By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
2:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I accept you point antagonist, I got a bit carried away.
The concept of arts always pushing the boundaries to force people to confront or examine their responses is a valid exercise. What I intended to state was that Society is the judge of what is acceptable, not the artist.
What emotional response, is this artist trying to elicit. Appreciation of form, beauty of innocence, I'm not sure. I haven't seen the exhibition. My fear is that if you dont set a boundary here and now, what comes next?
Society has always censored art, its not new. What tends to happen is overtime as barriers shift previuosly banned art becomes acceptable. |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
3:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I find it interesting that a topic about an art exhibition has got people more outraged about paedophilia than this one...
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/1125 813?p=last#msg_1125813
While you people are bleating about bad art, there are REAL paedophiles and pornographers doing their stuff. |
|
By: jimmy.waksavage
23/05/2008
3:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jimmy.waksavage Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| But I think it is indecent art ill just add to the end of tht |
|
By: pansi1951
23/05/2008
3:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pansi1951 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| What I can't understand is that it is illegal to take photos of children in public places, beach, sporting events etc, simply because of perverts, and this guy thinks he can get away with it and display the photos for all and sundry, in the name of art. What a joke. |
|
By: preddygd
23/05/2008
3:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
preddygd Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If it wasnt for these so called 'do gooders' there would be more of this rubbish over the internet and it would be acceptable to view "art" as anything, why would you want to view a naked child in this fashion? Why do artists overdo it all the time and pretend that it is ok when clearly it is not or it wouldnt be an issue with so many of our community. Would you allow your own child to be photographed this way and shown to the world? I certainly dont and dont want my children to feel this is acceptable. |
|
By: urbaniteshaz
23/05/2008
3:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
urbaniteshaz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
thank goodness some sense
i was getting quite concerned by some of these comments,
a family album of baby's first bath, or dip in the pool is far removed from this type of pornography. I cannot tolerate rock spiders no matter what degree they are into it, they all need to be eliminated. Go read a book called Damaged by Cathy Glass, a very disturbing look at what these sub human blobs of flesh think is acceptable. these freaks don't need any encouragement and they certainly don't need to allowed to excuse these sort of pics as art. |
|
By: phlvghn
23/05/2008
3:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phlvghn Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Is it just because the photos are in an 'art gallery' that these photos are allowed to be called art?
If those same photos were in a strip club surrounded by neon lights it would be illegal porn and the club would be shut down and the owner charged.
If the same photos were on a website called 'naked little girls' it would be shut down and investigated.
If those same photos were on my computer desktop and my computer was seized by police for some reason, I'd be going to gaol.
Why the hell should an art gallery get an exemption from the laws governing the rest of us.
I don't know who in their right mind would want to take photos of a naked child and show everyone anyway.
Who is to determine that the so called 'artist' that took these photos isn't just a dirty old man that likes kids??? |
|
By: pansi1951
23/05/2008
3:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pansi1951 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Paedophilia is rampant, best not to add fuel to the fire. We can only comment about what we know. |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
3:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>thank goodness some sense
i was getting quite concerned by some of these comments,
a family album of baby's first bath, or dip in the pool is far removed from this type of pornography.>>
What makes it pornography? Is the showing of a nipple? Damn nipples. |
|
By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
3:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"We can only comment about what we know."
So nothing on religion, sucide, death, dementia or politics.
Sheesh there goes all my rants. |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
3:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>If those same photos were in a strip club surrounded by neon lights it would be illegal porn and the club would be shut down and the owner charged.>>
If those same photos were shown in a strip club you'd think "WTF" that's some wierd photos to have in a strip club. |
|
By: plotrick1
23/05/2008
3:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
plotrick1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
*>>thank goodness some sense
i was getting quite concerned by some of these comments,
a family album of baby's first bath, or dip in the pool is far removed from this type of pornography.>>*
This is SA relevant, so I expect no one will give a sh!t, but our lovely government doesn't seem to see the difference. The (rather long and ugly) link below is to a Bill currently before parliament.
