By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:07 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Good lord For a Hundred years we have had Paintings of Naked Cheribes toggles and fannies showing now it is Modern art it is Unlawful ???
><><-
If you cant see a difference between some ones imaginary depiction ,of their own fantasies and the raw image photography of a real living human being (child)-then ;you wont get it!
And the woemn who appear in the Penthouse and Playboy art magazines;are consenting adults-who recieve a good renumeration for thier poses and are well aware of the kind of artistic admirers they draw! |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
After he let her burn for some time longer in order to take the shot that "defined a generation".
><><
she was running "toward" him; as her took the shot!
He did not pose her and let her birn! |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:13 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Oh, and peace.
Just so you know. I am no fan of photography and would probably never go to an exhibition of either Mapplethorpe or Henson.
Just thought I would point that out as you seem to be assuming that anyone that defends such work must be a male salivating over the oppurtunity to take a gander.
I mean really. Do you think people would go to all this trouble to go to an srt gallery to see this if this was their intention?
Have you heard of the internet? |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"I have not read the whole thread-but the pages I have read;it does seem the overwhelming majority of those vehemenentaly defending these photos as 'art' here;are also men!
I wonder what that says?"
------------------------- --
I was also quite vocal in my defense of Mapplethorpe's agianst the West Midland's local plod back in the late 90's.
I suppose that makes me h o m o sexual as well. I mean, I take it that's what you are implying there peace.
><><
not exactly sure what that has to do with you apparently defending this as art-as I have not seen you post this earlier-but if that is your point of view;I will not be able to change it ,either.
It is just my view-as a women and a mother-that this is not art-it is exploitation of a vulnerable young child!
It is obvious;there are a number of men on here who view it differently! |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:21 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"she was running "toward" him; as her took the shot!
He did not pose her and let her birn!"
--------------
Well, if he didn't take the time to gain the consent of this naked minor or her parents to take the shot and have it beamed around the world it should have been destroyed.
You say she was not upset at having the photo used in this manner, and I am sure the photographer knew this would be the outcome at the time. |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:22 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Just thought I would point that out as you seem to be assuming that anyone that defends such work must be a male salivating over the oppurtunity to take a gander.
><><
no did not say ALL were male-I said there seems to be a majority of males here defending it very forcefully-seeing it was only a couple of dozen photos removed.
I am well aware that pornography is easily obtained-I think you fail to see; that most who disagree with the concept of this young girl being used;do so in the context, that she is young and vulnerable at that age-and therefore it is exploitation ,not art.
Pornography using children, comes under the same concept-while most adults do so ;fully comprehending the implications. |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:24 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"not exactly sure what that has to do with you apparently defending this as art-as I have not seen you post this earlier-but if that is your point of view;I will not be able to change it ,either."
By: peaceleo69
26 minutes ago
"I have not read the whole thread-but the pages I have read;it does seem the overwhelming majority of those vehemenentaly defending these photos as 'art' here;are also men!
I wonder what that says?"
----------------
Well peace, what does it say? |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:28 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"I am well aware that pornography is easily obtained-I think you fail to see; that most who disagree with the concept of this young girl being used;do so in the context, that she is young and vulnerable at that age-and therefore it is exploitation ,not art."
------------------------- -
Unless, of course, it can be used to support an anti war message.
Then it is social commentary. I suppose. |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Well, if he didn't take the time to gain the consent of this naked minor or her parents to take the shot and have it beamed around the world it should have been destroyed.
You say she was not upset at having the photo used in this manner, and I am sure the photographer knew this would be the outcome at the time.
><><
war photography-is a whole different concept to "art".
There are many horrific images gained in war-that others; who do not come in contact with this side of humanity-will never begin to understand, the horror and senselessness of it.Unless it is brought to them ,by those in the field.
It is like the way they beep out swear words; from the total obscenity that is war-so as not to affront those listening in the comfort of thier lounge rooms.
Doing this in the context of a every day life-would seem reaonable-in the context of what is happening around them-it is totally ridiculous!
War photography can in no way be compared to what is passed as art! |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:38 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"I have not read the whole thread-but the pages I have read;it does seem the overwhelming majority of those vehemenentaly defending these photos as 'art' here;are also men!
I wonder what that says?"
----------------
Well peace, what does it say?
><><
I posed the question but as you ask-I believe-some men seem to view children in a very different way to women;who carry them for 9 months and nurture them though their young years and try and protect them ;as much as possible and therefore, can not look on thier own child-or others; as an object or artform! |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Personally peace.
I think you are defending one kind of exploitation because it supports your distaste for war. Maybe this photo did a lot of good but, once again, how do you know this was the photographer's intention.
Seems that you attribute it to the photographer because you WANT it to be so, becasue then publishing a picture of a young naked girl does not sit so far outside your moral compass.
Just because one image was used more effectively to promote a cause does not make it any less exploitative. |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You say she was not upset at having the photo used in this manner, and I am sure the photographer knew this would be the outcome at the time.
><><
at the time-this would not have entered her head
In retrospect-she is proud of what her image achieved.
At the time ;the photographer was only interested in showing the world ;the horror of what was happening to her and many like her; in the hope; the realisation would make them call for it to cease.
