Zoe West, Naked Model, Arrested In Times Square

The Naked Cowboy isn't the only showing some skin in Times Square these days.

From The New York Daily News:

Zoe West, 21, who was being painted by artist Andy Golub, was hauled by cops to a midtown precinct house once she bared her buff body to a shocked matinee crowd at the pedestrian plaza at 44th St. and Broadway.

"It was wild," said the Ulster County actress, who shed an olive onesie and black G-string to be painted in public for 2-1/2 hours. "I walked into the precinct, and there were about six cops standing behind the counter. Everyone went, 'Whoa! What's this?'"

Although it's technically legal for women to go topless in New York City, it seems the NYPD will likely arrest you when you remove your G-string.

According to The New York Post, West said she knew the stunt, at the corner of Broadway and W 44th, could land her in jail but she was willing to take the risk in the name of art.

"I don't believe there is truly anything wrong with what I did and with what he was doing," West told The Post last night after she was released. Sha also said cops held her for an hour before dropping all charges.

This isn't the first time Golub, or one of his models, has had a brush with the law. Last month, he and two of his naked muses were arrested on public-lewdness charges in Times Square.

Golub's been using naked women as his canvas at different locations across the city for years, setting up shop in areas with high tourist traffic like Columbus Circle, the Brooklyn Bridge and very often in Times Square.

A couple weeks ago, The Post interviewed pedestrians about Golub's project and found everyone to be supportive.

Comments

[Bryan Renaud]

07:04 PM on 09/12/2011

Seems like everyone thinks this OK. What if it was a guy posing nude or a morbidly obease ugly woman? Would it still be OK then?

[shajjji]

12:42 PM on 09/07/2011

haha i love the tourist dad's surprised reaction when his kids says NO :D

[dayzee10]

12:18 PM on 09/07/2011

Oh my,my,my!!!!! And the problem is??????????

[Talk2PassiveActionVital]

12:29 PM on 09/06/2011

I like John Keats' take:

"'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' – that is all
Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know."

--"Ode on a Grecian Urn", 1819

[krispykrank]

02:18 AM on 09/06/2011

My 5 year old could do that, but i'd like to help

[spacedoggg]

09:59 PM on 09/05/2011

Clothes should be optional at all times. What's next, burqas?

[Bones Rhodes]

03:40 PM on 09/06/2011

"Clothes should be optional at all times."

Have you never been in a McDonald's or a Wal-Mart ?

[Laxsmi de Potrero]

12:37 PM on 09/07/2011

your limitations on what is acceptable mean nothing. if you think someone is ugly or overweight is your problem.

[psnyder325]

10:16 AM on 09/05/2011

The nudity taboo in our society is a vestige of the Judeo-Christian anti-body prejudice and is one of the most absurd things that exists on the face of the earth....right next to the belief that the Creator of the Universe and the God who keeps the stars in motion (assuming there is such a thing) gives a rat's behind about what people do with their genital equipment.

[Syllogizer]

03:35 PM on 09/05/2011

Are you going for some kind of record? You aren't just batting 0 for 3. You are doing a lot worse than that.

Despite what little birds may have told you, there is no "anti-body prejudice" in "Judeo-Christian thought". The prevalence of nude art in Roman Catholic Italy should have tipped you off to that.

[Bones Rhodes]

03:49 PM on 09/06/2011

Read the scriptures: listen to the christian radio: go to virtually any Christian church and ask - there is definitely a "no-skin-showing" bias. The fact that Italy has nude art ( or even the Vatican ) doesn't render the bias as non-existent. One of the reason for the Jewish discord during the time of Christ was the Greek style athletic competitions in the nude.

[Laxsmi de Potrero]

12:40 PM on 09/07/2011

wait a minuet there. the old fig leave came right after the eating of the tree of knowledge.
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

your spin on renaissance art has little to do with orthodox christian view of nudity.

[MayorsRevenge]

09:13 AM on 09/05/2011

There are far more important things to worry about here in NYC/USA. With that said, there are kids out and about and well....why not just make her put her clothes on, give her a $20 fine and move on?

[Robert Nix]

10:19 PM on 09/04/2011

Nice. We see so many ugly things in life it's good to contrast.

[see-ellen2001]

04:17 AM on 09/04/2011

"...could land her in jail but she was willing to take the risk in the name of art". Oh I am getting so tired of this but-it-is-art line. To each his or her own but please don't pretend you're a martyr for the cause.

[Syllogizer]

03:35 PM on 09/05/2011

That's probably how she avoids realizing how she was putting others at risk by distracting drivers.

[Laxsmi de Potrero]

12:43 PM on 09/07/2011

and what do you know about art? which museums contain your art?

so, please, some of us don't need your small minded views on aesthetics.

[Bones Rhodes]

01:44 PM on 09/07/2011

So, only people who have art hanging in museums are entitled to opinions on art ? And which of these museums contain yours ? ( actual museums, not galleries )

The fact that Lucien Freud's 'Benefits Supervisor Sleeping' sold for some $33,000,000 dollars should say a lot about "art" and "professional" opinions thereof.
That Alberto Giacometti's "Walking Man" sculpture sold for $104,300,000 is further proof that those who claim to know "art" just might not, but that those who have wealth can be convinced otherwise.

I'm also betting that see-ellen2001 isn't a veterinarian but knows a dog when she sees one.

so, please, some of us don't need your small minded views on opinions and entitlement there to.

[Robert Weiner]

12:41 PM on 09/03/2011

Like all things...there's a time and place. How would you like to see YOUR daughter remove her clothing on the corner of times square and 42nd street? (The truth!)

[DustyVv]

04:39 PM on 09/03/2011

I'd say, if my daughter is old enough to decide that for herself, then she can do what she wants.

[SavvyMike]

04:56 PM on 09/03/2011

Nah, you're wrong. People should be allowed to be naked at all times, it's how we're meant to be (I never saw any children born with clothes on their backs). Unfortunately we've mutated our beliefs to be ashamed of our bodies, and it's not natural, it's a perversion of nature.

[Syllogizer]

03:36 PM on 09/05/2011

No, you are the one who is wrong here. For most climates, we really do need clothes to protect from UV or from heat or from cold. We do not have the fur our evolutionary ancestors had.

[Carbon Forteetoo]

11:42 AM on 09/02/2011

Well, she has a really nice body, so.... I'll allow it.

[Vintel7]

09:36 AM on 09/02/2011

oh my gosh...a naked woman....how wrong and sinful! LMAO

Humans are a stupid. shame based species.

[haileymon]

12:18 AM on 09/04/2011

Here's how Germany deals with nudity...

http://www.m2film.dk/fleggaard/trailer2.swf

[psnyder325]

10:29 AM on 09/05/2011

LOL! Much more enlightened.

[michelesda]

01:50 AM on 09/02/2011

We're such a nation of middle schoolers. Maybe someday this country will grow up?

[psnyder325]

10:30 AM on 09/05/2011

Don't count on it. As long as the pernicious influence of religion exists in our society, we're stuck at the infant stage.

[michelesda]

11:43 AM on 09/05/2011

No argument possible there, unfortunately.

[Bryan Morris]

01:40 AM on 09/02/2011

Gotta love the religious right: God > everything, God creates naked man/woman. Therefore, naked man/woman = abomination and should be illegal.

The logic is perfect, I tell you!