By: kane_u_pain
10/07/2008
6:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kane_u_pain Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I agree 100% wazza |
|
By: wazzajack
10/07/2008
6:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wazzajack Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| A baby crawling on all fours isnt being made to pose. |
|
By: longweekend58
10/07/2008
8:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| how does that change the point of the argument? a lack of posing makes a picture of a nude child somehow less acceptable? |
|
By: us_walters
10/07/2008
8:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
us_walters Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| When it's done in protest for another artist... That's when it's wrong !!! |
|
By: longweekend58
10/07/2008
8:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<When it's done in protest for another artist... That's when it's wrong !!!>
the question of porn or not is not affected by the motive for printing it. |
|
By: digdigs2
10/07/2008
8:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
digdigs2 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Those pics are several years old and the exhibition of them was an exploration of various fairy tales by the artist - inspired no doubt by the fact that her daughter was of the age to start reading them.
Out of context it is amazing what can be misconstrued.
BTW - I would suggest that the media 'black boxes' over the images do far more to sexualise the image than the original. Where is the viewer's attention focused in the original? Now add the boxes, where is the attention drawn?
This is a debate generated by a society that has over the past fifteen years ignored the arts and as a result the philistinism generated creates a moralistic storm in a tea cup regarding a few photos taken out of context while true travesties of morality are commited in our name every day - this is a great way to distract us all form them. |
|
By: longweekend58
10/07/2008
8:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| well said esp about the black boxes which draw our eyes and imply porn where none is present. |
|
By: buzzanddidj
10/07/2008
8:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
'I would suggest that the media 'black boxes' over the images do far more to sexualise the image than the original.'
By: digdigs2
A bit of mystery ALWAYS adds to the 'titilation'
. |
|
By: longweekend58
10/07/2008
8:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<'I would suggest that the media 'black boxes' over the images do far more to sexualise the image than the original.'
By: digdigs2
A bit of mystery ALWAYS adds to the 'titilation'
>
the ironic thing is that if henson had added black bars to his work he would have turned it into something quasi-pornographic! |
|
By: wazzajack
10/07/2008
10:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wazzajack Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<This is a debate generated by a society that has over the past fifteen years ignored the arts and as a result the philistinism generated creates a moralistic storm in a tea cup regarding a few photos taken out of context while true travesties of morality are commited in our name every day - this is a great way to distract us all form them.>
What a load of horse s-h-i-t.
One other thing about the way some kids are exploited.
When this little precocious kid was trying to speak like an adult about how she was offended.
At one point she pauses to turn to her dad (in the clown suit) to help her continue her indoctrinated dialogue as to keep it in sync with her fathers view. |
|
By: dazedlady2003
10/07/2008
10:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dazedlady2003 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
One other thing about the way some kids are exploited.
When this little precocious kid was trying to speak like an adult about how she was offended.
At one point she pauses to turn to her dad (in the clown suit) to help her continue her indoctrinated dialogue as to keep it in sync with her fathers view.
_________________________ _________________________ __________
The whole interview sickened me, a little puppet manipulated by her parents and that wacko father, omg, I'm all for originality, but there was nothing original about him, and unfortunately, she is going to follow in his footsteps.