I do not think the photographer in the gallery ;had any such lofty ambitions! |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"who carry them for 9 months and nurture them though their young years and try and protect them ;as much as possible and therefore, can not look on thier own child-or others; as an object or artform!"
---------
Or the poster girl for the anti-war movement, perhaps? |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:45 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
think you are defending one kind of exploitation because it supports your distaste for war. Maybe this photo did a lot of good but, once again, how do you know this was the photographer's intention.
Seems that you attribute it to the photographer because you WANT it to be so, becasue then publishing a picture of a young naked girl does not sit so far outside your moral compass.
Just because one image was used more effectively to promote a cause does not make it any less exploitative.
><>
wont argue le-because I totally disagree with your interpretation! |
|
By: lefowlerau
24/05/2008
3:46 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"At the time ;the photographer was only interested in showing the world ;the horror of what was happening to her and many like her; in the hope; the realisation would make them call for it to cease."
"I do not think the photographer in the gallery ;had any such lofty ambitions!"
-------------------------
And you know the motives of each photographer, how? |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:46 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"who carry them for 9 months and nurture them though their young years and try and protect them ;as much as possible and therefore, can not look on thier own child-or others; as an object or artform!"
---------
Or the poster girl for the anti-war movement, perhaps?
><><
?????? |
|
By: bruce_warburton
24/05/2008
3:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
bruce_warburton Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Where does it end .... over 100,000 people killed in China, but instead we focus on is slightly "different" art. Not my scene, but I wished we could focus on something a bit more news worthy. Have we been totaly brainwashed by the government of recent years, and just get sucked in to anything they define as an issue .. probably to distract the public from the real issues they are part of ... maybe just a few thousand deaths in Iraq ... that versus a slightly candid, consenting image .... Let's get real !!!! |
|
By: peaceleo69
24/05/2008
3:58 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
bruce ;have you been reading these boards over the past months-there are plenty of threads; on a number of pages; that focus on just those subjects-many have been deleted in the time!
Plenty for you to dredge up again and commetn ;if you wish.
This is just the main topic for today (Top
Stories!)-obviously.When people have had their say-it will slip down too |
|
By: stew75@y7mail.com
24/05/2008
4:03 am Yahoo! Profile:
stew75@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I'm a 33 year old man and things like this discust me to the core; what the hell has this world and this country come to when that evil is portrayed as art. This sicko has defiled there souls as far as I'm concerned, it's just so wrong! and to those 17% that voted yes to nude photos of girls to be allowed as art, well I'm dumfounded, what if a grown man wanted to take nude photos of your precious little daughters, would you think it was right then? |
|
By: ciubay8
24/05/2008
4:17 am Yahoo! Profile:
ciubay8 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| It was ok to continualy splash all over the television networks globaly the picture of a naked young female running on a road during the Vietnam War for political reasons ????? |
|
By: easytosnodden
24/05/2008
4:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
easytosnodden Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Why don't you all just Grow Up?! The short answer is "YES to nude photo's For ART", & "NO! to nude photo's For PORNOGRAPHY." There is a massive difference between the two. The age of the person is Irrelevant! The 'Art World' IS Extremely Different to the world of the 'general public' & is also Extremely Different from the world of the paedophiles! I Suppose the Next thing will be Banning doctors from stripping children for medical examinations & treatment, & jailing any who do as 'paedophiles'!!? By the "logic?" presented in this forum & in the courts,that would be the next "logical" step as there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the two. It is only that we hold doctors in a higher regard than others & we recognize that some things must be done. What would you all do I wonder,if most paediatricians turned out to be paedophiles? What would you do if Your Child Needed Their Medical attention? "Grow Up Everyone!" |
|
By: easytosnodden
24/05/2008
5:05 am Yahoo! Profile:
easytosnodden Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| "YES". It would all depend upon the person concerned & what the photo's were intended for,but generally speaking,& if it were not for his own sexual pleasures or pornography,I would have No Problem with that. The people with the Mental Problems are the one's who veiw such things & the people who create the photo's as being sick, not the other way around! Before everyone gets on their High Moral High Horses, Open your Bible & read what GOD has to say on the subject in the book of Genesis, the part in the Garden of Eden just before Adam & Eve are kicked out.Are you now going to say that GOD is wrong & you are right? ...... Say whatever you will. I will not be here to read it. I've got some serious sleeping to do, so Good Night All. |
|
By: pansi1951
24/05/2008
6:05 am Yahoo! Profile:
pansi1951 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
We're trying to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.
Let kids be kids, not art exhibitions.
Let the children have their rightful age of innocence. |
|
By: southerncrossforever
24/05/2008
6:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
southerncrossforever Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| infants and young children naked is something that is natural and beautiful...unfortunately some seriously sick people get sexual pleasure out of these same images...so to protect the kids we have to bring in laws making it illegal to photograph kids...its a sad world... |
|
By: robmuzza1
24/05/2008
6:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
robmuzza1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Entirely different situation and time.For those who don't remember, there was a war then, and I was there. A supposed artist who has to resort to films of nude teenagers has NO artistic talent as far as I am concerned. |
|
