, as you probably know... my account was deleted from Facebook after about ten minutes of posting a breastfeeding photo.  (It was re-instated the evening of October 1st.)  September 30th at about 8:30 am I posted a status photo of myself breastfeeding my daughter, in solidarity with Emma Kwasnica who had had her entire profile deleted after posting similar photos.  At about 8:45 I was prompted to log in while commenting on my status photo, I attempted to log in, but was unable to.  It said that my account had been disabled for posting content that violated facebook regulations.  So what are the regulations they speak of?  In the Chicago Tribune company spokesperson Barry Schnitt stated: "We've made a visible areola the determining factor.  It is a common standard."

Yet, if you look at a close up of the photo in question you will notice that there is no visable areola.  So what exactly is their reason for photo deletion?  Do you think I would have been removed if I were wearing a bathing suit which was showing the same amount of skin? 

Another interesting aspect was the fact this was actually my FIRST snapshot posted which was not art related.  All the other posts, including the photograph by Catherine Opie, were art related.  The paintings which got removed back in April were all my own, and a facebook spokesperson told reporter Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star that it had been a "mistake," that my paintings had been "accidentally removed."  If that were the case why was my entire account deleted within ten minutes of posting a breastfeeding photo, which, by their own standards, contained nothing obscene?

Here is another close-up.  Once again no visable areola.

What is the common denominator in these images?  You've got it- they are all breastfeeding images.  It seems that Facebook, a massive powerful corporation, has determined that breastfeeding is obscene, and that children need to be protected from it.  As a Canadian I know that my breastfeeding rights are protected under the Charter of Rights.  Breastfeeding is protected in most of the United States as well.  Why then are we letting a for profit corperation determine our rights for us?  Why are we letting a corporation decide what we can and cannot see?  I think this problem is not only breastfeeding related.

I also question the areola rule.  Why is it that visable areola is obscene?  Does context have nothing to do with the rule?  It seems a shame to say that women's nipples are "dirty" or obscene, when that's what we put into an innocent baby's mouth.  What about them can possibly be obscene in that context?  Below is breastfeeding featured in a Mr. Rogers clip.  I guess no one thought to protect the children from the obscene areolas in this one.