He probably was a puppet of his parents too. Ugh, ugh, ugh! Please parents, do your own thing, but allow your children to be children, not mini me's. Take your egos elsewhere. |
|
By: amazonia61
10/07/2008
10:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
amazonia61 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
ahhh.. so we've seen the father's little discussion on child sexuality, have we?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/inde x.php/heraldsun/comments/nelsons_naked_daughter_se x_and_sucking_the_pacifier/ |
|
By: amazonia61
10/07/2008
10:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
amazonia61 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| "one [photo] in particular had her [Olympia] posed in a classic soft-porn shot - lying on her arched back, hands behind her head, naked but for jewelry and makeup, chest bared, legs coyly crossed." |
|
By: amazonia61
10/07/2008
11:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
amazonia61 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"The sensuality of children is integral to parental fondness… Centuries of jealous puritanical mores-akin to the suppression of all aspects of childhood-have discouraged the artistic exploration of the sensual delight of children and the enjoyment of their own bodies. Undoubtedly a part of this taboo was the fear of the child’s latent sexuality and its potential for exciting inappropriate and sinful desire…
You could argue that children learn the language of sexual address and narcissism from adults; but no one really knows how deep or superficial their eroticism is…
Polixeni Papapetrou’s Play is a suite of photographs taken at the instigation of her two-year old daughter, Olympia. “Mummy, come and photo meâ€, she would exhort…
In the suite of nude photographs, Olympia is seen with a dummy or pacifier. It is a necessary token of her age; ... Yet the dummy, itself, is ambiguous;… it also evokes the perversity of pleasure-sucking, i.e. a sucking for non-nutritious purposes, apparently serving a hedonistic function unrelated to nourishment. Tellingly, then, the outward sign of innocence is potentially the most diabolically sexual.
The works challenge the taboos against the recognition of child sensuality; but they are not a form of erotica… In the process, however, they do acknowledge that the child has access rights to an erotic language… The confronting aspect of this suite is that the sensual language proceeds from the child alone."
- Robert Nelson |
|
By: amazonia61
10/07/2008
11:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
amazonia61 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| "It is imperative for the abuse warriors to suppress images of child sexuality and to equate all such images with the worst and actually horrific examples. If pictures of kids enjoying and having fun with sex were widely available, this would contradict their lie that children are non-sexual and could cause people to question their philosophy and motives." - anonymous paedophile (via Andrew Bolt) |
|
By: peaceleo69
10/07/2008
11:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
now-if thats the fathers take on the images of his daughter-it really does bother me now!!
Pseudo psycho babble, dressed up as art speak, to justify something, that is out side the morm! |
|
By: lefowlerau
10/07/2008
11:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I take it none of you have heard of Sigmund Freud, or read his "Three essays" then?
It's probably a good thing, I can imagine that all the psychoanalysts would be on their way to the gulags if you had. Read up on the Oedipus complex and get back to me.
You might want to look at Lacan and Krafft-Ebing as well.
And yet, any student of Psychology, Psychiatry, Philosophy or Sociology at University (indeed, even many political scientists) would have familiarised themselves with these works. They would be able to tell you that none of them condone Paedophilia, in fact, they identify it as a sickness.
I don't see nelson condoning it either.
And then Andrew Bolt points out that a paedophile thinks sex with children is OK. Well ... who would have thought, a paedophile, defending sex with children? Really quite sharp that Bolt guy. As, I take it, are his readers.
So what do you say, down to the library to ban (burn) all the psychology texts? After all, they are much for forthright on this issue, than Nelson is.
.... and, I mean, we wouldn't want to be accused of double standards, would we? |
|
By: leeethal2
11/07/2008
12:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
leeethal2 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I'm tired and off to bed, but thought I'd drop in my two cents .. hope you all don't mind..
I don't think there's any argument that children have some growing understanding of their sensuality, but their emotional and intellectual development is not there to understand the implications of displaying this to all. And for this reason we need to wait and protect them until they can make their own decisions about it. Just my take on it. Nite xx |
|
By: greatgranswisdom
11/07/2008
7:40 am Yahoo! Profile:
greatgranswisdom Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<<I don't think there's any argument that children have some growing understanding of their sensuality, but their emotional and intellectual development is not there to understand the implications of displaying this to all. And for this reason we need to wait and protect them until they can make their own decisions about it.>>>
Accurate comment....unless you're simply referring to visible skin.
Apart from the legislated exceptions of a few fringe religious groups, the West now have laws preventing the marriage, usually arranged by the parents, of adolescent girls (aged of 11 to 15)......still the norm in many countries and cultures.
The preferred age for new recruits to Saudi harems is 13 to 17.
