sorry PM is prime Minister (kevin rudd) and DPP is the Director of public procicutions (i think in the US it is called the district atorny). He is an independent public servent (under the atorny generals general control) who controls the proicuters office
Art or porn?
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
There were more than 3 photos that were originally confiscated from that particular gallery.
Bill Henson has been doing nudes for many years. This controversy is from one of his more recent series of photos which he was exhibiting and was thus, confiscated because some of them appeared to be very graphic and sexual. I think a couple of them are from the 1980's though.
For example, photos 4 and 6:
http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5031912-5010140-6,00.html
were deemed to be sexualised by many who viewed them.
And yes, I agree with you. Why did it become such a big problem now when so many of them had been displayed in public Government buildings and galleries before without complaint.
interesting that you think 4 and 6 are the worst when they dont actually show ANYTHING, the one i posted shows more than that. My main problem is what will come next? the banning of the exerbition in the victorian musiam which shows naked modleds from birth to death just standing there with NOTHING covered because its a display of human development
I think he is a f**kin perv! Art??? ART???
I can see an exhibition "which shows naked modleds from birth to death just standing there with NOTHING covered because its a display of human development" as art, because it is "a display of human development". But this shit? Is this art.
The only person who would take these kind of photos is someone who is desperately trying rationalize his desire to look at naked underage girls.
Asguards example is a fine example, because it is depicting something, again: human deveopment.
But what do these pictures depict, what is the art saying? All it says to me is " I want to look at naked teenage girls and be able to get away with it, so I'll call it art.
Whats wrong with parents taking pictures of their kids naked? Nothing, but would it be acceptable for those parents to then post those pictures somewhere where hundreds of thousands of people could see them?
What kind of people do you think would come to an "art exhibit" that depicts naked preteens?
Sure maybe a few art critics and scholars, but I can guess that pedophiles galore flock to those kinds of "exhibits", because all the sudden, its ok to look because it is "art".
When I worked at a book store, we carried some of those trashy books that depicted pictures of naked preteens. But only one kind of person bought them: Creepy sleazy middle aged men who were single and also bought scifi and other geeky shit that married people don't buy.
My guess, ten or twenty years when this scum bag dies, there gonna find a collection of little girls shoes in his attic.
I can see an exhibition "which shows naked modleds from birth to death just standing there with NOTHING covered because its a display of human development" as art, because it is "a display of human development". But this shit? Is this art.
The only person who would take these kind of photos is someone who is desperately trying rationalize his desire to look at naked underage girls.
Asguards example is a fine example, because it is depicting something, again: human deveopment.
But what do these pictures depict, what is the art saying? All it says to me is " I want to look at naked teenage girls and be able to get away with it, so I'll call it art.
Whats wrong with parents taking pictures of their kids naked? Nothing, but would it be acceptable for those parents to then post those pictures somewhere where hundreds of thousands of people could see them?
What kind of people do you think would come to an "art exhibit" that depicts naked preteens?
Sure maybe a few art critics and scholars, but I can guess that pedophiles galore flock to those kinds of "exhibits", because all the sudden, its ok to look because it is "art".
When I worked at a book store, we carried some of those trashy books that depicted pictures of naked preteens. But only one kind of person bought them: Creepy sleazy middle aged men who were single and also bought scifi and other geeky shit that married people don't buy.
My guess, ten or twenty years when this scum bag dies, there gonna find a collection of little girls shoes in his attic.
Skaught:
If we were to avoid adolescent girls in the nude, then I am fairly certain about 50 percent of all female nudity in art would have to be taken down immediately.
Of course, these photos are lousy.
If we were to avoid adolescent girls in the nude, then I am fairly certain about 50 percent of all female nudity in art would have to be taken down immediately.
Of course, these photos are lousy.
skaught actually this artist specialises in edges i think, his other work is stuff like the sun just on the horizion ect.
BTW i sugest that you look at the sistine chappel or alot of other art works if you think that the subject matter is the problem. As one person said "if this was a painting insted of a photo there would be no controversy"
BTW i sugest that you look at the sistine chappel or alot of other art works if you think that the subject matter is the problem. As one person said "if this was a painting insted of a photo there would be no controversy"
I don't have a problem with underage naked girls being depicted in art. Its the context they are portrayed in. In this context, it is nothing more than a picture of a nude preteen. It serves only one purpose... I'll leave that up to your imagination.
In one of the images the young girl appears to be on all fours, in some kind of ecstasy?
I mean, like, WTF?
Exactly! Thank you!
actually thats the second sadest one i saw. the expression on the one i posted was the most depressing but that one is the next in line. To be honest i would suggest that its intentional (because the lighting ect is also part of it) and i have to agree that adolensants is quite a depressing time