September 28th, 2007, 01:30 PM
|
#106 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Trolltopia
Posts: 18,508
|
Sorry, Soj. 
I'll stop now. I agree to disagree with you guys.
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 02:12 PM
|
#107 (permalink)
|
|
Friend of Gossip Rocks!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,219
|
^^Medical texts do. They show abnormal and normal genitals of people of all ages. So IMO that's where the art comes in. Why do we react so viscerally to this photo? How can it be okay in a medtext, but so wrong in an art text? Why do we see sex in that photo but not in the medtext? Just a thought
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 02:12 PM
|
#108 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On The Super Groovy Cosmic Bus
Posts: 1,618
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
^^ If you re-read the thread, I answered all those question. It's a freaking pink taco shot! A spread eagle! It's not just a naked kid.
Where I come from kids are naked all the time, but no one in their right mind would publish a picture of a little girl's vagina. Huge difference.
|
I agree. I wouldn't call it porn, but it made me seriously uncomfortable. And here's the thing; did those girls dress up on their own and pose like that on their own? If they were directed to do so, that is creepy and inappropriate to me. Naked kids, no problem, crotch shots, not cool. In America this would not be allowed would it? (seriously, I am asking, I don't know)
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 04:42 PM
|
#110 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: almost heaven.... southeast, USA
Posts: 9,334
|
If this Nan Goldin is such an artist, well then so am I. I just took a picture of my dog's asshole..... any buyers?
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 04:48 PM
|
#111 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: almost heaven.... southeast, USA
Posts: 9,334
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik
as for paedophiles, they are turned on at the sight of any kid, they don't have to be naked. what are you going to do, lock away all the children because some paedophile might get aroused looking at them at the beach or playground?
|
No, but you sure as hell don't put them on display like that either!
I am honestly shocked that so many posters think this is okay! Would you let your little girl pose for this? 
By the way, as I've stated before, I don't think EJ is a pedophile at all. Just that this is not 'art', it's trash.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 06:19 PM
|
#112 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Trolltopia
Posts: 18,508
|
^^ My question exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 06:32 PM
|
#113 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the slumping blue corroded trailer behind the Tar Paper plant off Toothless Gap Road, Inbredville
Posts: 17,025
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetness
No, but you sure as hell don't put them on display like that either!
I am honestly shocked that so many posters think this is okay! Would you let your little girl pose for this?
By the way, as I've stated before, I don't think EJ is a pedophile at all. Just that this is not 'art', it's trash. |
Well obviously SOMEONE did approve of this photograph being taken of their children..and the photographer approved ot it being taken..and the buyer approved of it being taken..and the museums, photographic journals, specialist in art and photography, etc etc. approve of it(at least some) and NONE of them apparently consider it anything but 'art' so why does anyone else think that it is not ok? Sure it may not be your cup of tea..nor mine either..but who are we to determine if it is 'art' or not? As long as no laws are broken?
It is fine to not think it is art..it is fine to despise and detest it..but it is not fine to bar or ban it if it is not breaking any laws and other people find it to be 'art' not trash.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 07:29 PM
|
#114 (permalink)
|
|
Silver Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 680
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetness
If this Nan Goldin is such an artist, well then so am I. I just took a picture of my dog's asshole..... any buyers?
|
If this Nan freak was a guy, his ass would have been in prison by now.
ETA: My dog ate my silicon ear plugs, and it made for some very interesting dog shit. Maybe I should take a pic of it and send it to my local art museum. Heck, she ate crayons once, and ended up with technicolor crap. That should definitely win something.
__________________
Coffee is my happy drug 
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:19 PM
|
#115 (permalink)
|
|
Hit By Ban Bus!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 15,485
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojiita
Well obviously SOMEONE did approve of this photograph being taken of their children..and the photographer approved ot it being taken..and the buyer approved of it being taken..and the museums, photographic journals, specialist in art and photography, etc etc. approve of it(at least some) and NONE of them apparently consider it anything but 'art' so why does anyone else think that it is not ok? Sure it may not be your cup of tea..nor mine either..but who are we to determine if it is 'art' or not? As long as no laws are broken?
It is fine to not think it is art..it is fine to despise and detest it..but it is not fine to bar or ban it if it is not breaking any laws and other people find it to be 'art' not trash.
|
Excellent post, Soj. I object to the hidiousness of velvet paintings of Elvis and those ghastly "pictures" of children with big eyes but that doesn't mean they aren't art of a sort. Just as this photo is also art.
**edited to say I posted that before reading what you had said about mine**
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:24 PM
|
#116 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: fellow traveller
Posts: 19,003
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojiita
Well obviously SOMEONE did approve of this photograph being taken of their children..and the photographer approved ot it being taken..and the buyer approved of it being taken..and the museums, photographic journals, specialist in art and photography, etc etc. approve of it(at least some) and NONE of them apparently consider it anything but 'art' so why does anyone else think that it is not ok? Sure it may not be your cup of tea..nor mine either..but who are we to determine if it is 'art' or not? As long as no laws are broken?
It is fine to not think it is art..it is fine to despise and detest it..but it is not fine to bar or ban it if it is not breaking any laws and other people find it to be 'art' not trash.
|
great post. couldn't agree more.
__________________
ni dieu ni maître
*Don't you know there ain't no Devil, there's just God when he's drunk*
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:25 PM
|
#117 (permalink)
|
|
Hit By Ban Bus!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,689
|
^yep.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:25 PM
|
#118 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: almost heaven.... southeast, USA
Posts: 9,334
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piperdiva
If this Nan freak was a guy, his ass would have been in prison by now.
|
You are absolutely right. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by piperdiva
ETA: My dog ate my silicon ear plugs, and it made for some very interesting dog shit. Maybe I should take a pic of it and send it to my local art museum. Heck, she ate crayons once, and ended up with technicolor crap. That should definitely win something.
|
Piperdiva, you need to jump on this idea A.S.A.P. You would make MILLIONS on such art!!  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojiita
It is fine to not think it is art..it is fine to despise and detest it..but it is not fine to bar or ban it if it is not breaking any laws and other people find it to be 'art' not trash.
|
Soj, I totally respect your opinion on this, but I guarantee you if this 'art' was found on a child porn site it would be lumped in there with the rest. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is IMO.
If these were consenting adults I would have no problem whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:33 PM
|
#119 (permalink)
|
|
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the slumping blue corroded trailer behind the Tar Paper plant off Toothless Gap Road, Inbredville
Posts: 17,025
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetness
You are absolutely right.
Piperdiva, you need to jump on this idea A.S.A.P. You would make MILLIONS on such art!!
Soj, I totally respect your opinion on this, but I guarantee you if this 'art' was found on a child porn site it would be lumped in there with the rest. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is IMO.
If these were consenting adults I would have no problem whatsoever. |
I will concur on one point..this is not like other controversial 'art' like the Mapplethorpe stuff or crucifixes in jars of piss..because there are minors involved. So I will admit it is a bit more complex and difficult than nearly any other debate about 'art' (or porn, however one sees it).
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2007, 08:42 PM
|
#120 (permalink)
|
|
Hit By Ban Bus!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 15,485
|
I find the vulgarity of velvet "paintings" pornographic, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 PM.
|