The pendulum of cultural change in the West, in my opinion, has swung far too far, with the average marriage age in Australia now 29 for females.
In my day, it was 21, which I think is biologically and psychologically ideal. |
|
By: leeethal2
11/07/2008
8:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
leeethal2 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
exactly Gran, it's the same principle too that made me eat so purely when I was pregnant and breast feeding too. I no longer could do anything but the best for the body I was in, as I was also carrying another's that did not belong to me, so I had to do my absolute best for the child's sake.
(Not that I eat badly or anything anyway, but I really made a huge effort at this time)
Same principle here I believe, the child's body belongs to the child, and the child only, the parents do NOT have the right to expose their child to things he/she may not approve of once they grow into maturity, it's their body, their sexuality, they should be left to decide for themselves how they want to express it. It's a breach of the child's rights and trust. |
|
By: wazzajack
11/07/2008
9:28 am Yahoo! Profile:
wazzajack Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Children as they develop may be curious about their bodies.
But I cant recall hearing about any six year olds having sex in the school yard.
Curiosity about their physical differences may lead to them playing doctors and perhaps a little older than that.
Other than that unless encouraged by an adult and exposed to it children of six would be unaware of their sexual function and what could be seen as erotic or sexual suggestion.
As for the artistic argument and claims by those closely associated (such as the dad).
In many areas I cant help but see them as fakes.
Makes me recall the Ern Malley hoax.
For the uninitiated the Ern Malley hoax involved the total humiliation of an art aficionado and editor of an old university publication called the Angry Penguins.
His name was Max Harris.
Two university protagonists that didnt like his smart-alecky manner decided to set him up.
They did this by writing a series of poems in such a way they believed would appeal to him.
They made them look aged and had a female friend visit Max Harris with a phoney storyline about her fictitious brother Ern Malley that had been killed in the war and that at a later date she had found these poems in an old suitcase under his bed.
In a nice acting performance she said she didnt know if they had any value or merit but thought maybe he would be the man to judge.
Well next thing what do you know? Max Harris and along with his mates (Sidney Nolan included) got all excited and declared hed found the new Shakespeare.
So my friends dont be afraid to question the credibility of these so called art experts. |
|
By: leeethal2
11/07/2008
9:44 am Yahoo! Profile:
leeethal2 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Wasn't suggesting what you mentioned in your first sentence for a moment there Wazza, hence the word "developing" and "sensuality" rather than "sexuality". |
|
By: wazzajack
11/07/2008
9:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
wazzajack Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
leeethal2
My first sentence wasnt directed at your comment leeethal more to parts of other posters |
|
By: istarryskies
11/07/2008
9:58 am Yahoo! Profile:
istarryskies Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This just goes to show how low our society has slip or leaders have let the children down.
They pass so many laws in the Name of protecting the child yet when they come to this they sit back call it art what the unusual is that the only different between the so call art an a creep with kid nude photos is the picture frame around a little nude child.
Come on lets see it for what it is an jail some of these so called Artist along with the so called parents that allowed their child to be painted or photograph naked.
Who watching over the children if the parent isn’t an the government isn’t at this stage. |
|
By: zardraa
11/07/2008
10:39 am Yahoo! Profile:
zardraa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"I don't think there's any argument that children have some growing understanding of their sensuality, but their emotional and intellectual development is not there to nderstand the implications of displaying this to all. And for this reason we need to wait and protect them until they can make their own decisions about it."
************************* *******
I agree in part - Children are sexual being's and come into their sexuality at their own time. However, they do not understand lust and no one has the right to impose their lust onto a person that isn't capable of reciprocating or fully understanding the intent of the desire.
Parents are their to guide their children until they show enough understanding of consequences to make their own decisions. However, who can say at what age a person is old enough to make certain decision? Laws exist to protect the child from others, not to stifle the child from themselves.
Back to the "art"
It would have been a much more interesting protest if the artist had used a picture of herself naked as a child. |
|