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/CURRENT/SUMM ARY%20OFFENCES%20(INDECENT%20FILMING)%20AMENDMENT% 20BILL%202008/B_AS%20INTRODUCED%20IN%20HA/SUMMARY% 20FILMING%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202008.UN.PDF |
|
By: urbaniteshaz
23/05/2008
3:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
urbaniteshaz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
it's also a concern that some seem to view this as a joke.
i just pray that none of your loved ones ever fall prey to sexual predator. because your lives will shattered and your hearts irreprarbly broken,and you won't see it as acceptable ART!!!!! |
|
By: millionorbust
23/05/2008
3:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
millionorbust Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think all are overreacting...
- Did the parents knew about these photos
- There are million dollar paitnings of young children hanging all over the world but done a long time ago
- What is socially acceptable is becomimg a major issue when you hear about child abuse, gay relationship, priests abusing children, paedophilia....
Our lives are becoming very complex... |
|
By: chocfudge_baby
23/05/2008
3:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chocfudge_baby Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Question has to be asked about the kids parents who consented to their child's naked photo being taken.
Doesn't that mean they are liable to be arrested/fined aswell?
A few weeks ago there was an uproar about a 16 year old model being topless in a photoshoot for a magazine.
Now it's 12-13 year old girls naked photos in a museum?
That's not art to me and I like art. I'm all for causing an uproar within the art community but this kind of has drawn the line.. |
|
By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
3:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Who's our Attorney-General again Plotrick?
Oh yes, now its clear |
|
By: urbaniteshaz
23/05/2008
3:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
urbaniteshaz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| It's not right , it's not acceptable, it's discusting, throw him in jail and throw away the key, one less freak on the streets |
|
By: urbaniteshaz
23/05/2008
3:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
urbaniteshaz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| oh i'll also add burn the photos |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
3:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<For goodness sake... one of the most famous photos was taken during the Vietnam War... of that totally young naked Asian girl running towards the photographer, crying. That photo was in Time Magazine... seen the whole world over. It was admired for its depiction. Did anyone say anything against it? Did the police take any action? Did anyone say "How revolting"?
>
It's a classic example. That photo is by modern definitions clear child porn (despite the absence of porn). What irritates me about the hystreria around child porn is that there are clear cut laws already. we dont need more. to the clear thinking a child porn photo shoudl contain both a child and porn. simple? You'd think so but not to the law.
We are getting to the stage where even having posession of a phot of a child is risky. Is that what we want? |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
3:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I would draw attention to my earlier comments about David Hamilton. Dare anybody to deny his wide acceptance around the world as an ARTIST.
Go on, look him up.
look at his photos.
Art or Porn.
whatever YOU want it to be.
get over it people, henson at best is an artist, at worst a copy cat artist.
If he wanted to do porn, why hang it in a gallery?
Dirty minded populus i think you all should go and repent of all the bad things you have thought when you have looked at these pics
ART or PORN.
your very own decision. For you. not for everybody else.
each to his own, try and change that. |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
3:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| The difference between art and porn is nipples. |
|
By: urbaniteshaz
23/05/2008
3:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
urbaniteshaz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| HELLO!! the photo of that aisian girl was not posed, or sexualised, get a grip it depiced the horror of war, she was not only naked but was also burnt. This creep sout out the girls, posed them in provocative ways , photographed them and displayed them publicly for all to see. |
|
By: darkhall67
23/05/2008
3:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
darkhall67 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
A few weeks ago there was an uproar about a 16 year old model being topless in a photoshoot for a magazine.
Now it's 12-13 year old girls naked photos in a museum? >>
---------------------
And now it's Mummies in a museum.
"UK museum covers up 'naked' mummies "
http://au.news.yahoo.com//080523/2/16z6j.html
Friday May 23, 11:38 AM
At this rate we soon will be like the Taliban and wont be allowed to have any art. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
3:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Interesting that the MSN poll shows an overwhelming number belive the phots ARENT porn. |
|
By: ausgal951753
23/05/2008
3:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ausgal951753 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I hate pedophiles and believe the death sentence is too good for them but are we getting hung up about our bodies and nudity in general.
I do not want to see children exploited and I have not seen the photo's concerned but a childs picture can be a thing of beauty and innocence regardless of whether they are clothed or not.
Are the pictures full of beauty or do the contain erotism?
I have seen young girls dressed for advertisments of clothes etc. that I believe are meant to be sexy at the best or erotic at the worst.
It could be that some advertising agencies are guilty of child exploitation. |
|
