I think children/innocents do need to be considered.
Art or porn?
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
I think children/innocents do need to be considered.
Skaught:
Picture six I do not know what they she would be doing. Perhaps gazing into a pool of water. Picture four looks (from her hand) like picking non-existent flowers.
I'm a man. I have no children and I am a bachelor.
So basically because she is alone in blackness it implies bad stuff to you?
Picture six I do not know what they she would be doing. Perhaps gazing into a pool of water. Picture four looks (from her hand) like picking non-existent flowers.
I'm a man. I have no children and I am a bachelor.
So basically because she is alone in blackness it implies bad stuff to you?
I can see you logic here but only to a certain extent...
Men are more visual than women. And I know that when my hormones are running wild, I can easily get hot by the sight of a chicks elbow! Theres nothing wrong with that though.
There is something wrong with sexually objectifying women... Hell, sexually objectifying people for that matter is wrong.
Hell! Objectifying anyone in any way is wrong!
Oh, and I'm sure that when a gynecologist gets home and sees his wifes vagina, it turns him on
Skaught:
I agree. But I don't see where the majority (or even a minority) are going to be harmed from this.
I agree. But I don't see where the majority (or even a minority) are going to be harmed from this.
And people normally do these things in the nude?:shrug: I know i wouldn't allow my preteen children to do these activities in the nude!
I don't mean this to sound condescending in any way, so I apologize before hand if it comes off that way but:
You might feel differently if you had children.
I don't have kids myself, but I have two teenage nieces, and if some dude asked to photograph them naked. I'd kick that fucking pervert in the nuts so goddamn hard his fuckin heart would stop! I wouldn't give a shit what kind of context he suggested. He'd be a dead motherfucker!
That among many other factors. Many factors:
Theres nothing else in the picture. Maybe of she was picking flowers out of a pond and there were flowers and some clouds and some sunlight in the picture, I would percive it much differently, but still would probably come to the same conclusions, primarily: does she have to be nude to get the message of this particular piece across?
What is the message this piece is trying to get across?
One child being hurt is one too many.
Skaught:
In art in general, yes. Art is predominated by nudes.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. I imagine I might well feel different.
I grasp what you mean. The nudity seems incidental.
That sort of degree of safety is impossible to promise.
In art in general, yes. Art is predominated by nudes.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. I imagine I might well feel different.
I grasp what you mean. The nudity seems incidental.
That sort of degree of safety is impossible to promise.
actually im sure that the gynocologist probably wouldnt even look at his wife vagina, she would have other ways to turn him on
And i agree that sexual objectification is wrong (though i would suggest that women do it just as much just not as oviously, ever seen women at an AFL game?)
However NAKEDNESS isnt wrong, its natural. i would love to be able to strip off and walk down the street naked. I found the arests of the protesters who striped naked and painted themselves gold and then were arested and charged and listed on the sexual offenders registry a VERY sad inditment on current sociaty.
However in the case of these pitures as i said i find them sad if anything. they dont arouse me at all and i dont actually see anything sexual at all in them. Wether they are good art or not is debatable (what IS good art?) but the more i see of them the less i see them being about sex at all
And i agree that sexual objectification is wrong (though i would suggest that women do it just as much just not as oviously, ever seen women at an AFL game?
)However NAKEDNESS isnt wrong, its natural. i would love to be able to strip off and walk down the street naked. I found the arests of the protesters who striped naked and painted themselves gold and then were arested and charged and listed on the sexual offenders registry a VERY sad inditment on current sociaty.
However in the case of these pitures as i said i find them sad if anything. they dont arouse me at all and i dont actually see anything sexual at all in them. Wether they are good art or not is debatable (what IS good art?) but the more i see of them the less i see them being about sex at all
Really :bugeye: I may have to look into that!
I think you would. Again, I am sorry if that seems condescending!
[/QUOTE]
I grasp what you mean. The nudity seems incidental.
That sort of degree of safety is impossible to promise.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but I think the moe we can do to prevent preteens being hurt, the better!
No, I actually havent! Don't even know what an AFL game is!And i agree that sexual objectification is wrong (though i would suggest that women do it just as much just not as oviously, ever seen women at an AFL game?
I agree with this also. I think the human body is the most beautiful thing on this planet. That is a very sad indictment indeed.
They don't arouse me either, but you have to admit, that there are many people who would find them arousing!
At any rate, it has been a pleasure talking with both of you. It is good to see that people on this forum can disagree on things and still have civil conversation that doesn't resort to put downs! (that has mostly been my experience so far on this forum). I don't think I have talked to either of you before, but I look forward to future debates with you both!
I have to get to work now. Have a great night, or day or whatever. I guess you are in australia 'eh Asguard?
sorry AFL is the only true football (im not just an australian, im a victorian living in SA). The players wear quite tight shorts and its quite disterbing to hear women at those games (talk about treating people like a piece of meat) even from my sister.
And your right it is nice to have a civil conversation on a controvertial topic without insults flying
(im not just an australian, im a victorian living in SA). The players wear quite tight shorts and its quite disterbing to hear women at those games (talk about treating people like a piece of meat) even from my sister.And your right it is nice to have a civil conversation on a controvertial topic without insults flying
I have no problem with nudity. We are naked a lot in my house. I do have a problem with people sexualizing my kids.
I don't know how I feel about these photos. Would I let someone else take pics of my naked kids? I don't think so. But what if Michaelangelo wanted to sculpt my naked son?
I don't know how I feel about these photos. Would I let someone else take pics of my naked kids? I don't think so. But what if Michaelangelo wanted to sculpt my naked son?
orleander, my mum and my sister used to share showers alot to save water for as long as i can rember (i assume they stoped once the shower became craped for both of them). I defy anyone to suggest that there was ANYTHING sexual involved in it. Also both my parents used to walk around the house naked for most of my childhood.
I do agree with you about david (?) though.
I do agree with you about david (?) though.
Me and my kids took baths together for quite a while. Then the kids took baths together. My son walked around naked til puberty and then every once in a while he still did. My daughter is naked all the damn time. I bet if i go check on them now, they are both naked. though. Its bed time.
I think we already had a thread about this.
I think we already had a thread about this.
Skaught:
I recall when my mother and grandmother took me to the Metropolitan Museum of ARt for the first time when I was six. I recalled being shocked that every statue was in the nude and there were boobies galore.
It's...ridiculously common in art, yes. I'd say that probably something along the lines of 1/4th of all paintings including humans are of bare bodies.
Within reason, I agree.
I recall when my mother and grandmother took me to the Metropolitan Museum of ARt for the first time when I was six. I recalled being shocked that every statue was in the nude and there were boobies galore.
It's...ridiculously common in art, yes. I'd say that probably something along the lines of 1/4th of all paintings including humans are of bare bodies.
Within reason, I agree.
For me this question represents exactly why it is art.
It reminds me very much of Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ", the real art of which was not so much its technichal merit but more its inherent controversial nature which challenges the boundary of contemporary thinking.
He's taken a taboo subject and tried to explore it in a sympathetic light.
The metamorphosis of a girl child into a young woman is a very highly emotionally charged topic.
Of course there is a sexual component.
Of course Henson is walking the tightrope of public perception ( it's what artists like to do and should do).
The fact that a small percentage of the audience will get some erotic charge from the subject matter should not render it unfit for public viewing.
Society is not well served by being held ransom to its lowest common denominator ( think terrorist activity here folks). We will not let them degrade us.
My hat is off to Henson for his courage, likewise the young girls who posed and their parents for recognition of an important issue.
Child pornography is abhorrent. This is not it.
